# Ms. Nidhi Singh v. The Chairman, C.P.M.T.99, CPMT Examination & others

- **Citation:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad #39506
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999-07-11
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ms-nidhi-singh-v-the-chairman-c-p-m-t-99-cpmt-examination-others-39506
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

2ALL] Ms. Nidhi Singh V The Chairman, C.P.M.T.99, CPMT Examination & others 1
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 23 *$5* -
7+( +21·%/( 23 *$5* -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

0V 1LGKL 6LQJK
« 3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7KH
&KDLUPDQ
&307

&307
([DPLQDWLRQ &HQWUH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 5RRUNHH
5RRUNHH RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 6XUHQGUD 3UDWDS 6LQJK
6KUL :+ .KDQ

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL 'LQHVK .DNNDU
6KUL $VKXWRVK 6ULYDVWDYD

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH &RXUW¶V
-XULVGLFWLRQ DQG 3RZHU XQGHU ([HUFLVH RI
+HOG
7KLV FRXUW LV ORDWK WR LQWHUIHUH ZLWK WKH
GHFLVLRQ WDNHQ E\ WKH H[SHUWV LQ WKH ILHOG DQG
WKH &RXUWV VKRXOG JLYH GXH UHJDUG WR WKH
LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ
RI
HGXFDWLRQDO
DXWKRULWLHV
$FDGHPLF IUHHGRP GHPDQGV UHVSRQVLELOLW\ RQ
WKH SDUW RI WKH DFDGHPLFLDQV WR UDLVH KLJK
VWDQGDUGV
RI HGXFDWLRQ ,I WKH DFDGHPLF
FRPPXQLW\ GRHV QRW IXOILO WKH UHVSRQVLELOLW\
LW LQYLWHV LQWHUIHUHQFH E\ &RXUWV 7KH FRXUWV
KDYH EHHQ FDXWLRXV HQRXJK LQ XSKROGLQJ
DFDGHPLF IUHHGRP DQG WKH DXWRQRP\ RI WKH
HGXFDWLRQDO
LQVWLWXWLRQV
SDUWLFXODUO\
LPSDUWLQJ
SURIHVVLRQDO
FRXUVHV
DQG
WKHUHIRUH KDV VKRZQ JUHDW UHOXFWDQFH WR
LQWHUIHUH ZLWK WKH GHFLVLRQV RI WKH H[SHUWV LQ
WKH ILHOG DV ZRXOG EH HYLGHQW IURP WKH VHULHV
RI GHFLVLRQV RI WKH DSH[ FRXUW $ UHIHUHQFH
PD\ EH KDG WR UHFHQW GHFLVLRQ RI WKH DSH[
FRXUW LQ $GPLVVLRQ &RPPLWWHH &,, 9
$QDQG .XPDU 6&& ,W LV WKXV
VHWWOHG DQG ILUP SURSRVLWLRQ RI ODZ WKDW WKH
&RXUW
VKRXOG
EH
H[WUHPHO\
UHOXFWDQW
WR
VXEVWLWXWH LWV RZQ YLHZV DV WR ZKDW LV ZLVH
SUXGHQW DQG SURSHU LQ UHODWLRQ WR DFDGHPLF
PDWWHUV LQ SUHIHUHQFH WR WKRVH IRUPXODWHG E\
SURIHVVLRQDO
PHQ
SRVVHVVLQJ
WHFKQLFDO
H[SHUWLVH DQG ULFK H[SHULHQFH LQ WKH ILHOG ,Q
WKH FRQVSHFWXV RI WKH IDFWV QDUUDWHG DERYH
LW LV ZHOO HVWDEOLVKHG WKDW WKH SHWLWLRQHU KDV
UHVRUWHG WR XQIDLU PHDQV 7KH IDLQW DQG EDOG
DOOHJDWLRQ RI PDOD ILGH RQ WKH SDUW RI WKH
6HOHFWLRQ &RPPLWWHH UHPDLQV XQVXSSRUWHG
E\ DQ\ WDQJLEOH HYLGHQFH ,W LV PHUHO\ DQ
RUQDPHQWDO SOHD 7KH FDVH IDLOV ERWK RQ OHJDO
DQG IDFWXDO PDWUL[
3DUDV
+HOG SDUD
&DVH /DZ UHIHUUHG
 6&&
$,5 6&
$,5 6&
 /DE,&
$,5 6&
By the Court

