DISHA PANCHAL AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Citation: [2018] 5 S.C.R. 12 · Decided: 13-06-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
DISHA PANCHAL AND OTHERS
v.
UNION OF INDIA THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 551 of 2018)
JUNE 13, 2018
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions – Admission to National
Law Universities – Online entrance test-Common Law Admission
Test (CLAT) – Improper conduct of – Grievance of 4690 candidates
that loss of time as a result of inadequate facilities in conducting
examinations and not affording them single log in session without
any interruption – On appeal, held: Purity of examination process
was not compromised so as to annul the entire process –
Normalization formula would be the correct and appropriate
methodology to compensate and take care of the interest of the 4690
candidates and would also ensure that no prejudice is caused to
rest of the candidates – Normalization formula proceeds on the basis
of answering efficiency or capacity of a candidate to answer
questions in given time and then applies his rate of success as a
parameter – Thus, the normalization formula is accepted and the
outright cancellation of the entire test is rejected – Exercise of
adopting and applying the normalization formula and revising the
scores of 4690 candidates to be undertaken and completed within
the stipulated period – Furthermore, the examination was not
conducted satisfactorily – There was complete inadequacy –
Issuance of direction to the government to appoint a Committee to
look into the matter and take appropriate remedial measures.
Disposing of the petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The basic grievance raised by the candidates
pertains to loss of time as a result of deficiency on part of the
examination conducting body in not ensuring adequate facilities
and not affording them single log in session without any
interruption. The idea so projected is pointing towards loss of
time and inconvenience and not suggesting that the purity of
examination process was in any way compromised so as to annul
the entire process. Any outright cancellation would visit
[2018] 5 S.C.R. 12
12
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
13
tremendous inconvenience and hardship upon rest of the
candidates. If the interest of those candidates who suffered loss
of time could otherwise be compensated, there is no reason that
the entire admission test be cancelled or annulled. [Para 8][22-
G-H; 23-A]
1.2 In the Chart, all the details including time availed, time
lost, number of questions attempted, number of questions
correctly answered, number of questions wrongly answered and
the answering efficiency of the candidates are tabulated. The next
columns give the notional figure as to how many questions he
would have answered if there was no time loss and how many
questions he would have rightly answered. These notional figures
give statistically correct and appropriate formula to compensate
for the loss of time. The figures gives the chart against the
candidates showing that applying the normalization formula, where
the candidate would be entitled to be placed at. [Para 9][24-A-C]
1.3 Since all the details regarding log in and log out times
are available in respect of each of those 4690 candidates, it is
possible to arrive at revised score applying such normalization
formula in respect of said 4690 candidates. The normalization
formula so suggested, in the circumstances, would be the best
possible way to compensate and take care of the interest of those
4690 candidates. At the same time, it would also ensure that no
prejudice is caused to rest of the candidates.  The normalization
formula proceeds on the basis of answering efficiency or capacity
of a candidate to answer questions in given time and then applies
his rate of success as a parameter. Normally, a candidate would
first answer those questions, whose answers he is well aware of
and leave out rest to be answered in the end. His success rate in
the former part would certainly be greater, as compared to the
latter. Since he would be given benefit at the same success rate,
there would be no prejudice. It is true that repeated interruptions
would cause mental stress and upset him. But that aspect as a
factor is difficult to be translated in a quantifiable parameter. Given
the circumstances, the normalization formula appears to be the
correct and appropriate methodology. Therefore, the formula so
suggested is accepted and the contention of outright cancellation
of the entire test is rejected. [Para 10][24-D-H; 25-A]
DISHA PANC

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