# 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1057 SANCHIT BANSAL &. ANR v. THE JOINT ADMISSION BOARD (JAB) & ORS

- **Citation:** [2011] 15 S.C.R. 1057
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2011-10-11
- **Case number:** CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8520 OF 2011
- **Bench:** R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/15-addl-s-c-r-1057-sanchit-bansal-anr-v-the-joint-admission-board-jab-ors-27586
- **Pages:** 35

## Headnote

A
B
Education/Educational Institutions - Admissions to
undergraduate Engineering courses - Joint Entrance
Examination (llT-JEE 2006) -Determination of cut-off marks c
- The first appellant appeared in IJT-JEE 2006, as a general
category candidate - He secured 75 marks in Mathematics,
104 marks in Physics and 52 marks in Chemistry,
aggregating to 231 - The Joint Admission Board (JAB) had
fixed the cut off marks for admission as 37 for Maths, 48 for 0
Physics and 55 for Chemistry and the aggregate cut off marks
as 154 - As first appellant did not secure the minimum of 55
marks in Chemistry he was not qualified, even though his
aggregate in the three subjects was very high - Feeling
aggrieved by his non-selection, which according to the
E
appellants was due to a defective, erroneous and malafide
process adopted for cut-off determination, the appellants filed
a writ petition - Writ petition dismissed by High Court -
Whether the procedure adopted by JAB to arrive at the cut
off marks for JEE 2006 was arbitrary and ma/a fide and
whether the High Court ought to have interfered in the matter
F
- Held: The JAB wanted to select candidates with consistent
performance in all three subjects - To achieve this result, the
traditional procedures would not have been of any assistance
- The object of the procedure followed by JAB for arriving at
the cut-off marks was to select candidates well equipped in
G
all the three subjects, with reference to their merit, weighed
against the average merit of all the candidates who appeared
in the examination - The fact that the procedure was
1057
H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A complicated did not make it arbitrary or unreasonable or
discriminatory -
The appellants did not make out, even
remotely, any malafide motive, in regard to the procedure for
arriving at the cut-off marks - The claim that to deny
admission to one student from among more than 2, 87, 000
B students (i.e. the first appellant), the process of fixing cut-off
marks was manipulated, is too far fetched and difficult to
accept, apart from the fact that there was no iota of material
to support such a claim - Where minimum performance in
all the subjects is also relevant, a person who fails to get the
C minimum cut off marks in one subject, cannot contend that
he had secured very high marks in other two subjects and
therefore injustice has been done - By adopting mean and
standard deviation methods, the JAB arrived at different
minimum marks for different subjects, depending upon the
0 overall performance of all candidates in a given subject, and
enabled selection of those who did comparatively and
uniformly well in all subjects -
The procedure though
complicated, sought to achieve a more balanced selection
when compared to the traditional methods - It was neither
arbitrary nor capricious - The procedure adopted in JEE 2006
E may not be the best of procedures, nor as sound and effective
as the present procedures - But no ground for Courts to ·
interfere with the procedure, even if it was not accurate or
efficient, in the absence of malafides or arbitrariness or
violation of law - No ground to grant any relief to the first
F appellant.
Education I Educational Institutions - Specialized
courses - Admissions - Scope for interference by Courts -
Held: The process of evaluation, the process of ranking and
selection of candidates for admission with reference to their
G performance, the process of achieving the objective of
selecting candidates who will be better equipped to suit the
specialized courses, are all technical matters in academic field
and courts will not interfere in such processes - Courts will
interfere only if they find all or any of the following : (i) violation
H
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION
1059
BOARD (JAB) & ORS.
of any enactment, statutory Rules and Regulations; (ii) ma/a
A
tides or ulterior motives to assist or enable private gain to
someone or cause prejudice to anyone; or where the
procedure

## Text

_Characters 0–39,891 of 64,324. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39891 for what follows._

(2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1057
SANCHIT BANSAL &. ANR.
v.
THE JOINT ADMISSION BOARD (JAB) & ORS.
(CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8520 OF 2011)
OCTOBER 11, 2011
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK , JJ.]
