http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: KANPUR UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SAMIR GUPTA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/09/1983

BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) PATHAK, R.S. MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)

CITATION:  1983 AIR 1230            1984 SCR  (1)  73  1983 SCC  (4) 309        1983 SCALE  (2)477

ACT:      Entrance  Examinations  to  courses  of  study-Multiple Choice Objective  type Tests-Combined  Pre-medical Test  for admission to medical colleges in U.P. Whether correctness of key-answers to  questions set  in the  examination  open  to challenge ?

HEADNOTE:      The appellant-University held the "Combined Pre-Medical Test" for  admission to  the seven  medical colleges in U.P. during the year 1982. The pattern of examination adopted was known as the "Multiple Choice Objective type" test according to  which   a  paper  containing  100  questions  with  four alternative answers for each question was set in each of the four subjects  prescribed for  the test  and the  candidates were asked  to tick  the correct answer from out of the four alternatives given. The marking of answer-book was done by a computer into which had been fed the key-answers supplied by the paper-setters.  When the  University published  the key- answers along  with the  result of the test, the respondents who had  appeared in the test and whose names did not figure in the  list of  successful candidates  filed writ petitions contending that  the key-answers published by the University in regard  to three  questions were  wrong, that the answers ticked by  them in  regard to  those  three  questions  were correct and  that  if  their  answer-books  were  reassessed correctly they  would be  entitled to  be  entitled  to  the M.B.B.S. course.  The High  Court accepted  their contention and allowed the petitions.      Council for  the University contended that no challenge should be  allowed to  be made  to the correctness of a key- answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong.      Dismissing the appeals,      HELD: Normally,  the key-answer furnished by the paper- setter and accepted by the University as correct, should not be allowed  to  be  challenged.  The  key-answer  should  be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and it should not  be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or  by a  process of  rationalisation but  must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as  no  reasonable  body  of  men  well-versed  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

particular subject  would regard as correct. [81 D, H, 82 A- B] 74      In the  instant case,  the contention of the University is falsified  by a  large number of acknowledged text-books, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those text books leave no  room for  doubt that  the  answers  given  by  the students are  correct and  the  key-answers  are  incorrect. Since the  matter is  beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to  penalise the  students for  not giving  an answer which accords  with the  key-answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong. [82 B-D]      The publication  of the  key-answer has  unravelled  an unhappy state  of affairs  to which  the University  and the State Government  must find a solution. The State Government should compile  under its  own auspices  a text  book  which should be  prescribed for  student desirous of appearing for the Combined  Pre-medical Test.  A system  should be devised for moderating  the  key-answers  furnished  by  the  paper- setters. If  English questions  have to  be translated  into Hindi it  is not  enough  to  appoint  an  expert  in  Hindi language as  a translator.  The  translator  must  know  the meaning  of  the  scientific  terminology  and  the  art  of translation. In  a system of "Multiple Choice Objective-type Test" care  must be  taken to  see that  questions having an ambiguous import  are not  set in  the papers.  Whenever the attention of the University is drawn to any defect in a key- answer  or   any  ambiguity   in  a   question  set  in  the examination, prompt and timely decision must be taken by the University to  declare that  the suspect  question  will  be excluded from  the paper  and no  marks assigned  to it. [81 F,82 E, G-H,83 A-B]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION :  Civil Appeal Nos.4092- 4115 of 1983.      Appeals by  Special leave  from the  Judgment and Order dated the  24th February,  1983 of  the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench)  in Writ  Petition  Nos.  4773-74/82,  4827, 5024, 5216,  5314, 5716-5717,  5724,5816,  5817,5818,  5819, 5821,  6029,  6067,  6069,  6102,6103,6389,  of  1982  &  9, 146,230, 277 of 1983.                             AND             Civil Appeal Nos. 4068 4091 of 1983.      Appeals by  Special leave  from the  Judgment and Order dated the  24th February,  1983 of  the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench)  in Civil  Mis Writ Petition Nos. 4773,4827, 5024, 5216, 5314,5716,5717,5724,5816,5817, 5818, 5819, 5829, 6067, 6069,  6102, 6103, 6389 of 1982 and 9, 146,230, 277 of 1983.      In Civil Appeal No. 4092 - 4115 of 1983      S.N. Kacker,  Mrs. Shobha Dixit and Kulsherstha for the Appellants. 75      R.K. Garg,  R.K. Jain,  M. Nitin  Mohan Popli,  Santosh Sethi and  Ms. Sangeeta  Agarwal for Respondents in CA. 4092 of 1983.      E.C.  Aggarwala   Mahavir  Singh  and  K.K.  Gupta  for Respondents.      Robin Mitra,  Anil Kumar  Gupta, and  Brij Bhushan, for Respondents in CA. 4096 of 1983.      E.C. Agarwala,  Vijay K.  Pandita  and  R.  Satish  for Respondents.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

