Divya P. Wangoo vs The Director, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research

K. Kannan, J.—The inability to understand the concept of percentile is truly the cause for filing the petition. An aspirant for admission to M.D. Course, on the basis of performance in an entrance examination, has a grievance that the selection criterion of determining the order of merit on the basis of percentile position has not been properly reckoned. The formula given for assessing the percentile was given as (B+0.5*E)*100/N where B is number of scores below the candidate''s score (irrespective of candidate''s category), E is number of scores equal to candidate''s score (irrespective of candidate''s category), and N is the total number of candidates appearing for test (irrespective of candidate''s category). In this case, it is stated that 5191 candidates took the examinations. The petitioner had not been called for counseling since she was below the 50th percentile and did not qualify. The petitioner had also been an aspirant for admission to the previous year but she did not gain admission in view of the fact that she had been far below par and she had not been declared selected. The petitioner had come up with a writ petition challenging the non-selection for the previous year and this court had dismissed the petition. Again this year, she has come to this court with a contention that the manner of reckoning of the percentile score is erroneous and she ought to have been treated as selected.

I am clearly of the view that the petitioner is labouring under a complete misunderstanding of the concept, since the contention of the respondent was that she had a percentile of 10.345 and that her overall rank was 4654 and the category rank was 2811.1 was shocked that the petitioner must claim a complete reversal of what she thought she possessed that she was somewhere above the 98th percentile. Since the petitioner made an issue that the calculation was all wrong, I had directed the counsel for the respondent to elicit the highest mark in percentage of the first candidate and the mark which the petitioner had obtained. The information furnished was that the highest mark in percentage in the batch of students that took the test was 58.6219 and the petitioner had a percentage of 15.6609. On a simple arithmetic of working out a percentile, the highest mark would obviously be taken as the base on which the gradation of others would be made. Where several candidates appear and their marks in percentage are known, they shall first be ranked in that orders whether ascending or descending. There could also be some students who may tie at the same score and hence could have the same rank. It is in such a situation that the reliance of the number of candidates who took the examination, the rank of the various candidates and the number of persons who tie at the same score would obtain relevance and it is the formula given above that will be applied for determining the percentile.

There can be no effort on my part to explain a scientific concept. It should be the petitioner''s own duty the understand the same. But if she vexes herself or the court by a plea which is most untenable, she must be reminded that she is allowing herself the indignity of coming to the court with poor understanding that she is meritorious, when she is not. Percentile is a statistical measure of distribution for a given set of data. It is level below which a certain percentage of data falls. If a person that scores the highest mark, we say, he is in the 100th percentile, for, it is another way of saying of the rest of candidates, namely, all the rest of students, viz. the whole 100% of them fall below him. If the person is in the 50th percentile, he falls at the median, for, it is another way of saying there are 50% of candidates who have scored below him and 50% of candidates above him. Here, in this case, if the petitioner has scored in percentage 15.6609 when the highest mark was 58.6219, her own position in the percentile must be seen with reference to the highest mark who has scored 58.6219. Consequently, her own percentile cannot be 98 or 99, for, that would mean a candidate who has scored as low as 15.6609 still has as high a percentage of 98% or 99% of students who are below her marks. It is a preposterous contention. I asked the petitioner if she has any objection about the appraisal of her own answer papers and the marks in terms of the percentage or the ranking done to her. I also asked to her if she was interesting in seeing answer-sheet to see her answers were duly apprised. She had no such inclination to secure them but she kept harping on the alleged wrong method of deriving percentile. For a candidate who had scored as low as 15.6609 in percentage to believe that she would merit admission to M.D. Course and still believes that her percentile is above 98 must be wholly in a state of inexplicable delusion. The court cannot be engaged in explaining scientific concepts, for, it is not the realm of activity that a court should engage in. To me, the case is a product of a confused mind with suspicion about every scientific calculation made. If the time taken by her in court and with all the several reams of papers of calculations made, had been deployed in understanding the concept by proper reference to text books, she would not have filed this petition. Or, if the petitioner had prepared for her entrance exam better and had competed well to give better answers, she would have scored higher marks that would have brought her to reckoning for admission. Instead she is allowing herself to be consumed by a self-deceit that all is well with her and the Administration is making wrong calculation. She has been ranked at 4654 position against the total number of candidates of 5191 to believe that she would be granted admission at her ranking is pathetic. Her judicial excursion wasted for with less cause must stop. The only legal weapon that is possible to be used against for under-taking this vexatious litigation is to impose cost against her. The writ petitions is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.