A
B
Education/Educational Institutions - Admissions to
undergraduate Engineering courses - Joint Entrance
Examination (llT-JEE 2006) -Determination of cut-off marks c
- The first appellant appeared in IJT-JEE 2006, as a general
category candidate - He secured 75 marks in Mathematics,
104 marks in Physics and 52 marks in Chemistry,
aggregating to 231 - The Joint Admission Board (JAB) had
fixed the cut off marks for admission as 37 for Maths, 48 for 0
Physics and 55 for Chemistry and the aggregate cut off marks
as 154 - As first appellant did not secure the minimum of 55
marks in Chemistry he was not qualified, even though his
aggregate in the three subjects was very high - Feeling
aggrieved by his non-selection, which according to the
E
appellants was due to a defective, erroneous and malafide
process adopted for cut-off determination, the appellants filed
a writ petition - Writ petition dismissed by High Court -
Whether the procedure adopted by JAB to arrive at the cut
off marks for JEE 2006 was arbitrary and ma/a fide and
whether the High Court ought to have interfered in the matter
F
- Held: The JAB wanted to select candidates with consistent
performance in all three subjects - To achieve this result, the
traditional procedures would not have been of any assistance
- The object of the procedure followed by JAB for arriving at
the cut-off marks was to select candidates well equipped in
G
all the three subjects, with reference to their merit, weighed
against the average merit of all the candidates who appeared
in the examination - The fact that the procedure was
1057
H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A complicated did not make it arbitrary or unreasonable or
discriminatory -
The appellants did not make out, even
remotely, any malafide motive, in regard to the procedure for
arriving at the cut-off marks - The claim that to deny
admission to one student from among more than 2, 87, 000
B students (i.e. the first appellant), the process of fixing cut-off
marks was manipulated, is too far fetched and difficult to
accept, apart from the fact that there was no iota of material
to support such a claim - Where minimum performance in
all the subjects is also relevant, a person who fails to get the
C minimum cut off marks in one subject, cannot contend that
he had secured very high marks in other two subjects and
therefore injustice has been done - By adopting mean and
standard deviation methods, the JAB arrived at different
minimum marks for different subjects, depending upon the
0 overall performance of all candidates in a given subject, and
enabled selection of those who did comparatively and
uniformly well in all subjects -
The procedure though
complicated, sought to achieve a more balanced selection
when compared to the traditional methods - It was neither
arbitrary nor capricious - The procedure adopted in JEE 2006
E may not be the best of procedures, nor as sound and effective
as the present procedures - But no ground for Courts to ·
interfere with the procedure, even if it was not accurate or
efficient, in the absence of malafides or arbitrariness or
violation of law - No ground to grant any relief to the first
F appellant.
Education I Educational Institutions - Specialized
courses - Admissions - Scope for interference by Courts -
Held: The process of evaluation, the process of ranking and
selection of candidates for admission with reference to their
G performance, the process of achieving the objective of
selecting candidates who will be better equipped to suit the
specialized courses, are all technical matters in academic field
and courts will not interfere in such processes - Courts will
interfere only if they find all or any of the following : (i) violation
H
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION
1059
BOARD (JAB) & ORS.
of any enactment, statutory Rules and Regulations; (ii) ma/a
A
tides or ulterior motives to assist or enable private gain to
someone or cause prejudice to anyone; or where the
procedure adopted is arbitrary and capricious.
Administrative Law - Administrative action - When
arbitrary and capricious - Held: An action is said to be
B
arbitrary and capricious, where a person, in particular, a person
in authority does any action based on individual discretion by
ignoring prescribed rules, procedure or law and the action or
decision is founded on prejudice or preference rather than
reason or fact - To be termed as arbitrary and capricious, the C
action must be illogical and whimsical, something without any
reasonable explanation - When an action or procedure
seeks to achieve a specific objective in furtherance of
education in a bona fide manner, by adopting a process which
is uniform and non-discriminatory, it cannot be described as
D
arbitrary or capricious or ma/a fide - Education! Educational
Institutions.
The first appellant is the son of second appellant who
is a Professor in the Indian Institute of Technology (llT),
Kharagpur. Admission to undergraduate courses in
E
fifteen llTs as also IT-BHU and ISM, Dhanbad is through
the Common Entrance Examination known as the Joint
Entrance Examination (llT .JEE). llT .JEE is supervised by
the Joint Admission Board (JAB), the first respondent.
The first appellant appeared in the llT .JEE 2006, as
F
a general category candidate. He secured 75 marks in
Mathematics, 104 marks in Physics and 52 marks in
Chemistry, aggregating to 231. The Board had fixed the
cut off marks for admission as 37 for Maths, 48 for
Physics and 55 for Chemistry and the aggregate cut off G
marks as 154. As first appellant did not secure the
minimum of 55 marks in Chemistry he was not qualified,
even though his aggregate in the three subjects was very
high.
H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
Feeling aggrieved by his non-selection, which
according to appellants was due to a defective,
erroneous and malafide process adopted for cut-off
determination, the appellants filed a writ petition claiming
the following reliefs, apart from several consequential
B reliefs: (a)To quash the selection and merit list of
admissions to llT/ITBHU/ISM on the basis of JEE 2006 as
it was prepared on the basis of imposition of illogical and
cut off marks in three subjects without any rational basis;
{b)to prepare and publish fresh chemistry marks for
C admissions to llTs in regard to JEE 2006 after making
appropriate corrections in evaluation by adjusting the
wrong evaluation and on that basis prepare and publish
fresh merit list for admission to llTs/ITBHU/ISM in regard
to JEE 2006.
