Mahima S. vs Chairman and Others

N. Kumar, J—The petitioner had appeared for Comed-K examination and furnished all her original marks cards as well as provisional marks card. Petitioner scored 10961 in COMEDK-UGET-2015 as per candidate ranking card issued by the respondents. She had also applied for a seat in Government College by submitting an application to the Karnataka Examination Authority. She was called for verification of the documents at Government Polytechnic College, Bellary.

Petitioner had not been issued with original marks card by the Pre-University Board. She has been issued with provisional statement of marks signed by the Principal of Expert P.U. College, Mangalore, where she was studying on 29.5.2015. She produced the same on 10.6.2015. She has not been given a seat in the Government Medical Colleges in Karnataka. Karnataka Examination Authority has retained the said provisional marks card in original and has declined to return the provisional marks cards. However an attested copy of the said provisional marks card signed by the Principal of B.C.PU College, Challakere was submitted before the respondents. She however secured another provisional statement of marks signed by the Principal, Expert PU College, Mangalore on 16.7.2015 i.e. on the date of interview before the respondents. The said certificate was issued a few hours before the deadline for submission of the same before respondents.

The petitioner appeared for interview on 16.7.2015 before respondents for counseling. She produced the relevant records together with Xerox copy of the provisional statement of marks dated 29.5.2015 attested by the Principal of B.C.PU College, Challekere and undertook to produce the original marks card as and when issued by the PU Board. She also came to know that her father had secured the statement of marks obtained from Principal, Expert PU College, Mangalore and she submitted that she would produce the same by the end of the day. However, her father could not reach Bengaluru before the closing hours of the office of respondents. Therefore, her case was not considered and she was denied a seat on the ground that marks card produced by her is not duly attested by the competent authority.

After service of notice, the respondents have entered appearance and have filed a detailed statement of objections stating that the petitioner was a student of Expert PU College, Mangalore. If the original marks card had not been issued, she was expected to produce the provisional statement of marks signed by the Principal of Expert PU College. However, she produced statement of marks signed by the Principal, B.C.PU College, Challekere which was not valid. Therefore, they were justified in not considering her case for admission.

Therefore, the question for consideration is, when the examination conducting body does not issue the marks card within the time prescribed for admission to the course, what is the marks card on the basis of which, the authorities have to act?

In the instant case, she had produced the marks card given by the competent authority before the Karnataka Examinations Authority for the purpose of getting a seat under the Government Quota. When it came to COMED-K, she got the statement of marks attested by the Principal of B.C.PU College, Challakere. If only a day''s time had been granted, she also would have produced the statement of marks signed by the Principal, Expert PU College, Mangalore which her father had obtained on the same day. Now admittedly, persons who are less meritorious than the petitioner have been given admission. Petitioner has been denied admission on this ground.

The Apex Court, dealing with similar situation as far back as in 1980 in the case of Charles K. Skaria and Others Vs. Dr. C. Mathew and Others, AIR 1980 SC 1231 : (1980) 2 SCC 752 : (1980) 3 SCR 71 has held as under:

"There is nothing unreasonable nor arbitrary in adding 10 marks for holders of a diploma. But to earn this extra 10 marks, the diploma must be obtained at least on or before the last date for application, not later. Proof of having obtained a diploma is different from the factum of having got it. Has the candidate in fact, secured a diploma before the final date of application for admission to the degree course? That is the primary question. It is prudent to produce evidence of the diploma along with the application, but that is secondary. Relaxation of the date on the first is illegal, not so on the second. Academic excellence, through a diploma for which extra mark is granted, cannot be denuded because proof is produced only later, yet before the date of actual selection. The emphasis is on the diploma, the proof thereof sub-serves the factum of possession of the diploma and is not an independent factor.

Xxxxx

Again in para. 21, it has been held as under:

............The manner of proving the qualification is indicated and should ordinarily be adopted. But, if the candidate convincingly establishes the ground, through a method different from the specific one, he cannot be denied the benefit. The end cannot be undermined by the means. Actual excellence cannot be obliterated by the choice of an incontestable but unorthodox probative process. Equity shall overpower technicality where human justice is at stake."

In this background, it is interesting to point out, when the examination conducting body announces the result, they web-host the marks obtained by the candidates. Issuance of marks card takes sometime. Now what the rules expect in those circumstances is, Principal of the concerned College has to attest the marks obtained by the student which he collects from the website. The basis for certification is marks put in the website. The Principal has no personal knowledge. There is no provision for verification also. In this context, the PU Board which publishes on its website marks sheet of the students comes with a disclaimer which reads as under:

".....The results put on net are for immediate information to the examinees. These cannot be treated as original mark sheets. Original marks sheets have been issued by the Board separately."

Now the question is, when the Principal certifies a marks sheet based on the information available on the website of the PU Board, if there is any doubt in the Examination Conducting Body about the correctness of the same, it is open to it to look into the website. In this regard it is useful to refer to an aspect of E-Governance in terms of Information Technology Act 2000. Provisions of Information Technology Act mandates that Authorities like Respondents ought to give due weight and consideration to the material available in Information Point (IP) provided by computers, computer materials, computer network, internet and the like. Respondents 1 and 2 could not have ignored information regarding marks obtained by petitioner in qualifying examination which was available on the website. Besides, Annexure A produced by petitioner is a document issued by respondent rating her merit and assigning her rank 10691. Respondents did not require any further proof. In this case, Principal of the Colleges where she studied and another Principal of the college has certified the marks card. Who has certified it is of no consequence. As stated by the Apex Court in the aforesaid Judgment, the question which should be taken note of is, whether the student has secured the said marks and on that basis, is she entitled to a seat. When the provisional marks card is certified by the competent authority, even the original marks is only a proof of marks which she has secured in the examination. Therefore, the qualification and the criteria is, whether she has secured the marks and whether she has proved that she has secured the marks. It is well settled, after a competitive examination whether an aspirant has opportunity to prove her/his marks after the Results are announced, the only criteria for admission is the merit. If that merit is dis-regarded on any of the flimsy grounds, it runs counter to the entire scheme of admission of students to these professional courses. The authorities are to be careful in making admissions. Their action, should not, in any way affect the meritorious students from securing a seat.

In the instant case, Comed-K is a professional authority which should also exhibit its professionalism. It should not be a victim of red-tapism. If that is so, professional educational institutions would not be saved. Ultimately, the students have to suffer. We should also take note of the fact that Country suffers due to such anomalies in the system. Thus, the concerned authorities have to open their eyes and interpret these rules and regulations properly to see that a meritorious student is not deprived of a seat in the professional course on the ground that she failed to establish by producing a certificate prescribed by them though there are other modes of proving the student''s merit.

Now that in her place, students have already been admitted who are less meritorious. If we were to issue any direction to accommodate the petitioner, the students already admitted are to be dis-placed. They are not made parties to these proceedings. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, if the persons who are already allotted a seat, if they surrender their seat, there would be a second round of counseling and since the petitioner has merit, chances are that she may get a seat. Therefore, we hope, if any student surrenders his/her seat, the petitioner being a meritorious student than those persons who are already admitted, shall be accommodated. The authorities would not be putting forth any other excuses to deprive a meritorious student from getting a seat in the professional course. Hence, we pass the following:

ORDER

"(a) The Writ Petition is partly allowed.

(b) The rejection slip issued by the authorities denying a seat to the petitioner is hereby quashed.

(c) The authorities shall accommodate the petitioner who is more meritorious than the students who have already been allotted seats, in the event, they surrender a seat in the second round of counselling.

(d) No costs."