    In Civil Appeal Nos. 4068-91 of 1983:      Mrs. Shoba Dixit and Kapil Sibal for the Appellants.      M.M.  Kshatriya,  E.C.  Aggarwala,  Robin  Mitra,  K.K. Gupta, M.B.  Lal, Anil  Kumar Gupta and Brij Bhushan for the Respondents.      M.M. Kshatriya for Respondent No. 1.      Mohan Pandey for Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered      CHANDRACHUD, C.J.  These  appeals  raise  a  some  what awkward question:  If a  paper-setter commits an error while indicating the  correct answer to a question set by him, can the students  who answer  that question  correctly be failed for the  reason that though their answer is correct, it does not accord  with the  answer supplied by the paper-setter to the University  as the correct answer ? The answer which the paper-setter supplies  to  the  University  as  the  correct answer is  called the  ’key answer’.  No one  can accuse the teacher of  not knowing  the correct  answer to the question set by  him But it seems that, occasionally, not enough care is taken  by the  teachers to  set questions  which are free from ambiguity  and to  supply key answers which are correct beyond reasonable  controversy. The  keys  supplied  by  the paper-setters in these cases raised more questions than they solved.      The respondents  in these Appeals applied for admission to the Medical Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh. There are 7  Medical Colleges  in the  State  of  U.P.,  to  which admission is  granted on  the  basis  of  the  result  of  a ’Combined Pre-Medical Test’ which is held 76 in pursuance  of the  orders passed  by the State Government under section  8 of  the U.P.  State Universities Act, 1973. The Government  nominates one  of the  Universities  in  the State for holding the Test every year. In the year 1982, the Kanpur University,  the appellant herein, was entrusted with the task  of holding  the Test.  By any  standard, it  is  a stupendous task  because 20,000  applications  are  received every year  for admission  to a total number of 779 seats in the 7  Medical Colleges, out of which 50% are reserved seats and the  remaining 50% are open. Physics, Chemistry, Zoology and Botany  are the  four subjects  which are prescribed for the Test.  One paper is set for each subject and the pattern of the examination is what is called the ’Multiple choice of objective-type  test’.   For  persons  belonging  to  yester generations, this is a newfangled concept. Hundred questions are set  in each  paper and  four  alternative  answers  are indicated against each question. The candidates are required to tick  the correct  answer from  out of  those four. If he ticks the  correct answer,  he secures  3  marks  and  if  a candidate ticks  an incorrect  answer, he loses I mark. Each paper is of a duration of 3 hours.      So far  so good. The snag lies in determining which out of the  four suggested  answers is  the correct answer. That duty is  naturally assigned  to  the  paper-setter,  who  is required to  supply to  the University the correct answer to each question,  called  the  ’key  answer’.  The  difficulty involved in  evaluating a  very large number of answer-books is solved  by the  State Government,  quite successfully, by computerising the  result. The  key answers  are fed  into a computer and the marking computerised.      The difficulty which arose in these cases is not due to the failure of the computer, which is quite encouraging. The habit of  man is  to blame the machine. The difficulty arose because the  key  answers  furnished  by  the  paper-setters turned out  to be  wrong. The  students got  to know the key