D
A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the said
writ petition. Aggrieved, the appellants filed appeal before
the division bench. The division bench declined to grant
any relief to the first appellant.
In the instant appeal, the appellants contended that
E the minutes of the meeting of JAB 2006 which laid down
the procedure for holding the JEE 2006, furnished by the
respondents, did not contain the cut off procedure for
JEE 2006; that the cut off procedure fixed before the
examination was repeatedly changed after the
F examination and the two different versions given by the
Board at different points of time demonstrated that none
of the procedures showed 55% as the chemistry cut off
marks; that the procedure adopted was full of errors and
defects; and that if the iterative procedure explained by
G the Board was implemented correctly, the effect would be
to increasing the Maths cut off marks from 37 to 42 and
decreasing Physics cut off marks from 48 to 44 and
Chemistry cut off marks from 55 to 51 and further that the
Chemistry cut off marks were probably manipulated to
H exclude appellant No.1 from the JEE merit list as the
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION
1061
BOARD (JAB) & ORS.
Chairman, Joint Admission Board 2006 (then Director, llT,
A
Karagpur) and the organizing Chairman, JEE 2006 had
a personal grudge against the second appellant.
The question which therefore arose for consideration
was whether the procedure adopted by the Board to
arrive at the cut off marks for JEE 2006 was arbitrary and
B
ma/a fide and whether the High Court ought to have
interfered in the matter.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. It is no doubt true that the simplest and C
most straight forward method of selecting the candidates
to be called for counseling would be to take the
candidates in the order of merit (with reference to actual
marks) subject to their possessing a pre-declared
minimum marks in each subject. For example the Board o
can decide beforehand that the aggregate cut off marks
for eligibility would be 150; that is 50 in each of the three
subjects and prepare a merit list of the candidates who
fulfil the said criteria and then call the first 5500 students
in the merit list, in the order of merit for counseling. This
E
would be the traditional method. [Para 14) [1074-H; 1075A-B]
2. But the Board wants to select candidates with
consistent performance in all three subjects. To achieve
this result and shortlist about 5500 candidates from out
F
of 287564 candidates, the traditional procedures will not
be of assistance. Therefore, a rather complicated but
scientific procedure has been followed. For a layman, the
above procedure may appear to be highly cumbersome
and complicated. But the object of the aforesaid G
procedure for arriving at the cut-off marks is to select
candidates well equipped in all the three subjects, with
reference to their merit, weighed against the average merit
of all the candidates who appeared in the examination.
The fact that the procedure was complicated would not H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A make it arbitrary or unreasonable or discriminatory.
[Paras 15,16] [1075-C-D; 1083-G-H; 1084-A]
3. The process of evaluation, the process of ranking
and selection of candidates for admission with reference
to their performance, the process of achieving the
B objective of selecting candidates who will be better
equipped to suit the specialized courses, are all techl'lical
matters in academic field and courts will not interfere in
such processes. Courts will interfere only if they find all
or any of the following : (i) violation of any enactment,
C statutory Rules and Regulations; (ii) mala fides or ulterior
motives to assist or enable private gain to someone or
cause prejudice to anyone; or where the procedure
adopted is arbitrary and capricious. An action is said to
be arbitrary and capricious, where a person, in particular,
D' a person in authority does any action based on individual
discretion by ignoring prescribed rules, procedure or law
and the action or decision is founded on prejudice or
preference rather than reason or fact. To be termed as
arbitrary and capricious, the action must be illogical and
E whimsical, something without any reasonable
explanation. When an action or procedure seeks to
achieve a specific objective in furtherance of education
in a bona fide manner, by adopting a process which is
uniform and non-discriminatory, it cannot be described
F as arbitrary or capricious or mala fide. [Para 19] [1085-FH; 1086-A-C]
'
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth 1984
(4) SCC 27; All India Council for Technical Education v.
G Surinder Kumar Dhawan 2009 (11) SCC 726: 2009 (3) SCR
859 and Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain
2007 (4) SCC 737: 2007 (5) SCR 7 - relied on.
