ADITYA KUMAR MALLICK v. Advocates who appeared in this case

Judgment

1. The present Petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking a direction to quash/modify/set aside written result of Combined Admission Test, 2024 [hereinafter referred to as “CAT, 2024”]. Other ancillary reliefs Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:07.01.2025 19:56:03 W.P.(C) 17764/2024 are also sought by the Petitioner including appointing an expert committee other than Respondent No.2 to ascertain the correct answer with proper reasoning from the four options of question no. 18 bearing question ID 332818441 in Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension (VARC) section of Shift 2 [hereinafter referred to as “question-in-issue”] and to declare the results afresh.

2. Notice in this Petition was also issued by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 24.12.2024. Given the fact that the results of CAT, 2024 have already been declared on 19.12.2024, the parties urgently completed pleadings in the matter.

3. The CAT examination is held by Respondent No.2 once a year and the duration of this examination is 120 minutes with three sections; Section 1 – Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension (VARC); Section 2 – Data Interpretation and Logical Reasoning (DTLR); and Section 3 – Quantitative Ability (QA) The test was conducted online on 24.11.2024 in three sessions/shifts.

3.1 The grievance of the Petitioner in the present Petition is that an incorrect answer has been declared as the final answer of the question-in- issue. The Petitioner contends that the representation in the form of objections was raised by the Petitioner on 05.12.2024 on the portal of Respondent No.2 and the final answer key for CAT, 2024 gave a decision of “no change” to the answer of the question-in-issue. According to the Petitioner, Option 3 is not the correct answer and the correct answer would be Option 4. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:07.01.2025 19:56:03 W.P.(C) 17764/2024

3.2

It is the contention of the Petitioner that this declaration of the written result of the CAT, 2024 has been done hurriedly without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner to take redressal of this grievance.

3.3 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is a brilliant student who also took CAT, 2023 as well and secured 98.61 percentile. With a view to improve his score and to get an admission in a better institute of Indian Institute of Management (IIM), he chose to re-take the CAT in the year 2024.

3.4 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that Option 4 is the correct answer to the question-in-issue and he seeks to support his contentions by distinguished expertise of CAT coaching institutes in the country. Reliance is placed upon the opinions of four experts of private coaching institutes, all of whom are running coaching institutes in different parts of the country to submit that three coaching institutes have unequivocally supported the Petitioner’s answer while maintaining the official answer key as incorrect while the fourth institute has endorsed the Petitioner’s answer while acknowledging that the final answer key might also be valid. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also presented video excerpts released by these coaching institutes to substantiate his contentions, which were played during the hearing.

3.5 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that there were 405 objections raised for the three shifts of CAT, 2024 out of which 272 objections were raised for the VARC section, for Shift 2 which in itself speaks volume about the question-in-issue. He further contends that the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:07.01.2025 19:56:03 W.P.(C) 17764/2024 reason behind why Option 4 is the correct answer and not Option 3, has been explained by the Petitioner as set out in paragraph 9 of the Petition in the following manner: “The reason behind why option 3 vide Option ID 3328181481 (correct answer according to Respondent No. 2) is INCORRECT – The option states – “Climate change has had negligible effects on the frequency of carnivore-human interactions in affected regions.” When considered false this statement reads - “Climate change has had non- negligible effects on the frequency of carnivore-human interactions in affected regions. The passage reads – “Experts believe climate change also plays a part in the escalation of human-carnivore conflicts, but the correlation still needs to be ironed out.” This means that there is no significant understanding of the EXTENT of that correlation. However, it says that experts do believe that climate change does play a role, thereby showing that the extent, AT THE VERY LEAST, is non-negligible and NEEDS further study. The statement – “Climate change has had non–negligible effects on the frequency of carnivore-human interactions in affected regions.” is therefore DEFINITELY NOT INCONSISTENT with the passage, contrary to what is demanded in the question.”

3.6 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rishal and others v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Others1and two judgments passed by the Division Benches of this Court in Staff Selection Commission and Another v. Shubham Pal and Others2 and Manoj Saklani v. Union of India and Others3 to submit that from time to time, the Courts have interfered with the results of a public examination where the Courts have held that where answer keys are erroneous, the student community cannot be made to suffer on account of errors committed by the university. 1 2018 SCC OnLine SC 488 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:07.01.2025 19:56:03 W.P.(C) 17764/2024

3.7 Lastly, is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is a meritorious student who scored 98.61 percentile in CAT, 2023, this incorrect answer will prejudice not only him but several other meritorious students like him, unless corrected.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.2 (the contesting Respondent), on the other hand, has submitted that Respondent No. 2 is one of the premium institutions in the country and has a very elaborate methodology set out to ensure that there is a comprehensive and transparent process in place for managing the objections raised by the candidates to the CAT examinations, held once a year. The entire process of conducting CAT examinations including preparation and scrutiny of the answer keys is executed with the highest standards of accuracy and has been designed by the experts in the country.

4.1 Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.2 has contended that CAT, 2024 was successfully conducted across 170 cities in India on

24.11.2024 with a total of 2.93 lakhs candidates appearing for CAT, 2024. As is part of the procedure, Respondent No.2 on 29.11.2024 issued a media release informing candidates that the provisional answer key for CAT, 2024 would be published on 03.12.2024. The media release also set out that each candidate who had successfully completed CAT, 2024 would get an opportunity to raise objections to the provisional answer key by following the process as set out therein. It was explained that the candidates could submit objections to the answer key up to 05.12.2024 and a total of 405 2 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7144 3 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7726 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:07.01.2025 19:56:03 W.P.(C) 17764/2024 objections were received including the one raised by the Petitioner.