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

answers out  of the generosity of the University. If wanted, rightly, to  be frank  and fair. Therefore, it published the key answers  along with the result of the test. Respondents, whose names  did  not  figure  in  the  list  of  successful candidates, filed  writ  petitions  in  the  High  Court  of Allahabad, contending  that the  answers ticked by them were correct and  the key  answers  wrong.  The  High  Court  has accepted  their  contention  and  that  is  how  the  Kanpur University has come to file these appeals. There cannot be a more telling instance of ’Shishyat Ichhet Parajam’ (Wish for defeat 77 from your  pupil). But  the Gurus  contend that the Shishyas are wrong and do not deserve to win.      There is  no controversy  over the questions set in the Physics paper.  The controversy  arises in  regard to  three questions, one  each in the papers in Chemistry, Zoology and Botany. We  will deal with those three questions one by one, without making  our own  guess as  to which  is the  correct answer. Any way, we cannot indicate the true answer to these appeals by merely ticking off one of the two options open to us, either  to allow  or to  dismiss the appeals. Ticking is the privilege  of the new generation of students. We have to give reasons in support of our answer.      Question No. 24 of the Chemistry paper reads thus:           "24. The  theory of  Electrolytic Dissociation was      given by-           1. Faraday           2. Kohlraush           3. Arrehenius           4. Ostwald." Each question  in each  paper is  set both  in  English  and Hindi, not  one below  the other but, there are two question papers for  each subject, one of which is set in English and the other  in Hindi.  We do  not know  which is the original version and  which the  translation but  it is common ground that one is the translation of the other.      The   Hindi    version   of   Question   No.   24,   as transliterated, reads thus:           "Vidyut Apaghatan  ka sidhant kis Vegyanik ne diya      tha ?           1. Faraday           2. Kohlrausch           3. Arrehenius           4. Ostwald." 78      The contention  of the  University, which  accords with the key  answer, is that the third alternative furnishes the correct answer,  namely, "Arrehenius’,  whether the question is read  in English  or in  Hindi. There  is no dispute that option No.  3 is  the correct  answer to the question set in English, that  is to  say, that  the theory  of Electrolytic Dissociation was  given by Arrehenius. The contention of the students, who  are  apparently  very  clever,  is  that  the correct answer  to the  Hindi version  of  the  question  is ’Faraday’, which is the first alternative. Their argument is that the  English Question  No. 24 and Hindi Question No. 24 do not  carry the  same sense  and  one  is  not  the  exact translation of  the other.  According to  these  well-taught students, ’Electrolytic’  means ’Vidyut  apaghatan’, whereas ’Electrolytic  Dissociation   means   ’Vidyut   apaghataniya Viyojan’, and in the Hindi version of the question, the word ’Dissociation’ does not find its equivalent.      With their  born knowledge of Hindi, the learned Judges of the  Allahabad High  Court have  gone into the linguistic

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

niceties with some proficiency. Their judgment shows that in Medical Sciences  Glossary I,  which  is  published  by  the Standing   Commission    for   Scientific    and   Technical Terminology, Ministry of Education, Government of India, the Hindi equivalent  of the  word ’Electrolysis’  is  given  as ’Vidyut  apaghatana’  and  of  the  word  ’Dissociation’  as ’Viyojan’. The  High Court  has quoted  several acknowledged text books  in Hindi  which show  that  though  the  law  of ’Electrolysis’ was  first formulated by Faraday in 1834, the theory  of   Electrolytic  Dissociation’   was  evolved   by Arrehenius  1887   which  is  known  as  ’Ionic-dissociation Theory’. Amongst the authorities quoted by the High Court is a text-book  prescribed  for  Intermediate  classes  by  the ’Madhyamik  Shiksha  Parishad,  U.P.’  The  High  Court  has accepted the respondents’ contention that there is a ’marked difference’ in the English and Hindi version of question No. 24.      The case  of the  respondents is  that they tick-marked the answer  to Question  No. 24 as it reads in Hindi and not as it  reads in  English. Whether  the respondents  read the Hindi question  paper or  the one in English is incapable of verification and  there is  no means  of contradicting  that contention. They had the option to answer the question paper as set  in English  or in  Hindi.  There  is  no  reason  to disbelieve them  when they  say that  they  read  the  Hindi version. Hindi is the medium of instruction in U.P., until a late 79 stage of scholastic education. Besides, the tick-mark, being a symbol, reads the same in English and Hindi.      In support of its contention that the English and Hindi versions of  the  question  convey  the  same  meaning,  the University produced  the opinion  of two experts, Prof. R.P. Singh of  the Department of Chemistry, Delhi University, and Dr. B.R. Agarwal, an ex-Vice-Chancellor. These two gentlemen are undoubtedly  well-versed in  their  speciality  but  the controversy turns  more on  the knowledge  of Hindi  than of chemistry. Dr.  Agarwal has  himself stated  in his  opinion that: "Even now the Hindi terminology is not so well defined as in English and the Hindi terminology for the same English concepts differs  from author  to author".  In any event, as stated in the judgment of the High Court, the standard text- books  which  the  students  consult,  or  are  expected  to consult, make  a distinction  between ’Vidyut  apaghatan’ on the one hand and ’Vidyut apaghataniya viyojan’ on the other. We must,  therefore, uphold  the finding  of the  High Court that the  key answer to question No. 24 is correct in so far as the  English version  is concerned  but that, the correct answer to  the Hindi  version of  that question  is the  1st option, namely, ’Faraday’.      Coming next to the Zoology paper, Question No. 23 reads thus:           "23. Which one of the following was not present in      free form at the time life originated ?           1. Hydrozen           2. Oxygen           3. Water           4. Ammonia" Whereas  the  students  assert  that  the  2nd  alternative, namely,  ’Oxygen’   furnishes  the  correct  answer  to  the question, the  key answer  shows that  the correct answer is ’Ammonia . Here again, as pointed out by the High Court, the standard text-books  shows that  ’Oxygen’ was not present in free form  at the time when life originated. The famous book on Biology  by Claude  A. Villas,  while  dealing  with  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

subject ’The  Origin of  Life’, says:  "Most authorities now agree that  the earth  was very  hot and  molten when it was first formed and 80 that conditions  consistent with  life appeared on the earth only perhaps  three  billion  years  ago".  Two  authors  of international repute,  Tracy I. Starer and Rober L. Usinger, say in  their book "General Zoology’ that "At some time more than a billion years ago temperature and moisture conditions became suitable  for life. There was no free oxygen, but the atmosphere contained  methane, ammonia,  hydrogen and  water vapor". Two  Indian authors,  Dr. Ramesh  Gupta and  Virbala Rastogi, have  expressed the  same view  in their respective books ’Aadhunik Jantu Vigyan’ and ’Madhyamik Jantu Vigyan’.      The University  produced the  opinion  of  Shri  H.  S. Vishnoi of  the Department  of Zoology, University of Delhi. We agree  with the  High Court that though Shri Vishnoi is a knowledgeable person  in his  speciality, he  was  evidently under some  confusion while  giving his  opinion. Profundity sometimes creates confusion. In the very opening sentence of his opinion,  Shri Vishnoi  says: "The  point is  about free ammonia". That  is not  the point.  The question  which  the students were  asked to  answer was not "about free ammonia" but which  of the  four alternatives was not present in free form when  life originated.  Shri Vishnoi has also not given specific citations  from the  two  books  to  which  he  has referred in  support of his opinion. We therefore agree with the conclusion of the High Court that the answer to question No. 23  in the Zoology paper is ’oxygen’ as contended for by the respondents  and not  ’Ammonia’ as  stated  in  the  key answer.      Question No.  66 in the Botany paper has an interesting story of its own. That question reads as follows:           "66.  The   net  gain   of  A.T.P.   Molecules  in      Glycolysis is           (1) O           (2) 2           (3) 4           (4) 8" Whereas the  students contended  that  the  2nd  alternative furnishes the  correct answer,  the key answer which was fed to the computer 81 was alternative  No. 4.  Here also,  the various  text-books cited by  the students  tend to show that the key answer fed into the computer was not the correct answer. The High Court has copiously  referred to  the standard  text-books on  the subject. We  need not do so since, the more interesting part of this  controversy is  the expert  opinion  of  Shri  Arya Bhushan Gupta  which was filed by the University in the High Court. According  to that  opinion, the  correct  answer  to Question No.  66 is  neither the  2nd option nor the 4th but the 3rd.  In other  words, according  to Shri Gupta, the net gain of  A.T.P. molecules  in Glycolysis  is  neither  2  as contended by  the students,  nor 8  as mentioned  in the key answer but  4 which  is nobody’s  case except  the expert’s. Thus, the  case of  the University  is demolished by its own expert. In  these circumstances,  we cannot  find fault with the High  Court for  holding that  the key answer is not the correct answer to Question No. 66.      The findings  of the  High Court  raise a  question  of great importance  to the  student community.  Normally,  one would be  inclined to the view, especially if one has been a paper setter  and an examiner, that the key answer furnished by the  paper setter  and  accepted  by  the  University  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

correct, should  not be allowed to be challenged. One way of achieving it is not to publish the key answer at all. If the University had  not published  the key answer along with the result of the test, no controversy would have arisen in this case. But  that is  not a  correct way  of looking  at these matters which involve the future of hundreds of students who are aspirants  for admission to professional courses. If the key answer  were kept  secret in this case, the remedy would have been  worse than  the disease because, so many students would have  had to  suffer the  injustice  in  silence.  The publication of  the key  answer has  unravelled  an  unhappy state of  affairs to  which the  University  and  the  State Government must  find a solution. Their sense of fairness in publishing the  key answer  has given them an opportunity to have a  closer look at the system of examinations which they conduct. What  has failed  is not the computer but the human system.      Shri Kacker,  who appears  on behalf of the University, contended that  no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness  of a  key answer unless, on the face of it, it is  wrong. We agree that the key-answer should be assumed to be  correct unless  it is  proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong 82 by an  inferential process  of reasoning  or by a process of rationalisation. It  must  be  clearly  demonstrated  to  be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The  contention of  the University  is falsified in this case  by a  large number  of  acknowledged  text-books, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those text-books leave no  room for  doubt  that  the  answer  given  by  the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect.      Students  who  have  passed  their  Intermediate  Board Examination are eligible to appear for the entrance Test for admission to  the Medical Colleges in U.P. Certain books are prescribed for  the Intermediate  Board Examination and such knowledge of  the subjects  as the  students have is derived from what is contained in those text-books. Those text-books support the  case of the students fully. If this were a case of doubt,  we would  have unquestionably  preferred the  key answer. But  if the  matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be  unfair to  penalise the students for not giving an answer which  accords with  the key  answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong.      If the  State Government wants to avoid a recurrence of such lapses,  it should  compile under  its own  auspices  a text-book which  should be  prescribed for students desirous of appearing  for the  combined Pre-Medical  Test. Education has more  than its fair share of politics, which is the bane of our Universities. Numerous problems are bound to arise in the compilation  of such a text-book for, various applicants will come  forward for doing the job and forces and counter- forces will  wage a  battle on the question as to who should be commissioned  to do the work. If the State can succeed in overcoming those difficulties, the argument will not be open to the  students that  the answer contained in the text-book which is  prescribed for the test is not the correct answer. Secondly, a system should be devised by the State Government for moderating  the  key  answers  furnished  by  the  paper setters. Thirdly, if English questions have to be translated into Hindi,  it is  not enough  to appoint  an expert in the Hindi language as a translator. The translator must know the meaning  of  the  scientific  terminology  and  the  art  of translation. Fourthly,  in  a  system  of  ’Multiple  Choice

