Dilution Of Standards: P&H HC Directs AICTE To Re-Compute Result Of Validation Examination For Candidates Of Distance B. Tech. [Read Judgment]

Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa asked the Council to stick to the modalities that had been issued ahead of the examination, and to extend the benefit of additional marks qua the discrepant questions only to the candidates who had attempted the same.

In the backdrop, while holding the B.Tech Degrees obtained from four Deemed Universities through distance education mode to be bad in law, the Supreme Court had in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited v. Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors., taken a sympathetic view and as a one-time measure, directed the AICTE to conduct a validation test of the affected candidates.

It was directed that in the eventuality of the concerned candidate clearing the test, all the advantages of the B. Tech degree would to be available to him/her. However, on failure to qualify the same in two attempts, the degree will be de-recognized. Accordingly, AICTE was charged with the responsibility to develop criteria and modalities for conducting the validation test and declaration of result thereof.

In the present case, the challenge was against the amendments and alterations made to these modalities, after conduct of the examination.

The Petitioners alleged that the AICTE had changed and diluted the modalities and had taken certain decisions that were impermissible in law. AICTE directed:

1. it would be sufficient for a candidate to obtain 40% passing marks taking theory and practical together so as to qualify the examination, whereas the original requirement was for a candidate to obtain minimum of 40% passing marks separately in theory and practical;
2. marks will be awarded across the Board for questions that had been wrongly framed etc., irrespective of the fact whether such questions had been attempted by a candidate or not.

They had further contended that by making the aforementioned alterations post examination, the AICTE had failed in its duty to maintain minimum standards. "…the object of establishment of an All India Council for Technical Education to ensure planned quantitative growth and for regulation as also proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system," the Petitioners had submitted.

The AICTE had argued that the validation test had been conducted to assess the ability of candidates who had already obtained the B.tech Degree from a deemed university through the distance education mode and thus, it was to be viewed only as a "qualifying test"; whereas the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners lay much emphasis on merit. It had also submitted that all the alterations were made in consultation with expert committees, and thus the high court ought to not exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

Findings

Concurring with the submissions made by the Petitioner, the high court held that altering the selection criteria after the process of selection had commenced, amounted to changing the rules of the game after the game had been played. This was held to be impermissible, in the light of the Supreme Court ruling in K. Manjusree v. State of AP & Anr., (2008) 3 SCC 512.

Refuting AICTE's argument that the change of modality/yardstick was in terms of the liberty granted to it by the Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar & Ors. v. University Grants Commission & Anr., the high court said,

"in any event the liberty granted vide order dated 14.09.2018 by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar's case (supra) and the directions issued to AICTE to consider the representation made by the petitioners therein would not afford to AICTE a licence to take decisions contrary to settled principles of law. As has been noticed hereinabove AICTE, in the present case has proceeded to make alterations in the modality/yardstick for qualifying the examination after conduct of the same and which would be against the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Manjusree and Himani Malhotra's case (supra)."

In the Sanjay Kumar's case, certain unsuccessful candidates of the validation exam had approached the Supreme Court, raising grievances against the original modalities. While declining to interfere in the matter, the top court had directed the petitioners therein to make an appropriate representation to the AICTE and with a further direction to the Council to consider the same expeditiously.

With regards the issue of awarding marks to all candidates across the board, for questions that had wrong/multiple answers, the high court said that the issue was no longer res integra. It relied on Guru Nank Dev University v. Saumil Garg & Ors., (2005) 13 SCC 749, whereby the Apex court had held that the reasonable procedure to be followed in such circumstances is to give credit only to those who attempted the said questions or some of them.

Noticing that the impugned examination did not impose negative marking, the high court remarked,

"there was no occasion for any candidate to shy away from attempting a question inspite of having entertained a thought that the question itself is not property drafted or does not carry appropriate answer options. Under such circumstances a candidate who chose not to attempt the offending question(s) could not have been granted the benefit of additional marks in relation thereto. Such view is being taken as per dictum laid down in Saumil Garg's case (supra) wherein also the test comprised of multiple choice questions and there was no negative marking."

The high court also did not entertain AICTE's plea that the case was bad for non-joinder of relevant parties. Observing that the case concerned over 3,000 candidates, it said,

"if some of the effected persons are before the High Court as respondents in a representative capacity then it would be sufficient in case their numbers is unmanagable and it is time consuming to serve by joining each one of them as respondents individually."

Case Details:

Case Title: Jatinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No. 28211/2018 (O&M)

Quorum: Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa

Appearance: Advocate Aalok Jagga (for Petitioner); AAG Luvinder Sofat, Advocate Parminder Singh-1, Senior Advocate Chetan Mittal with Advocate Tribhawan Singla, Advocate Salil Sabhlok, Senior Advocate DS Patwalia with Advocate Kanan Malik, Senior Advocate Kanwaljeet Singh with Advocate Pushpinder Kaushal, Advocate Pankaj Jain, and Senior Advocate Rajesh Garg with Advocate Nimrata Shergill (for Respondents)

Click Here To Download Judgment

Read Judgment