4. In the instant case, the appellants have not made
out, even remotely, any malafide motive, in regard to the
H procedure for arriving at the cut-off marks. The claim that
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION
1063
BOARD (JAB) & ORS.
to deny admission to one student from among more than
A
2,87,000 students, they manipulated the process of fixing
cut-off marks is too far fetched and difficult to accept,
apart from the fact that there is no iota of material to
support such a claim. It is too much to assume that
where nearly three lakhs candidates appeared, a B
particular procedure was adopted to ensure that a
particular candidate failed. [Para 20] [1086-D-F]
5. The minimum aggregate cut off was 154. The
minimum cut off for individual subjects was 37, 48 and
55 for Maths, Physics and Chemistry. If a candidate had
C
secured the minimum in three subjects and had also
secured the minimum of the aggregate which was only
154, he becomes eligible; whereas a candidate who got
231 in the aggregate but does not get the minimum cut
off marks in one of the subjects (as for example the first D
appellant who got only 52 which is less than the cut off
of 55), naturally cannot be qualified. Even in standard
traditional examinations, if total maximum marks was 600
(in six subjects) and minimum marks in each of the six
subjects was 35 out of 100, a candidate who may secure
E
482 marks (that 90% in five subjects, but secures only 32
marks in one subject, will be considered as failed,
whereas a person who secures only 210 marks (that is
F
35 marks in all the six subjects) will be considered as
passed. Where minimum performance in all the subjects
is also relevant, a person who fails to get the minimum
cut off marks in one subject, cannot contend that he had
secured very high marks in other two subjects and
therefore injustice has been done. All procedures when
standardized, result in some kind of injustice to some or
the others. That cannot be helped. [Para 21] [1087-8-F]
G
6. Where a huge number of candidates (more than
287,000) have participated in an examination, for filling
about 5500 seats, and it becomes necessary to select
candidates possessing comparatively better proficiency
H
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A in all three subjects, the traditional methods of shortlisting may not be of assistance. The traditional methods
would result in the candidates who have done extremely
well in one subject or two subjects but have little or no
proficiency in the third subject to steal a march over
B candidates who have done uniformly well in all the three
subjects. For example, in the traditional method where
40% are the minimum marks required to be scored in
each subject, a candidate who just gets 40% in Maths and
40% in Physics and 91% in Chemistry, would be eligible
C and as his total marks are 171, will get admitted in
preference to a candidate who did uniformly well and
secured 52 marks in Maths, 53 marks in Physics and 65
marks in Chemistry whose total is 170 marks. The result
is that a candidate who is comparatively poor in Maths
and Physics, secures a seat by virtue of his good
D performance in Chemistry, in preference to a candidate
who has done uniformly well in all subjects. The
traditional procedure may not therefore help in securing
candidates who do well in all subjects. If one has to
choose the candidates with good performances in all
E subjects, with the average of the performance of all the
candidates who participated in a given examination as
the benchmark, it is necessary to apply the more
complicated mean and standard deviation methods. By
adopting mean and standard deviation methods, the
F Board does not start with a set of uniform minimum
passing marks but arrives at different minimum marks for
different subjects, depending upon the overall
performance of all candidates in a given subject, and
enables selection of those who have done comparatively
G and uniformly well in all subjects. That is how, for
example, JEE-2006, the cut-off marks were arrived at 37,
48 and 55 for Maths, Physics and Chemistry. This method
ensured that those who have done reasonably well in
Maths, when compared with the overall majority, got
H selected in spite of the fact that if the minimum marks had
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION
1065
BOARD (JAB) & ORS.
been prescribed as 40%, they would have failed. It A
enabled candidates who got good marks in Physics and
Chemistry (Say 80%) but got only 38% or 39% in Maths,
to get selected, in preference to a candidate who secured
a mere 40% in all three sul;>jects. In the traditional method,
the candidate with 39%, 80% and 90% would have been
B
unsuccessful and person with 40%, 40% and 40% would
have been successful. The cut-off marks in Maths being
fixed at 37% (instead of the traditional minimum of 40%)
enabled the students who have done better in other
streams to have a reasonable chance of getting admitted. c
The procedure though complicated, sought to achieve a
more balanced selection when compared to the
traditional methods. It was neither arbitrary nor
capricious. [Para 22] [1087-F-H; 1088-A-H; 1085-A-B]
7. As regards the next contention of the appellants
D
that different versions of the procedure adopted for
arriving at the cut-off marks was given at different stages,
and this made the entire exercise doubtful, it is found that
what were given were not different versions, but better
or more detailed disclosure of the same process or E
procedure. Apparently the Board was not initially willing
to disclose the entire process. The RTI Act had just come
into force and the apparent tendency initially was to give
thEt minimum information. Subsequently when pressed,
the Board has come out with complete disclosure of the
F
process adopted. [Para 23] [1089-C-E]
8. All aspects connected with the selection process
are technical falling within the purview of the professional
experts in charge and the role of the courts is very
limited. The procedure adopted in JEE 2006 may not be
G
the best of procedures, nor as sound and effective as the
present procedures. In fact the action taken by the
appellants in challenging the procedure for JEE 2006,
their attempts to bring in transparency in the procedure
by various RTI applications, and the debate generated by
H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A the several views of experts during the course of the writ
proceedings, have helped in making the merit ranking
process more transparent and accurate. llTs and the
candidates who now participate in the examinations
must, to a certain extent, thank the appellants for their
B effort in bringing such transparency and accuracy in the
ranking procedure. But there is no ground for that Courts
to interfere with the procedure, even if it was not
accurate or efficient, in the absence of malafides or
arbitrariness or violation of law. It is true that if in JEE
c 2006, a different or better process had been adopted, or
the process now in vogue had been adopted, the results
would have been different and the first appellant might
have obtained a seat. But on that ground it is net possible
to impute malafides or arbitrariness, or grant any relief to
D the first appellant. Therefore, the appellant will have to be
satisfied in being one of the many unsung heroes who
helped in improving the system. [Paras 25, 26] [1091-AF]
E
Case Law Reference:
1984 (4) sec 27
relied on
2009 (3) SCR 859
relied on
2007 (5) SCR 7
relied on
Para 18
Para 18
Para 18
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
F 8520 of 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 6.1.2010 of the Division
Bench of High Court of West Bengal at Calcutta in F.M.A. No.