1. Km. Nidhi Singh, a resident of
Allahabad appeared in Combined Pre Medical
Test, 1999 (for short 'CPMT') conducted by
University of Roorkee, Roorkee. An admit
card was issued to her bearing Roll No.
511694. She appeared on 11.7.1999 at St.
Fidelis College, Vikas Nagar, P.O. Vishnupuri
Colony, Church Road, Lucknow, which was
her centre for CPMT. She was unsuccessful as
per result declared by the respondent no. 1.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she had
obtained 489 marks while the candidates,
belonging to the general category and
obtaining minimum 462 marks, have been
called for counselling, which had commenced
from 5.9.1999 for admission to M.B.B.S. Ist
year course. According to the petitioner,
though she was entitled for counselling and
admission in the M.B.B.S. Ist year course, the
respondent no. 1-Chairman, CPMT- 99,
CPMT Examination Centre, University of
Roorkee, Roorkee, has issued a letter dated
14/16.8.1999 canceling her test for the alleged
adoption of unfair means. For the better
appreciation and understanding of the case,
the grounds specified in the aforesaid letter
are reproduced below:

"Whereas you appeared vide Roll no.
511654 from St. Fidels College, Vikas Nagar,
2 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
Lucknow (Centre of Examination) for the
CPMT 99 held on 11.7.1999.

Whereas during the process of evaluation
of your OMR Answer Sheet, it was detected
that you have deliberately adopted unfair
means with an intention to get undue
advantage under a well planned conspiracy.

Whereas you have initially entered the
correct number of Question Booklet No. in
both the papers (paper-I and II) issued to you
in fact, on your answer OMR sheets
respectively, but after it was initialled by the
invigilators in the examination room, you
have changed the booklet numbers on the
OMR answer sheets and thus the actual code
number printed on the question booklets
issued to you do not match with the number
you have written on the OMR sheet.

Whereas you were in fact issued the
Question Booklet No. A 711249199 R (as
acknowledged by you on the front page of the
aforesaid Question Booklet) you have written
another Booklet No. A 7112194599 R on your
answer sheet in the column provided for it,
which was never issued to you in Paper- I.
This has been done by you with mala fide
intention.

Similarly, whereas you were in fact issued
the Question Booklet No. A 711249199 R as
acknowledged by you on the front page of the
aforesaid Question Booklet, but you have
written another Booklet No. B 1173197299 R
on your OMR answer sheet in the column
provided for it, which was never issued to you
in Paper-II. This has been done by you with a
mala fide intention.

Whereas the Question Booklet No. A
711249199 and B 7113101299 R (as per your
acknowledgement on the front page of the
question Booklet actually issued to you) were
of English version, but the Question Booklet
Nos. A 7112194599 R and B 1173197299 R
written by you on the answer sheet are
Question Booklets of Hindi version which
were never issued to you.

Whereas
the
very
Booklet
Nos.
A
7112194599 R and B 1172197299 which have
been mentioned by you on the OMR Answer
Sheets have also been repeated by several
other candidates in contradiction to the actual
booklet no. issued to them, it is thus proved to
be an act of adopting unfair means in the
examination in a planned manner.

Whereas after detection of the above
abnormal conduct on your part, the matter
was thoroughly considered and investigated
by an investigation committee and the said
committee is fully convinced that you have
deliberately adopted such unfair means to get
undue advantage in the said examination."

3. By means of this writ petition, it is
prayed that the order dated 14/16.8.1999
through which the result of the petitioner of
CPMT 1999. Annexure 5 to the writ petition
has been cancelled, be quashed and the
respondents be commanded to declare the
result of the petitioner of the said test and to
admit her in M.B.B.S. Ist year course in some
Medical College, after necessary counselling.

4. When this petition came up for
admission before this court on 6.9.1999, an
interim order was passed directing the
respondents
to
call
the
petitioner
for
counselling, which was, however, subject to
ultimate outcome of the present petition. The
parties were also directed to exchange
affidavits. Counter and rejoinder affidavits
have been exchanged. Heard Sri S.P. Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S.N.
Verma, learned counsel for the respondent
University of Roorkee assisted by Sri Dinesh
Kakkar and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 3- Director
General, Medical Education and Training
U.P., Lucknow.