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

Objective-type  test’,  care  must  be  taken  to  see  that questions having  an ambiguous  import are  not set  in  the papers. That  kind of  system of examination involves merely the tick-marking of the correct answer. It 83 leaves no  scope for  reasoning or  argument. The  answer is ’yes’ or  ’no’. That  is why  the questions have to be clear and unequivocal.  Lastly, if the attention of the University is drawn to any defect in a key answer or any ambiguity in a question set  in the examination, prompt and timely decision must be  taken by the University to declare that the suspect question will  be excluded  from  the  paper  and  no  marks assigned to it.      There was  some argument  before us as to the nature of the relief  which can  be granted to the respondents. It was contended by  Smt. Dixit, who appears on behalf of the State of U.P.,  that six  of the  respondents  have  been  already admitted to  the B.D.S.  Course and,  therefore, they should not now be admitted to the M.B.B.S. course. We cannot accept this submission  since, those  students sought  admission to the Dental course only because they were not admitted to the M.B.B.S. course.  And they  were  denied  admission  to  the M.B.B.S. course wrongly.      Twenty-seven students  in all were concerned with these proceedings, out  of whom  8 were  admitted  to  the  B.D.S. course, 3  were admitted  to the  M.B.B.S. course  last year itself in  place of  the students who dropped out and 5 have succeeded in  getting admission this year. Omitting 8 of the respondents who  have been  already admitted to the M.B.B.S. course, the remaining 19 shall have to be given admission as directed by  the High Court. If the key answer was not wrong as it  has turned  out to  be, they  would have succeeded in getting admission.  In view  of the  findings  of  the  High Court, the question naturally arose as to how the marks were to be  allotted to  the respondents  for the three questions answered by  them and  which were  wrongly assessed  by  the University. The  High Court  has held  that the  respondents would be  entitled to  be given  3 marks  for  each  of  the questions correctly  ticked by  them, and  in addition  they would be  entitled to 1 mark for those very questions, since 1 mark  was deducted  from  their  total  for  each  of  the questions wrongly answered by them. Putting it briefly, such of the  respondents as are found to have attempted the three questions or any of them would be entitled to an addition of 4 marks  per question. If the answer-books are reassessed in accordance with  this  formula,  the  respondents  would  be entitled to  be admitted to the M.B.B.S. course, about which there is  no dispute. Accordingly, we confirm the directions given by the High Court in regard to the reassessment of the particular questions and the admission of the respondents to the M.B.B.S. course. 84      There is one student, Miss Reeta Gupta, whose grievance is that  if she is given additional marks as directed by the High Court,  her place  will go higher up in the merit list, as a consequence whereof she would be eligible for admission to the  Medical College  situated in her place of residence. Smt.  Dixit  says  that  Miss  Gupta  should  apply  to  the Government in  this behalf and the Government could consider her  application.   We  do  not  think  that  there  is  any justification for  us to  interfere with the order passed by the High Court on this score also.      We understand  that some  petitions are  pending in the High Court  on these  very points.  Those petitions  will be disposed of by the High Court in the light of this judgment,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

provided that  the petitioners  therein make  out a case for interference as  the students in these appeals have done. We however,  direct   that  no   fresh  petitions   should   be entertained by  the High  Court and, of course, none will be entertained by  us hereafter  on the  questions involved  in these appeals  arising out  of the  test which  was held  in 1982. The new academic session is due to commence within the next few  days and  these questions  cannot be allowed to be raised in  a leisurely  fashion so  as  to  disorganise  the scheme of fresh admissions.      In the result, these appeals are dismissed with costs. H.L.C.                                    Appeals dismissed. 85