1424 of 2008.
Prashant Bhushan and Pranav. Sachdeva for the
G Appellants.
H
Gopal Subramanium, SG, Anand Verma and Shekhar
Kumar for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Heard. Leave granted.
..
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION
1067
BOARD (JAB) & ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
2. The first appellant is the son of second appellant who
A
is a Professor in the Indian Institute of Technology (llT for short),
Kharagpur. Admission to undergraduate courses in fifteen llTs
as also IT--BHU and ISM, Dhanbad is through the Common
Entrance Examination known as the Joint Entrance Examination
(for short llT-JEE). The said examination is considered to be
B
the toughest entrance examination in India, with more than 50
candidates vying for each seat in the said examination. llT-JEE
is conducted every year by a different llT on a rotation basis
and is supervised by the Joint Admission Board (JAB or the
'Board'), the first respondent herein. The first appellant C
appeared in the llT-JEE 2006, as a general category candidate.
He secured 75 marks in Methamatics, 104 marks in Physics
and 52 marks in Chemistry, aggregating to 231. The Board had
fixed the cut off marks for admission as 37 for Maths, 48 for
Physics and 55 for Chemistry and the aggregate cut off marks
D
as 154. As first appellant did not secure the minimum of 55
marks in chemistry he was not qualified, even though his
aggregate in the three subjects was very high.
3. The second appellant wrote a letter dated 5.9.2006 to
all the llT Chairmen/Directors alleging anomalies and inherent
E
contradictions in the selection process. He alleged that the cut
off marks were fixed arbitrarily and with malafides in a manner
that a student such as the first appellant with 231 marks was
found to be not qualified whereas a student who got aggregate
marks of 154 was found to have qualified. The appellants also
F
filed several applications under the Right to Information Act
2005 and collected considerable data. The appellants claim that
when they sought information about the procedure for
computation of cut off marks for JEE 2006 the organising
Chairman, JEE 2006 gave two different versions at different G
points of time.
4. The first response given by the Organizing Chairman,
JEE 2006 on 14.5.2007 read as follows :
H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
"Procedure for computation· of cut-off marks etc. for JEE
2006
1. "Consistent with announced criteria of "Ranking" and
"Tie-breaking" given in Section 11.1 and 11.2 of the
Information Brochure of JEE 2006 the different cut-off:;
B
were decided.
2. On the basis of overall performance of candidates who
appeared in all the three subjects (Mathematics, Physics
& Chemistry), mean marks of each of the three subjects
along with standard deviation was determined. The cut-off
c
in each subject was decided as mean marks minus one
standard deviation. Further depending on the number of
candidates required to be qualified on All India basis, the
aggregate marks cut-off was obtained. The cut-off marks
of individual subject and aggregate are given below for GE
D
category candidates:-
Mathematics
37
Physics
48
Chemistry
55
Aggregate
154"
E The second response given by the organizing Chairman, JEE
2006 on 12.7.2007 was as under:·
F
G
H
"Procedure for cut-off determination in JEE-2006:
(i)
For each subject, mean and standard deviation of
the marks obtained are computed. For this
computation only scores of those candidates who
have secured minimum 1 (one) mark in each of the
three subjects have been considered.
(ii)
The cut-off marks of an individual subject is
calculated as Cut-off mark of a subject = Mean of
the marks for the subject
- Standard deviation of the marks for the subject
The result has been rounded to the nearest integer.