5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf
of the respondent no. 1 which has been sworn
by Dr. A.M.C. Srivastava, who himself
happened to be a member of CPMT-99
committee, it has been stated that the
candidates appearing in the CPMT-99 were
given option to write their answers either in
Hindi or English language. The question
2ALL] Ms. Nidhi Singh V The Chairman, C.P.M.T.99, CPMT Examination & others 3
papers were printed in English and Hindi
languages and issued to the candidates in
accordance with their choice in their allocated
centres of examination. The Optical Mark
Reader (for short 'OMR') answer sheet in
duplicate was also separately issued to the
candidates on which they were required to
mention the actual question Booklet code
number issued to them. Four sets each of the
question papers in Chemistry and Physics in
English and Hindi versions and four sets each
in the IInd paper, i.e. Zoology and Botany in
English and Hindi version were got printed,
chart whereof is Annexure C.A. 1 to the
counter affidavit. When the answer sheet
submitted by the candidates were scanned by
the OMR, to check the discrepancies, the
following
instructions
were fed to the
computer:

(i)
to check whether the question
Booklet
code
numbers
marked
by the
candidates on their answer sheet tallied with
the question Booklet code numbers issued to
that centre and,
(ii)
to check whether the question
Booklet
code
number
marked
by
the
candidates tallied with valid (actual) question
booklet code numbers.

6. According to the respondents, the
computer brought out all such cases where the
above discrepancies were found. These cases
of discrepancies included the cases of 32
candidates, including the petitioner and on
examining the matter thoroughly, it was found
that the petitioner and other 20 candidates in
the first paper and the petitioner as well as 25
other candidates in the second paper had
mentioned the question Booklet number
which was not actually issued to them. A copy
of the report of Unfair Means Committee has
also been brought on record in the form of
Annexure
C.A.
2.
According
to
the
respondents, after the question booklets were
handed over to the candidates at the time of
examination, one of such booklets (Hindi
version) in each session was managed to go
outside the examination hall. The question
paper, having been brought out of the
examination hall, was solved by those who
conduct coaching classes and smuggled back
the same to the examination centers where
petitioner and other such candidates copied
the same and mentioned booklet number for
which the answers were made available to
them irrespective of the actual booklet
numbers issued to them. It has been further
stated that the University only appoints Centre
Superintendent for particular centre and the
remaining
staff,
such
as,
Assistant
Superintendent, Invigilators, etc., is appointed
by the Centre Superintendent according to his
own choice. Since the centres are usually
educational
institutions,
normally
the
Principals
are
appointed
as
Centre
Superintendents. Another counter affidavit
has been filed by the State Government
(Medical Department) wherein more or less,
the averments made in the counter affidavit of
the
University
of
Roorkee
have
been
reiterated. The petitioner has also filed
rejoinder affidavits, denying the averments
made in the counter affidavits.

7. It is an admitted fact that there were two
types of question booklets one meant for the
examinees, who opted to give their answers in
English and the other for those, who opted
Hindi. Question booklet nos. A 7112491999
R and B 7113101299 R were issued to the
candidates
who
opted
English
and
A
7112194599 and B 1173197299 R were
issued to the candidates who opted Hindi, as
their medium of language to give answer. It is
also admitted fact that the petitioner had opted
for English language as medium for giving
answer to the question papers whereas she
mentioned A-712194599 R in her answer
sheet, which was not allotted to her and which
is a number allotted to the candidates who
opted for giving answer in Hindi language.

8. In view of aforesaid admitted factual
position, the core question for consideration,
on which turns the ultimate fate of the
4 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
petitioner depends, is: whether mere mention
of different question booklet number in the
answer sheet, instead of mentioning the actual
question booklet number allotted to her, will
amount to adoption of 'unfair means'. To
arrive at a proper conclusion, it has to be
considered as to what is the significance of
allotting different questions booklet numbers
to the candidates giving their answers in Hindi
and English as also the impact on marks
obtained by a candidate if he/she has
described
the
question
booklet
number
differently than the one actually allotted.

