LexSANCHIT BANSAL &. ANR. versus THE JOINT ADMISSION BOARD (JAB) & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(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 d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.