(iii)
The mean and standard deviation of the aggregate
marks are calculated for those candidates who
score at least one mark in each subject
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION
1069
BOARD (JAB) & ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
(iv)
The aggregate cut-off mark is calculated as
A
Aggregate cut-off =
(Mean of aggregate marks
-
Standard deviation of
aggregate marks)
rounded to nearest integer
+ a positive number
B
The number selected for counseling (i.e. qualified in JEE2006 for counseling) is 1.3 X the number of seats available
in all participating Institutions. Each time 1 (one) mark is
added to the mean-standard deviation of the aggregate
marks and the number obtained is compared with the
C
desired number. This process is continued until one
arrives at the desired number to be called for counseling."
5. Feeling aggrieved by his non-selection, which according
to appellants was due to a defective, erroneous and malafide
process adopted for cut-off determination, the appellants filed
D
a writ petition (WP 11434 (W) of 2007) claiming the following
reliefs, apart from several consequential reliefs :
(a) To quash the selection and merit list of admissions to
llT/ITBHU/ISM on the basis of JEE 2006 as it was prepared
E
on the basis of imposition of illogical and cut off marks in
three subjects without any rational basis;
(b) to prepare and publish fresh chemistry marks for
admissions to llTs in regard to JEE 2006 after making
appropriate corrections in evaluation by adjusting the
F
wrong evaluation and on that basis prepare and publish
fresh merit list for admission to llTs/ITBHU/ISM in regard
to JEE 2006.
6. A learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition
holding as follows :
G
(a) The appellants could not challenge the procedure for
determination of cut off in JEE 2006 as they had given a
signed declaration that the decision of JAB regarding the
admission to be final and they would abide by the said
H
1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
decision.
B
(b) The respondents had justified as to the manner of
arriving at the cut off marks for Chemistry in JEE 2006 and
it was within the domain of the Joint Admission Board to
decide upon the procedure for determining such cut off and
!here was no material to show that the procedure adopted
was flawed or arbitrary.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal. A
division bench by an interim order dated 7.7.2009 directed the
C Chairman of the first respondent Board to cause any of the
Directors of the llTs in India to prepare and submit a report
regarding the working out of cut off marks of Chemistry based
on formula and/or norms on the basis of information disclosed
under the RTI Act and also disclosed in the affidavit in
opposition. The division bench also permitted the appellants
D to procure any expert's report in regard to working out of cut
off marks in regard to Chemistry by following the aforesaid two
norms and submit the report.
8. In pursuance of it, the appellants secured the two reports
E both dated 17.7.2009 from T.A.Abinandanan, Professor,
Department of Materials Engineering, Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore. The first report was on the calculation of the cut off
marks in Chemistry. The concluding portion of the said opinion
is extracted below:
F
"Therefore, the cut-off marks of Chemistry as per the
formula provided in the affidavit-in-opposition comes out
to be Six (6). This cannot be 55.
Conclusions : Cut-off marks in Chemistry were calculated
in two different methods; in both the methods, the formula
G
is the same: "Mean minus Standard Deviation"; however,
the methods differ in the candidate populations used for
computing the Mean and Standard Deviation. The
calculated value of the Mean and Standard Deviation will
depend on the candidate population used in arriving at
H
these two quantities.
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION
1071
BOARD (JAB) & ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
The cut-off marks in Chemistry, comes out, correctly and
A
precisely, to be MINUS SIX and SIX, respectively, based
on the formula and/or norms on the basis of information
disclosed under the Right to Information Act, and disclosed
in the affidavit in opposition.
The Chemistry cut-off marks cannot be 55 by any of the
B
disclosed formulas."
The second report dated 17.7.2009 of Prof. T.A.
Abinandanan was on the analysis of candidates' performance
in JEE 2006. We extract below the conclusion in the said
C
report:
"A comparison between my findings and the data provided
by llT-Kharagpur reveals the following:
1.
Number of candidates in the two categories:
Category A: I found 145,439 candidates in this
D
category,in perfect agreement with the data
provided by llT-Kharagpur.
Category B: I found 287,564 candidates in this
category.in perfect agreement with the data
E
provided by llT-Kharagpur.
2.
Cut-off marks in Mathematics, Physics, and
Chemistry:
Ma themPhyChea tics
sics
mistry
F
llT-Kharagpur data
37
48
55
Category A of this study
7
4
6
Category B of this study,
-3
8
-6
provided for the sake of
G
completeness
In terms of cut-off marks, my findings do not agree at all
with the data provided by llT-Kharagpur. Since the
H
A
B
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
procedure used by llT-Kharagpur for the determination of
the cut-off is the same as the computation I performed for
candidates in Category A, a direct comparison is valid.