9. A perusal of Question booklet codes,
contained in Annexure C.A. 1 to the counter
affidavit of the Roorkee University shows that
different codes have been allotted for each of
the four sets of question paper booklets in
Hindi as well as English languages. In
paragraph 19 of the Counter Affidavit, Dr.
A.M.C. Srivastava, deponent, has averred that
the question booklets were packed in bundles
of 50 each. All these bundles had either four
sets of papers in English language or in Hindi
language. All the four sets (say A,B,C,D)
were inter-mixed in the sequence A,B,C,D,
A,B,C,D ...so on) and were issued to the
candidates just 15 minutes before the actual
time of start of examination at random. All the
100 questions in both papers were common in
all the Booklets, though the order and the
setting of the questions in all the four sets in
each question paper was quite different. For
example, in one set of booklets, the particular
questions were from serial numbers 1 to 25. In
the different set of booklets, the same
questions may be from serial numbers 26 to
50, 51 to 75 or 75 to 100, or in any other
sequence. The sole purpose for doing so
obviously was to ensure that no unfair means
are adopted. A candidate sitting in one room
may have a paper in which the question may
be at Sl.no. 1 whereas the candidates sitting
behind him could have the same question at
Sl.. No. 47. The candidate sitting in the next
row may have a booklet number in which that
very question is at Sl. No. 11. Since the
candidate has only to mark the answer by
darkening the printed circle by ink, in the
computerized column, it ensures that the
candidates sitting immediately behind or in
front or by his sides, cannot copy from each
other. The aforesaid procedure makes it
virtually impossible to copy the answers since
a candidate cannot possibly have an idea as to
what series of question paper has been handed
over to the other candidates.

10. The case of the respondents is that
although the top candidates selected for first
counselling have got about 77% marks, the
petitioner as well as all the candidates who
have engaged themselves in the adoption of
unfair means would secure 80% or more, if
evaluated on the basis of question booklet
code fraudulently mentioned in their answer
sheets different from the one actually allotted
to them.

11. The petitioner had opted for papers in
English language. She was given the papers in
the same language. The group of candidates
who opted English language were made to sit
at a place different from that meant for the
candidates who opted papers in Hindi
language.
It
passes
beyond
one's
comprehension as to in what circumstances
the petitioner came to know of the Booklet
Code Number to be used by candidates who
opted for papers in Hindi language and wrote
a different question booklet number, which
was never allotted to her. It is possible that a
candidate, on account of inadvertence, may
write wrong roll number or question booklet
number, by misquoting a particular figure but
to write a question booklet no. which is
allotted to another candidate, who has opted
to write his/her answers in Hindi, by the
petitioner raises serious doubt and suspicion.
During the course of arguments, it was urged
on behalf of the respondents that the
examination
centre,
namely,
St.
Fidelis
college, Vikas Nagar, Lucknow, wherefrom
the petitioner appeared in the CPMT, was in
the grip of use of unfair means. From this
2ALL] Ms. Nidhi Singh V The Chairman, C.P.M.T.99, CPMT Examination & others 5
centre, as many as 21 candidates in the first
group and 26 candidates in the second group,
have been found using unfair means. It was
maintained that what happened was that huge
amount from the candidates, wishing for
admission by unfair means in CPMT 99, was
taken by some persons, who formed a racket
in connivance with the invigilators at the
aforesaid Centre and other concerned staff.
They smuggled out a question sheet, prepared
the answer with the help of some well
qualified teachers who run their Coaching
classes, and managed to send the same in the
examination hall. This answer sheet was
copied by the petitioner and such other
candidates. However, in doing so, they
committed a glaring and fatal mistake.
Booklet number belonging to candidates, who
opted
papers
in
Hindi
language,
was
deliberately mentioned in the English group
of papers, instead of quoting the originally
allotted Booklet number. Had the petitioner
been the only candidate using a different
question booklet number, (which was allotted
to those who opted to write their answer in
Hindi language), her version could have been
believed, but there are as many as 25 other
candidates who have done the same thing,
which was a deliberate act and not a bona fide
mistake, all in pursuance of a design
calculated to confer undue advantage and with
an avowed object of securing maximum
marks to march over the other candidates in
the matter of selection.

12. In the alternative, even if the case of
the petitioner that she used the wrong
Question Booklet Number accidentally on the
answer sheet is accepted and her sheet is
examined with English Booklet Number
command, the result would still be worse for
one simple reason that she answered the
sequence of questions contained in the Hindi
answer sheet.

13. There is considerable force in the
submission made on behalf of the learned
counsel for the respondents. The over all facts
and circumstances of the present case reveal
very sordid tale of affairs happening in our
educational institutions. The petitioner, no
doubt, is a meritorious girl. She is throughout
first class candidate. But she was certainly
lured to resort to unfair means instead of
exhibiting her merit in the test. From the
material brought on record, this court is not
persuaded to accept the contention of the
petitioner that her result has been wrongly
withheld. For the reasons stated above, there
is sufficient material available with the
respondents to probe the matter and unearth
the truth. During the course of arguments, it
was pointed out that the matter has already
been entrusted to the C.B.I./Vigilance. If it is
correct, then it would not be proper for this
court to touch the merits of the case as the
same may deflect the course of investigation.
For the purpose of this case, suffice it to say
that the CPMT-99 committee constituted by
the University of Roorkee consists of eminent
academicians. They are experts in the field.
They have formed an opinion against the
petitioner that she has used unfair means in
the aforesaid examination. This opinion or
conclusion is well founded.

