Nipun Gaur vs University of Delhi

Hima Kohli, J.—This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to the respondent/University to produce the report of the Committee constituted by it to enquire into the matter of incorrect answer key of Delhi University Medical Entrance Test-2011 (in short the DUMET-2011'') and to grant him admission in the MBBS Course for the year 2011 or in the alternative, grant him admission in the MBBS Course for the year 2012. The grievance of the petitioner is that after he had passed 10+2 dass and had appeared in DUMET-2011 on 22.5.2011 for getting admission in the MBBS course, upon declaration of the result on 02.06.2011, he found that he had not cleared the entrance test and when he applied for re-checking of the answer sheet on 3.6.2011, he was informed by the respondent/University on 20.06.2011, on its website that no change was found on rechecking of his answer sheet.

It is averred in the writ petition that after a period of six months, in the month of December, 2011, when the petitioner was again preparing for the MBBS Entrance Exam for the academic year 2012, he found out that the answers to the four questions that were attempted by him in DUMET-2011 had been rightly given by him but the respondent/ University had given wrong answers in the answer key. However, it is not denied that the petitioner did not approach the University with the aforesaid grievance at any stage right from the date of declaration of the result of the aforesaid test on 02.06.2011, till the filing of the present petition on 23.02.2012.

When the present petition came up for hearing on 28.2.2012, having regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner about the wrong answer in the answer key and also in view of the fact that the Court was informed that a Committee had been constituted by the respondent/ University in February/ 2012 to enquire into the matter of incorrect answer key of DUMET-2011, counsel for the respondent/University, who had appeared on advance copy, was directed to obtain instructions from the department with regard to the decision taken by the competent authority upon receiving the recommendations from the Committee constituted by the respondent/University and place the same on record by filing a brief affidavit.

A counter affidavit has since been filed on behalf of the respondent/University, wherein it is stated that the petitioner had applied for inspection of the report of the Committee, vide an application dated 09.01.2012 moved under the RTI Act, 2005, and the respondent/University had given him inspection of the report on 13.02.2012. It has been denied that the petitioner was given irrelevant extracts of the report during the inspection as alleged by him. Instead, it is stated that only the names and signatures of the members of the Committee were eclipsed on the report made available to the petitioner for his perusal. An objection has also been taken with regard to the maintainability of the present petition on account of delay and latches on the ground that the dispute raised by the petitioner relates to the examinations that were held in the year 2011 and the results thereof have attained finality whereas the petitioner has chosen to approach the Court highly belatedly by filing the present petition only in the month of February, 2012.

On merits, it is averred in the counter affidavit that as per instructions for the examinees printed on the test booklet, any observation on the test including questions and options, if any, was required to be reported to the Controller of Examinations within 24 hours of the test being conducted and this information was duly printed on the first page of the test booklet. A copy of the same is enclosed with the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/University as Annexure R-3.

It is submitted that within 24 hours of conducting the examination, only 16 representations were received by the respondent/University from the candidates in respect of the test booklet and questions contained therein. The said representations were duly considered by the respondent/ University and a Committee was constituted by the respondent/University to enquire into the alleged incorrect answer keys to the DUMET-2011 and the certified answer keys were duly provided to the Committee. A perusal of the report of the Committee as enclosed with the counter affidavit as Annexure R-2, reveals that the Committee had concurred with the decision taken on the issue by the Controller of Examinations and had recommended deletion of three questions from the evaluation and grant of 4 marks for each of the four questions to each of the candidates, totaling to 12 marks. It is stated by learned counsel for the respondent/ University that unlike the 16 representations there were received from different candidates within 24 hours of conducting the examination, the petitioner had failed to make any representation within or even beyond the stipulated time.

Counsel for the petitioner refutes the aforesaid arguments by submitting that the timeline of 24 hours is not applicable to the petitioner for the reason that he was not questioning any observation on the test including the questions and the options, but is only questioning the fact that the answer key supplied by the respondent/University was incorrect.

This Court has considered the submissions made by the counsels for both the parties and has also examined the documents placed on record. It is apparent from the choronology of dates and events mentioned above that the present petition is highly belated as the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court in respect of the DUMET-2011 conducted by the respondent/University in May, 2011, by filing the present petition as late as in February, 2012. Even if the months of June and July, 2011 are excluded, as results were declared and the rechecking that the petitioner had applied for, took place in the said months, there is still an inexplicable delay of 8 months in filing the present petition. Even if the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the answer key was released by the respondent/University only in July, 2011 is accepted, the delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court is of seven months, which is inexplicable and inordinate when examining a case pertaining to academics where an academic year ordinarily comprises of twelve months.

The Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay of latches alone. However, having regard to the averments made by the respondent/University in its counter affidavit on merits, the Court is also satisfied by the fact that upon receiving representations from 16 candidates within 24 hours of conducting the examination, the respondent/University had taken remedial measures by appointing an enquiry Committee which looked into the allegations of incorrect answer key in DUMET-2011. A perusal of the report of the Committee reveals that certified answer keys were duly provided by the Controller of Examinations to the members of the Committee, who had examined the said answer keys and thereafter given a recommendation that 3 questions were required to be deleted from the evaluation and the candidates were entitled to grant of 4 marks for each of the four questions relating to the subjects of physics and zoology. The said recommendations were accepted by the competent authority and consequently, after deleting the aforesaid questions from the evaluation, 12 marks were granted to each of the candidates who had attempted DUMET-2011.

As for the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner''s case is not hit by delay and latches for the reason that he has not questioned any observation on the test but only questioned the correctness of the answer key supplied by the respondent/ University, the Court is not inclined to accept the said submission inasmuch as the instructions printed on the test booklet made it dear that "any observation" pertaining to the test was required to be reported to the Controller of Examination within 24 hours of the test being conducted and an incorrect answer key would also be included thereunder. Therefore, the petitioner could have very well brought his complaint to the notice of the respondent/University within 24 hours of the test or at least within a reasonable period therefrom. However, he did neither and as noticed above, has approached this Court also very belatedly.

In view of the aforesaid position, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the decision making process adopted by the respondent/University on the basis of the recommendations received from the Committee constituted to enquire into the matter as the same does not appear illegal, arbitrary or perverse. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed, along with the pending application, not only on account of delay and latches but also on merits. The date fixed in the matter, i.e., 16.7.2012 stands cancelled.