Swatanter Kumar, J. - (1.) HOW far reaching are the consequences of errors or mistakes, howsoever small, bonafide or intentional, in a competitive entrance test, can be seen crystal clear on record of this case. It is a known fact that in no academic course, much less professional courses, an eligible candidate gets admission without taking entrance test. Such entrance tests are highly competitive and even variation by .05 marks can alter the rank of a candidate by 100 or its multiples. Where holding of highly competitive entrance tests is fully justifiable in law, there it is of essence that such tests are held in a fair and flawless manner to avoid prejudice to the candidates. Comparative merit does not infer comparative fairness. It demands absolute perfection in the procedure for taking examination, checking of papers and declaration of results. Simple human or computer errors may vest the candidates with civil consequences of divesting their right of admission to a particular course, which they would have got on their own merit, but for such a mistake.
(2.) VIKAS Sharma and 23 other petitioners have filed civil writ petition No. 9819 of 2001 under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the result of Common Engineering Entrance Test -2001 (hereinafter referred to as CEET -2001), which was held on 16th of June, 2001. Similar prayer has been made by petitioner Mansvi in civil writ petition No. 10301 of 2001. As both the writ petitions are founded on common facts and relate to same questions of law, we consider it appropriate to dispose of both these writ petitions by this common judgment. The petitioners passed out their 10+2 examination from different schools in Haryana and Delhi. Being eligible for the admission and desirous of pursuing various degree courses in Engineering and Architecture, they submitted their applications. Guru Jambheshwar University, Hisar, had been authorised to make admission in Government, Government aided and private Engineering Institutions in the State of Haryana vide letter dated 14.2.2001 issued by State. As per the information brochure published for the CEET -2001, all the petitioners were eligible. The entrance test was to be held in 12 cities, where more than 100 centres were set up for holding of the said entrance test. Entrance test was held on 16.6.2001 and approximately 30,000 students appeared in this examination, and out of them admission was to be provided to only 700 students in different courses. The result of this entrance test was declared on 29.6.2001 and all the petitioners were ranked 1474 and above. According to the petitioners the answer sheets were wrongly printed; these contained wrong questions and/or answers. The question paper was not in conformity with the specimen provided in the brochure. The answer sheets have not been properly fed to the computer against proper keys. The delay on the part of the authorities in taking appropriate steps/decisions in time caused serious prejudice to the candidates and they were totally made nervous in the examination centres. In some centres, certain kind of information was circulated in connection with granting extra 10 minutes time and the manner in which the questions should be answered by the candidates on the answer sheets, while in other centres no such information was circulated. Even where it was circulated, extra 10 minutes or proper time was not granted to the candidates for complete their papers. Addition or subtraction of three marks would alter the complete merit and has prejudicially and unfairly affected the complete career of the petitioners.
(3.) UPON notice, the respondents filed reply. It was stated that there were some mistakes, but as additional marks had been granted and at some places the requisite marks were deleted, this was done after due consideration by the competent authority. The decision was squarely made applicable uniformly to the candidates and as such no candidate has got advantage over the other. It is further stated that as the petitioners have participated and taken the examination and have filed the present writ petition after the result was declared, resultantly , the petitioners are estopped from challenging the correctness of the same result.;