14. This court is loath to interfere with the
decision taken by the experts in the field and
the Courts should give due regard to the
interpretation
of
educational
authorities.
Academic freedom demands responsibility on
the part of the academicians to raise high
standards of education. If the academic
community does not fulfil the responsibility it
invites interference by Courts. The courts
have been cautious enough in upholding
academic freedom and the autonomy of the
educational
institutions,
particularly,
imparting professional courses and, therefore,
has shown great reluctance to interfere with
the decisions of the experts in the field, as
would be evident from the series of decisions
of the apex court. A reference may be had to a
recent
decision
of
the
apex
court
in
Admission Committee, C.I.I. 1995 V.
Anand Kumar (1998)8 SCC-333 wherein it
6 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
has been held that in the absence of mala fide
or any other material, High Court should have
preferred to accept the Selection Committee's
version
and
to
require
the
Selection
Committee to justify each and every selection
made by it, amounts to imposing an
impossible burden on it. In Jawahar Lal
Nehru
University
Students'
Union
V.
Jawaharlal Nehru University and another
(A.I.R. 1985 S.C.-567), the apex court held
that court should not interfere with academic
policy which has a rational basis and is not
arbitrary. In Krishna Priya Ganguly etc.etc.
V. University of Lucknow and others (A.I.R.
1984 S.C.-186), the apex court laid down
guideline to the effect that High Court, in its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, cannot devise its
own criterion and has no jurisdiction to
introduce its notions in academic matter. The
High Court was not competent to do so and
had no jurisdiction to import its own ideology.
Similarly, in Dr. M.C. Gupta V. Dr. A.K.
Gupta and others (1979 Lab.I.C.-296),
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when
selection of a candidate is made by a
Commission aided and advised by experts
having
technical
experience
and
high
academic qualifications in the specialized
field probing teaching/research experience in
technical subjects, the Courts should be slow
to interfere with the opinion expressed by
experts unless there are allegation of mala
fides against them. It would normally be
prudent and safe for the Courts to leave the
decision of academic matters to experts who
are more familiar with the problems the face
than the Courts generally can be. To the same
effect was the view of apex court way back in
1966 in Principal Patna College, Patna and
others V. Kalyan Srinivas Raman (A.I.R.
1966 SC-707), wherein it held that in dealing
with matters relating to orders passed by
authorities of educational institutions, the
High Court should normally be very slow to
intervene
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution because the matters falling
within the jurisdiction of the educational
authorities should normally be left to their
decision and the High Court should interfere
with them only when it thinks it must do so in
the interest of justice. It is thus settled and
firm proposition of law that the Court should
be extremely reluctant to substitute its own
views as to what is wise, prudent and proper
in relation to academic matters in preference
to those formulated by professional men
possessing
technical
expertise
and
rich
experience in the field.

15. In the conspectus of the facts narrated
above, it is well established that the petitioner
has resorted to unfair means. The faint and
bald allegation of mala fide on the part of the
Selection Committee remains unsupported by
any tangible evidence. It is merely an
ornamental plea. The case fails both on legal
and factual matrix.
16. Before parting it may be observed that
the Director General, Medical Education,
Ministry
of
Health,
U.P.
Government,
Lucknow - respondent no. 3 shall move the
State Government to ensure that a full fledged
enquiry into the matter is conducted by
C.B.I./Vigilance so that the truth may be
unearthed and appropriate action can be taken
against the recalcitrant Centre Superintendent
and other members of the staff as well as the
concerned Coaching Institute.

17. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed. The interim order dated 6.9.1999 is
discharged. Parties shall bear their own costs.
---------
$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21%/( *3 0$7+85 -
7+( +21%/( *3 0$7+85 -
7+( +21%/(
7+( +21%/( %+$*:$1 ',1 -
%+$*:$1 ',1 -
6SHFLDO $SSHDO 1R RI

'D\D 6KDQNHU 7LZDUL
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
&KLHI RI WKH $UP\ 6WDII $UP\ +HDG 4XDUWHU
1HZ 'HOKL DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV