Bharucha, J. - (1.) The order under challenge was passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 23rd September, 1996. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant finding "no merit in the petition".
(2.) The appellant appeared for the Engineering, Agriculture and Medical Common Entrance Test (EAMCET) held on 22nd May, 1996, for admissions, inter alia, to medical colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the academic year 1996-1997. The examination commenced at 2.00 p.m. and terminated at 5.00 p.m. It is the appellant's case that she entered the examination hall at about 1.45 p.m. She was given an objective type answer paper at about 1.55 p.m. At about 2.20 p.m. an invigilator came to her to obtain her signature, presumably in token of having receivedthe answer paper. The invigilator then discovered that the appellant had been given a 'D' type answer paper whereas she ought to have been given a 'C' type answer paper. The invigilator took the 'D' type answer paper away, discussed what had happened with fellow invigilators and, after 10 minutes or so, gave the appellant a 'C' type answer paper to mark. The appellant had, thus, two and a half hours' time to answer 200 questions which, otherwise, she would have done in three hours. The appellant answered 170 out of 200 questions in the time that was available to her. It is an admitted position that she secured 160.75 marks, which is 94.555% of 170 marks, for the 170 questions answered.
(3.) The day after the examination the appellant addressed, through her advocate, a telegram to the convener of the examination. She recorded therein that she had been given another answer paper after 40 minutes but no extra time had been granted to her to answer the same fully in spite of her request. The telegram was followed by a letter, also written through her advocate, in which the incident afore-mentioned was set out in detail. Having received no redress, the appellant filed the writ petition and prayed that her answer paper should be re-assessed on the basis of 170 questions in two and a half hours' and for 170 marks instead of 200 marks and for consequential relief. No reply on oath was filed to the writ petition, but para-wise remarks were submitted. It was conceded in the para-wise remarks that the appellant had been given a wrong answer paper 'D' instead of answer paper 'C'. The para-wise remarks stated that "immediately the invigilator has noticed his mistake and changed with correct paper immediately in as per the reports of the concerned invigilators. The contention of the petitioner that she lost 10 minutes in exchange of the paper is false and far from truth and not correct. Actually, there was only a few seconds of the time taken by the invigilator for the exchange of the above answer book. . . . . . . . . . . . . . As only few seconds were taken in exchange of the book, no time lapses had occurred practically." To the para-wise remarks the appellant filed objections and reiterated her case. She submitted that the answer book which she had been first given and the answer book that she had been subsequently given should be produced before the High Court.;