3. For the subject of Chemistry, following the formula
provided by llT-Kharagpur, the cut-off marks determined
by my analysis is only 6, whereas it is 55 in the data
provided by llT-Kharagpur."
9. The JAB appointed a two member committee of llT
Directors (Mr. Gautam Barua, Director, llT, Guwahati and Mr.
Dewang Khakhar, Director, llT, Bombay) to work out the cute off marks for chemistry. They gave the following report dated
E
F
G
H
19.7.2009 :
"The committee first of all noted that the issue of cut-off
marks in each of the subjects of the examination, namely,
Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics has been present in
the JEE system for a number of years. The principle
behind having cut-off marks is to ensure that a candidate
qualifying the JEE examination satisfies a minimum
proficiency level in each of the subjects. As the difficulty
level of the question papers vary from year to year, no
absolute pass mark can be set as is normally done in
examinations. Thus the pass mark has to be relative to the
performance of the candidates of that particular year.
The committee examined the procedure for subject cut-off
marks in JEE 2006 as submitted in an affidavit to the
Calcutta High Court and the procedure given against an
RTI application. The committee noted that the procedures
given in these document did not contain sufficient details
to calculate the cut offs.
A presentation was made before the committee by officials
of llT Kharagpur, including the Chairman JEE 2006, to
explain in detail the procedure used in determining the cutoff marks in JEE 2006. The procedure was also given in
writing along with sample calculations based on the actual
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION
1073
BOARD (JAB) & ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
data of JEE 2006 (attached as Annexures B-G). A
A
demonstration of the computer program implementing the
above procedure and using the actual JEE 2006 data, was
made before the committee. The results obtained from this
demonstration were found to be the same as reported in
the Annexures. The committee also examined the computer
B
program used in the demonstration and found that it was
as per the procedures reported in the Annexures. The
committee was satisfied that the procedures outlined in the
Annexures are systematic and complete. The committee
also verified that these procedures give the actual cut offs c
in JEE 2006 for all the subjects, including Chemistry, and
also the aggregate cut offs, as reported in the RTI
disclosure."
10. The division bench considered the said reports and
the contentions of the parties and by impugned order dated
D
6.1.201 O held that it was unable to grant any relief to the first
appellant as it was not inclined to sit over the wisdom of the
body of experts and the appellants had not made out any
malafides. It also noted that the procedure adopted in 2007 and
2008 was more transparent and simple than the selection
E
process of 2006 and the JAB had made an effort after JEE
2006 to ensure that the candidates get a clearer picture,
demonstrating that there were no possibilities of any unfair
means in the process of selection. The said judgment is
challenged in this appeal by special leave.
11. The question for consideration is whether the
procedure adopted by the Board to arrive at the cut off marks
for JEE 2006 is arbitrary and mala fide and whether the High
Court ought to have interfered in the matter.
F
12. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
G
minutes of the meeting of JAB 2006 held on 17.9.2005 which
laid down the procedure for holding the JEE 2006, furnished
by the respondents, did not contain the cut off procedure for
JEE 2006. It was submitted that the cut off procedure which was
LI
1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A fixed before the examination was repeatedly changed after the
examination and that the two different versions given by the
Board at different points of time demonstrated that none of the
· procedures showed 55% as the chemistry cut off marks; that
the procedure adopted was full of errors and defects; and that
B if the iterative procedure explained by the Board was
implemented correctly, the effect would be to increasing the
Maths cut off marks from 37 to 42 and decreasing Physics cut
off marks from 48 to 44 and Chemistry cut off marks from 55
to 51. It was also contended that the Chemistry cut off marks
C were probably manipulated to exclude appellant No.1 from the
JEE merit list as Prof. S.K. Dube, Chairman, Joint Admission
Board 2006 (then Director, llT, Karagpur) and Prof. V.K.nwari,
organizing Chairman, JEE 2006 had a personal grudge against
the second appellant who was a Professor of Computer
0 Science and Engineering at llT, Kharagpur.
13. On the other hand the respondents submitted that the
llT-JEE examination is time tested and world renowned and
has produced some of the brightest brains of India who have
excelled in fields even apart from engineering and technology
E such as civil services, management etc; and entrance
examination is held in high regard for its transparency and
objectivity. It was submitted that the JAB and the organizing
Institute had ensured that all steps were taken to maintain the
confidentiality of the process as well as the identity of the
candidates and for that purpose used a bar code on the left
F and right hand side of each OMR sheet and it was not possible
to prejudice a particular candidate by any manual process. It
was further submitted that the calculation of the cut off marks
had been done on the basis of the procedure adopted by the
Board in a completely transparent and objective manner; and
G there was no possibility of any manual intervention in either the
calculation of cut off marks or in calculation of marks of any
individual student.
