S. K. MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THESE three writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the petitioners. As some of the points involved in the writ petitions are common, they were heard together and it will be convenient to dispose them of by a common order.
(2.) S. B. Civil Writ petition No. 1385 of 1979 was filed by Ramesh Vyas under Art. 226 of the Constitution, The petitioner Ramesh Vyas appeared at -the Pre-medical Test, 1979 He secured 78. 60 and 21 marks in Chemistry, Biology and Physics respectively out of LOO. The petitioner has submitted paper of Physics marked as Annexure 2. His case is that out of the questions of the Physics paper, questions No. 1 (e), 2 (a), 2 (c), 3 (c), 4 (b) (c), 5 (a) (b) and 6 (b) (d) were all numerical ones and carried 4 marks each and that he solved these question absolutely correct and, therefore, was bound to secure atleast 40 marks for these questions alone and surely a few marks more he would have got for the remaining questions. He is not satisfied with 21 marks, which are said to have been obtained by him in the Physics paper. On the basis of Note 2, mentioned in the marks sheet (Anx,2), the petitioner has contended that the University of Rajas-than (respondent No. l) would not undertake scrutiny of marks as the system of automatic scrutiny has been introduced. The case of the petitioner is that he appeared at the test on the belief that scrutiny of marks would be permitted, which was prevailing hitherto before as is borne out from the marks-sheet (Anx. 3) of Shri Harigorlal, who appeared at the Pre-medical Test, 1978. In para 5 of the writ patitiotn, the petitioner has stated that in Anx. 4, which contains ins-tructions for the guidance of candidates intending to appear at the Pre-medical Test, 1979, nothing has been said in regard to the introduction of the so-called system of automatic scrutiny. As scrutiny of result has been discontinued after introducing system of automatic scrutiny and further as the petitioner has rea-son to believe that there was some mistake on account of which he was awarded 21 marks only in Physics paper, he has filed this writ petition, inter alia, for the following reliefs: "i. By an appropriate writ order or direction the respondents may be directed to produce before the Court the answer-book of the petitioner for the paper of Physics of the Pre-medical Test, 1979 and the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct that the same may be re-examined under / or re-evaluated as the Hon'ble Court may consider proper. II. In the alternative and without prejudice to the aforesaid, even if it be considered that the petitioner is not entitled to the aforesaid relief, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that stoppage of the system of re-scrutiny of marks is illegal and, further direct the respondent to get the marks of the paper of Physics scrutinised all over again on the petitioner paying the requisite fee in this behalf as per the direction of this Court. " S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1405 of 1979 was filed by the petitioner Hemraj Soni, and the facts stated therein are substantially the same except that he obtained 60,48 and 22 marks in Chemistry, Biology and physics respectively out of 100. He was declared 'failed' as he did not secure 50% marks in the total aggregate for admission in M. B. B. S. course. S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1531 of 1979 was filed by Praveen Garg. He secured 45, 80 and 39 marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology respectively cut of 100. In aggregate, he secured 164 marks out of 300 marks He has taken objections in regard to introduction of automatic scrutiny of marks in his writ petition. The additional point taken by him is that there were 22 students, who obained 164 marks in aggregate in the Pre-medical Test, 1979 and that some of the students secured 164 marks have already been admitted while the petitioner was not given admission. He has stated according to r. 4 (2) of the Rules of Admission to the Medical Colleges in Rajasthan for the Session 1979-80 in case of candidates securing equal number of marks in Pre-medical Test, it has been mentioned that preference will be given to the persons, who have secured more marks in Science subject to 1st year examination of the Three Years Degree Course and that out of 22 persons, who obtained 164 marks in the Pre-Medical Test, the petitioner is only the person who passed the 1st year Three years' Degree Course examination in the year 1979 when there was no internal assessment while all other candidates who passed their 1st year T. D. C. examination prior to 1979 there was internal assessment of about 90 marks. The case of the petitioner is that this has abversely affected the case of the petitioner, and, therefore this rule should be declared bad, for, it was not considered that prior to 1979 marks were given for internal assessment and that this was not so in 1979 assessment. He has, therefore, inter alia, prayed that a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus may be issued against the respondents directing them to admit the petitioner to the Medical College in the 1st year M. B. B. S as he is eligible for the same, having