ABHJJIT SEN & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 983 · Decided: 06-12-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.D. TULZAPURKAR · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
l 
• 
983 
ABHJJI'f SEN & ORS. 
.. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
December 6, 1983 
(V.0. TULZAPURKAR AND SABYAS•CHI MUKHARJI, JJ.] 
Constitution of India 1950, Articles 126 & 136. 
Professional cuileges-Admission to-Entrance test he!d-'Key answer' 
suppiied by paper-set/er to a question found wrong according to acknowledged 
text-book-Student whether to be penalised for not giving an ·answer, which 
accords with 'key· a(lswer' - Court wheiher e_,ntitied ro deterndning 
the correct 
ariswer-Student whether entitled lo ad111ission. 
The appellants who were candidates seeking admission into the .M.B.B.S. 
Medical Colleges in the State, in their writ·petilions before the High Court, ass-
ailed thep~ocedure of implementing and carrying out the ·Multiple Choice Ob-
jCctive Type Test' \vhile holding the 'Combined P!e-Medical Test' for admission. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
.• 
They alleged that the 'key an~we~· supplied by. the Paper setter to 
question J'l~o. 31 in the Zoology PapCr (being A1ternative No, 2) ; 
E 
"31. in the veqebrat~s Oxygen is translated bY the blood as follows: 
, (I) Absorbed (Typographically wrongly typed as Absorbed) to the 
surface of R.B.C. 
(2) Combined with Hemoglobin to form a co~plex, 
(3) Dissolved in Plasma, 
(4) In all the above ways." 
was wrong and incorrect and that their· answer (by tiCking Alternative No. 4) 
wes the correct answer according to recognised text-books. They therefore 
contended that each one of them was entitled to an addition of 4-marks 
(thrCe marks for giving· the answer, plus 1 mark which had been wrongly 
deducted by treating their ariswers as wrong) and if such addition of 4-marks 
was made each one of th~m was entitled to get admission. 
It was contenc;fed by the appellant in the connected appeal ·that with 
regard to questiOn No. 100 in Zoology Paper : 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
984 
SUPREME COURT REPDRTS . 
• (1984) 1 s.c.a.• 
.. 
' JOO.' A scount bee findiris a food· source communica!es to the other 
worker bees the Jocation of the food source-
· • (l) ca'n not comrilunica'te the direction of food source? 
(2) Can communicate the direction of food so'urc; throµgh its 
round da nee ? 
(3) Can communicate the direction of food source throusb its 
tail wagging dance 1 
(4) Can communicate .. the· direction of food source ~hro\Jgh its 
round dance as well as tail Wagging ,d8nce ?" 
the •key-answer' supplied by the ·paper setter (being Alternative No. 3) was 
cle::irly wrong.incOrrect while !he ans\ver 'given by the ·appellant. (by ticking 
P!.tternative No. 4) was the correct answer according to· recognised text-boOks 
and tlierefore she v.a$- entitled to afl-addition of four marks (3 for giving the 
correct answer, plus_ -j ·mark \Vhich ~as wrongfy de'ducted by treating her· 
answer ~s incorrect) and on this baSis she would be entitled .to get the 
·admission. 
The University rejeCted their cases and the Hig~ Court dismissed their · 
writ petition. 
· 
In the appeals to this Court, 
H.ELD : I. If the: •key-answer' (i.e. the ans.wer · which the paper-setter 
has supplied to the University as the i;:orrCct answ~r and which has been fed 
into the Computer) is shown to be demonstrnbly wrong,. that is to say~ such 
."as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the. particular subject would 
regard it a~-correct.a:nd if_ the answer 8:iven by a student is_eorrect if regard be 
had to acknowledged text-books or books which the student was expected to 
·read a·nd consult b"efore 
appearing for· the 
test · it would be unfair to 
penalise tl}e student for not giving an answer which accords with the key-
answer' that is.to say with an. answer which is demonslrated to be-wron~. 
. 
[986 A-CJ 
In the fristant cases. both sides have relied upon·the passage at page 547 
of th'e text.:book 'Medical Physiology• by Author C. Cuyton ; which on careful 
reading reveals that bo~h the •key-answer' Supplied by the paper-setter as ~ell 
as the answer given by the two appellants will have _to be regarded-. as· wrong. 
!'!either of the appellants is therCfore entitled to an addition of 4-~arks. aS 
suggested on their behalf. [988C, H, 9890] 
. ~ 
. 
2. The question set by the paper~tter viz. question NO. 100 mokCs no 
reference whatsoever to any r'3.nge with reference to which the candidate is 
ca1le~ uPoo to give an a~swer and in the absence of a'ny reference to ·the l:aoge; 
l. 
• ,AfiiuJ1t SEN v. tl;P. STATE (TulzapuJkar, J.) 
~.SS 
a~cording to ·the passages in the text-books: 'BiologiCal Scie

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.