14. It is no doubt true that the simplest and most straight
H forward method of selecting the candidates to be called for
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION 1075
BOARD (JAB) & ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
counseling would be to take the candidates in the order of merit
A
(with reference to actual marks) subject to their possessing a
pre-declared minimum marks in each subject. For example the
Board can decide beforehand that the aggregate cut off marks
for eligibility would be 150, that is 50 in each of the three
subjects and prepare a merit list of the candidates who fulfil the
B
said criteria and then call the first 5500 students in the merit
list, in the order of merit for counseling. This would be the
traditional method.
15. But the Board wants to select candidates with
consistent performance in all three subjects. To achieve this c
result and shortlist about 5500 candidates from out of 287564
candidates, the above mentioned traditional procedures will not
be of assistance. Therefore, a rather complicated but scientific
procedure has been followed. We may at this juncture set out
the Evaluation procedure for JEE 2006 and the Procedure for
D
cut-off determination in JEE 2006 done by iterative process,
followed by the Board.
"Evaluation Procedure for JEE 2006
Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) conducted by the llTs
for admission to the Under-graduate course in all the seven
E
llTs, IT-BHU and ISM Dhanbad is considered to be the
best and the toughest admission test in the world. This is
primarily intended to attract the brightest of the young minds
for education and research in engineering and technology
in India.
F
Joint Entrance Examination (JEE)-2006 was conducted on
9th April 2006 was one stage of examination as approved
by the Joint Admission Board (JAB). In this examination,
there were three question papers namely Mathematics,
G
Physics and Chemistry. Each question paper was
objective type in nature to test the aptitude and
comprehension ability of the candidates. Each question
paper is a question-cum-answer book named as Question
Paper Booklet (QPB). This question paper booklet has
H
•
1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
questions with a space for rough work and the answer
sheet which is a machine gradable bar coded OMR sheet
attached to the question paper at the end.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
This OMR has fwo parts i.e. Left Hand Side and Right
Hand Side with codes on both the side.
After the examination, the question paper booklets are
collected from the candidates and submitted to the
respective Institutes by the representatives of that Institute.
The evaluation procedure is as follows:
•
This question paper booklet centre wise is given to
different Professors who are named as Chief
Coder/coders. For each subject one Chief coder
along with 10-12 coders are involved. Depending
upon the number of candidates the total numbers
of coders vary from Institute to Institute.
•
Under the strict supervision of all the Chief coders,
the coders separate the OMR Sheet from each of
the question paper booklets and arranged them in
the prescribed manner.
•
These sheets are then separated into two parts i.e .
Right Hand Side and Left Hand Side and arranged
in prescribed manner.
•
Left Hand Side contains the personal data of the
candidates including the Centre of Examination and
his Registration No.
•
Right Hand Side contains the response of the
candidates which he has answered in response to
each of the question. This response is given by
bubbling the appropriate answer circle as specified.
*
RHS and LHS of these OMR answer sheet are
separately scanned for all the candidates. Accuracy
and consistency in this process of scanning are
verified with sufficient number of data points for
each subject and at each llT with the same machine
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION
1077
BOARD (JAB) & ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
and its setting. While compiling these marks, full
A
secrecy about the identity of the candidates is
maintained by the Bar Code already present in the
RHS and LHS."
It may be mentioned that in order to maintain quality of the
candidates getting admission in llTs/IT-BHU and ISM
B
Dhanbad, the consistent performance in all three subjects
is required. The candidates having marks equal to zero or
negative in any one of the subjects are notconsidered for
determining subject cut-off and ranking. Candidates having
marks equal to one (1) or more in all three subjects are
C
considered for determining cut-off and ranking.
"PROCEDURE FOR CUT-OFF DETERMINATION IN
JEE-2006:
(i)
For each subject, mean and standard deviation of 0
the marks obtained are computed. For this
computation only scores of those candidates who
have secured minimum of 1 (one) mark in each of
the three subjects have been considered.
(ii)
The cut-off marks of an individual subject is
E
calculated as Cut-off mark of a subject =
Mean of the marks for the subject - Standard
deviation of the marks for the subject.
The result has been rounded to the nearest integer.
(iii)
The mean and standard deviation of the aggregate
F
marks are calculated for those candidates who
score at least one mark in each subject.
(iv)
The aggregate cut-off mark is calculated as
Aggregate cut-off = (Mean of aggregate marks -
G
Standard
deviation of Aggregate
marks)rounded to nearest
integer
-- a positive number.
H
1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R
A
The number selected for counseling (i.e. qualified in JEE2006 for counseling) is 1.3 x the number of seats available
in all participating Institutions.