secured 164 marks these writ petitions were opposed by the Universtiy of Rajasthan. It was stated in the reply that all the answer-books were examined by the competent examiners appointed by the University of Rajasthan and the marks awarded by the examiners are final and they cannot be challenged. It was pleaded that the University of Rajasthan has introduced the scheme of automatic scrutiny. It was admitted that formerly the candidate desirous of scrutiny of marks could have applied in a prescribed form within a week from the date of issue of marks-sheet along with a fees of Rs. 10/- but for making convenient to the candidates, the formalities of making an application within a week and deposit of Rs. 10/-have been dispensed with by introducing the scheme of automatic scrutiny. The facility of scrutiny has now been extended to every candidate without any application and the fee. The method which was adopted in getting the answer-books evaluated was stated in the reply as follows: The Answer-books supplied to the candidates contained a flap on which the candidate was required to writ his or her roll number. After the examination of the particular paper was over, the Centre Superintendent was required to send the answer-books in the sealed packets to the University on the same day or latest by the following day by special messenger. These sealed packets of answer books were received by the Senior Officers of the University. A team of the senior officers allotted fictitious roll numbers to every answer book and the record of the same was carefully maintained. The team wrote and checked the fictitious roll numbers allotted to the answer books. They were again checked by an officer of the cadre of Deputy Registrar and the flaps were removed by the officers of the aforesaid team. Thereafter, the incharge of the team prepared the packets, each containing 30 answer books for assessment. These packets contained no particulars on the wrapper. These packets were handed over to the Head Examiner. The Head Examiner and all the other examiners assembled in a closed hall of the University, which was not approachable to any outsider. The Head Examiner then gave each packet containing 30 answer-books to the individual co-examiner at random. The examiner had to evaluate all the answer books as the very day. He returned all the answer books to the Head Examiner duly examined along with the award-sheet. This process was adopted every day till the work of assessment of the answer books was completed. After the receipt of the marked answer books a scrutinise the second process started and the Head Examiner gave a packet of 39 marked answer books to a scrutiniser The scrutinisers scrutinised the answer books given to them. This was being done to ensure that there had been no error in the totalling of marks secured by the individual candidate. Thereafter, the answer books and the award lists were handed over to the University office for further action. Subsequent to this, the Controller of the Examinations, as per allotment, distributed the awarded sheets to the Tabulators for tabulating the results. Two responsible persons were appointed to tabulate the result independently and to prepare a merit list of the candidates. After the process of evaluation of the answer books and tabulation was over both the copies and the tabulation registers were given to a set of two responsible persons of the University to check them again.
(3.) ON the basis of the aforesaid procedure and method of examining the answer-books, it was pleaded on behalf of the University of Rajasthan that there were no chance of error or manipulation at any stage. It was stated that the answer books of the petitioners were evaluated by the competent examiners and marking was done by them on the basis of the answers given to the questions and that there was no scope of any error in totalling as there was automatic scrutiny. It was also submitted in the reply that the petitioners have absolutely no right of re-evaluation of the answer-books. The only facility extended was of the scrutiny i. e. re-totalling of the marks awarded by the Examiner and this was done in the case of all the candidates, who appeared at the Pr> m-dical Test, 1979 inclusive of the petitioners. It was mentioned in the reply that the petitioners have no vested right of getting the answer books scrutinised. It was stated that there was no contravention of any statute, Rule, Ordinance or Regulation and as such the petitioners are not entitled to maintain the writ petitions. It was also stated that the scheme of automatic scrutiny was introduced after realising the defects, viz delay in finalising the list of eligible candidates to be admitted in the Medical Course inconvenience to the candidates sitting at distant places etc. and that the scheme ensures equality to all and rules out any hypothesis of error or manipulation. Reference hereinafter to the various documents will be as made in S. B. Civil Writ petition No. 1385 of 1979. A rejoinder was filed to the reply by the petitioners Ramesh Vyas and Hemraj Soni stating that scruting of marks in mass in qualitatively quite different from the scrutiny of individual answer books and that if the University wanted to change the system it should have notified the same. ;