4.2 Relying on the Counter-Affidavit of Respondent No.2, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.2 explains the process that takes place once the objections are received which comprises of several steps. It was contended that the CAT convenor reconciles the objections and shares them with the subject matter experts who hold extensive discussions. Reliance is placed on paragraph 21.5 (f), (g) and (h) in this regard, which is extracted below: “21.5 Accordingly, the OMP undertaken by the CAT Committee for CAT 2024 was equally rigorous and detailed, as explained hereinbelow: … (f) immediately after the closure of the window for OMP, on 06.12.2024, the objections received were reconciled, sorted, and shared with the CAT Convenor, encapsulating the following:- • Objection Evaluation Report: Organized by exam shift, type of objection, question ID, count of objections, and suggest answer(s); • Question paper PDFs: Containing actual candidate responses; and • Objection Images File and supplementary data. (g) the objections were then categorized section-wise and forwarded to the respective Panel of SMEs constituted for each of the three sections for the CAT 2024; (h) from 06.12.2024 to 12.12.2024, the Panel of SMEs scrutinized each objection individually and collectively, ensuring there was no ambiguity. The Panel of SMEs not only reviewed the objections based on their expertise but also considered the reasoning provided by the candidates. This process involved multiple iterations of discussions to arrive at a conclusive decision;”

4.3 It is contended that since none of these objections qualified for the change, the final answer key was released on 16.12.2024 stating that there was no change in the result and subsequently, CAT, 2024 results were Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:07.01.2025 19:56:03 W.P.(C) 17764/2024 released on 19.12.2024.

4.4 Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 2 further explains that the Panel of Subject Matter Experts [hereinafter referred to as “SME’s”] for CAT, 2024 comprised of highly qualified professors from leading IIMs in their respective subject matter and the SME’s are eminent scholars equipped with multi-disciplinary capabilities. Emphasis is placed on the credentials of these experts which has been set out in paragraph 21.8 of the Counter-Affidavit of Respondent No.2 which is reproduced below: “21.8 The Panel of SMEs tasked with addressing objections in the VARC Section of CAT 2024 brought a wealth of expertise to the process. Collectively, the panel possessed approximately 78 [seventy eight] person-years of experience in academia, 20 [twenty] person- years of experience in the corporate sector, and 43 [forty three] person-years of experience specifically related the CAT Examination process. This substantial depth of knowledge ensured a comprehensive and meticulous review of all objections.” [Emphasis supplied]

4.5 With a view to show the bona fides of Respondent No.2, Respondent No.2 also carried with them, in a sealed envelope, the name and details of the committee of experts that has scrutinised the result of CAT, 2024. It is, however contended by the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.2 that for the process to continue uniformly, the secrecy of these names was imperative.

4.6 Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.2, on instructions, also submitted that the video excerpts that have been produced by the Petitioner were from experts with 10-15 years of experience and that these videos excerpts have treated the question as a mere true and false question which Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:07.01.2025 19:56:03 W.P.(C) 17764/2024 is not the purport of the question. It is further contended that these videos are all created by private coaching institutes for their own promotion. In fact, it is contended that in one of the videos, even the name and credentials of the video host has not been provided, thus cannot be taken as a credible source.

4.7 Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 2 also relies upon paragraph 22 of its Counter-Affidavit wherein a detailed reasoning has been provided by Respondent No.2 as to why Option 3 is the correct answer and Option 4 might only apply if consideration is given to selective parts of the passage qua the question-in-issue. It was submitted that the primary concern of the passage is around risky human behaviour as the driver of such conflicts amongst animals and humans and hence the presence or absence of fear among carnivores which is implied in Option 4 is irrelevant to the core issue at hand.

4.8 Lastly, it was contended that CAT examinations are taken by 2.93 lakhs aspirants and any stay or modification to CAT, 2024 results would cause a significant delay in short-listing process for 21 IIMs and 86 non- IIMs institutes which rely upon these results for the admission of candidates. The Petition does not comprise of any legitimate justification for compromising the academic timelines of these institutions.

4.9 Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.2 has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor and others v. Samir Gupta and others4, 4 (1983) 4 SCC 309 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:07.01.2025 19:56:03 W.P.(C) 17764/2024 University Grants Commission and another v. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar)5 and Ran Vijay Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others6 to submit that in academic matters unless there is a violation, the Courts should have a “hands off” approach and no change should be made to the correctness of an answer given unless on the face of it, it is wrong. It was further held that the Courts should not re-evaluate or scrutinise answer sheets of the candidates as it has no expertise in the matter and that academic matters are best left to the academics. Analysis

5. It is apposite at this stage to set out the question-in-issue as well as answer key: “Comprehension: The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question. (. . .) There are three other common drivers for carnivore–human attacks, some of which are more preventable than others. Natural aggression-based conflicts–such as those involving females protecting their young or animals protecting a food source – can often be avoided as long as people stay away from those animals and their food. Carnivores that recognise humans as a means to get food are a different story. As they become more reliant on human food they might find at campsites or in rubbish bins, they become less avoidant of humans. Losing that instinctive fear response puts them into more situations where they could get into an altercation with a human. which often results in that bear being put down by humans. “A fed bear is a dead bear,” says Servheen, referring to a common saying among biologists and conservationists. Predatory or predation-related attacks are quite rare, only accounting for 17% of attacks in North America since 1955. They occur when a carnivore views a human as prey and hunts it like it would any other animal it uses for food. (. . .)