Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8520 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.13495 of 2010]

Sanchit Bansal & Anr. … Appellants

Vs.

The Joint Admission Board (JAB) & Ors. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. V. Raveendran, J.

Heard. Leave granted.

2. The first appellant is the son of second appellant who is a Professor in  

the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT for short), Kharagpur. Admission to  

undergraduate courses in fifteen IITs as also IT--BHU and ISM, Dhanbad is

through the Common Entrance Examination known as the Joint  Entrance  

Examination (for short IIT-JEE). The said examination is considered to be  

the toughest entrance examination in India, with more than 50 candidates  

vying for each seat in the said examination. IIT-JEE is conducted every year  

by  a  different  IIT  on  a  rotation  basis  and  is  supervised  by  the  Joint  

Admission Board (JAB or the ‘Board’), the first respondent herein. The first  

appellant appeared in the IIT-JEE 2006, as a general category candidate. He  

secured 75 marks in Methamatics, 104 marks in Physics and 52 marks in  

Chemistry, aggregating to 231. The Board had fixed the cut off marks for  

admission as 37 for Maths,  48 for 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.  

3. The  second  appellant  wrote  a  letter  dated  5.9.2006  to  all  the  IIT  

Chairmen/Directors  alleging anomalies  and inherent  contradictions  in  the  

selection process. He alleged that the cut off marks were fixed arbitrarily and  

with malafides in a manner that a student such as the first appellant with 231  

marks was found to be not qualified whereas a student who got aggregate  

marks of 154 was found to have qualified. The appellants also filed several  

2

applications  under  the  Right  to  Information  Act  2005  and  collected  

considerable data. The appellants claim that when they sought information  

about  the  procedure  for  computation  of  cut  off  marks  for  JEE 2006 the  

organising  Chairman,  JEE  2006  gave  two  different  versions  at  different  

points of time.

4. The first response given by the Organizing Chairman, JEE 2006 on  

14.5.2007 read as follows :

“Procedure for computation of cut-off marks etc. for JEE 2006

1. “Consistent with announced criteria of “Ranking” and “Tie-breaking”  given in Section 11.1 and 11.2 of the Information Brochure of JEE 2006  the different cut-offs were decided.  

2. On the basis of overall performance of candidates who appeared in all  the three subjects (Mathematics,  Physics  & Chemistry),  mean marks of  each of the three subjects along with standard deviation was determined.  The  cut-off  in  each  subject  was  decided  as  mean  marks  minus one  standard  deviation.  Further  depending  on  the  number  of  candidates  required to be qualified on All India basis, the aggregate marks cut-off  was obtained. The cut-off marks of individual subject and aggregate are  given below for GE category candidates:-

Mathematics 37 Physics 48 Chemistry 55 Aggregate 154”

The  second  response  given  by  the  organizing  Chairman,  JEE  2006  on  

12.7.2007 was as under:

3

“Procedure for cut-off determination in JEE-2006:

(i) For  each  subject,  mean  and  standard  deviation  of  the  marks  obtained are computed. For this computation only scores of those  candidates who have secured minimum 1 (one) mark in each of the  three subjects have been considered.

(ii) The cut-off marks of an individual subject is calculated as Cut-off  mark of a subject = Mean of the marks for the subject

     - Standard deviation of the marks for the subject The result has been rounded to the nearest integer.

(iii) The  mean  and  standard  deviation  of  the  aggregate  marks  are  calculated for those candidates who score at least one mark in each  subject

(iv) The aggregate cut-off mark is calculated as

Aggregate cut-off =  (Mean of aggregate marks  - Standard deviation of aggregate marks)

rounded to nearest integer   + a positive number

The  number  selected  for  counseling  (i.e.  qualified  in  JEE-2006  for  counseling)  is  1.3  X the  number  of  seats  available  in  all  participating  Institutions.  Each  time  1(one)  mark  is  added  to  the  mean-standard  deviation of the aggregate marks and the number obtained is compared  with the desired number. This process is continued until one arrives at the  desired number to be called for counseling.”

5. Feeling aggrieved by his non-selection, which according to appellants  

was due to a defective, erroneous and malafide process adopted for cut-off  

determination, the appellants filed a writ petition (WP 11434 (W) of 2007)  

claiming the following reliefs, apart from several consequential reliefs :

4

(a) To quash the selection and merit list of admissions to IIT/ITBHU/ISM  

on the basis of JEE 2006 as it was prepared on the basis of imposition of  

illogical and cut off marks in three subjects without any rational basis;

(b) to prepare and publish fresh chemistry marks for admissions to IITs in  

regard to JEE 2006 after making appropriate corrections in evaluation by  

adjusting the wrong evaluation and on that basis prepare and publish fresh  

merit list for admission to IITs/ITBHU/ISM in regard to JEE 2006.  

6. A learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ  petition holding as  

follows :

(a) The appellants could not challenge the procedure for determination of  

cut off in JEE 2006 as they had given a signed declaration that the decision  

of JAB regarding the admission to be final and they would abide by the said  

decision.

(b) The respondents had justified as to the manner of arriving at the  cut  

off marks for Chemistry in JEE 2006 and it was within the domain of the  

Joint Admission Board to decide upon the procedure for determining such  

cut off and there was no material to show that the procedure adopted was  

flawed or arbitrary.  

7. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal. A division bench by  

an interim order dated 7.7.2009 directed the Chairman of the first respondent  

Board  to  cause  any of  the  Directors  of  the IITs in  India  to  prepare  and  

5

submit  a report regarding the working out of cut off marks of Chemistry  

based on formula and/or norms on the basis of information disclosed under  

the RTI Act and also disclosed in the affidavit in opposition. The division  

bench also permitted the appellants to procure any expert’s report in regard  

to working out of cut off marks in regard to Chemistry by following the  

aforesaid two norms and submit the report.

8. In pursuance of it, the appellants secured the two reports both dated  

17.7.2009  from  T.A.Abinandanan,  Professor,  Department  of  Materials  

Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. The first report was on  

the calculation of the cut off marks in Chemistry. The concluding portion of  

the said  opinion is extracted below:

“Therefore, the cut-off marks of Chemistry as per the formula provided in  the affidavit-in-opposition comes out to be Six (6). This cannot be 55.

Conclusions : Cut-off marks in Chemistry were calculated in two different  methods;  in  both  the  methods,  the  formula  is  the  same:  “Mean minus  Standard  Deviation”;  however,  the  methods  differ  in  the  candidate  populations used for computing the Mean and Standard Deviation.  The  calculated value of the Mean and Standard Deviation will depend on the  candidate population used in arriving at these two quantities.

The cut-off marks in Chemistry, comes out, correctly and precisely, to be  MINUS SIX and SIX, respectively, based on the formula and/or norms on  the basis of information disclosed under the Right to Information Act, and  disclosed in the affidavit in opposition.  

The  Chemistry  cut-off  marks  cannot  be  55  by  any  of  the  disclosed  formulas.”

6

The second report dated 17.7.2009 of Prof. T.A. Abinandanan was on the  

analysis  of  candidates’  performance  in  JEE 2006.  We  extract  below the  

conclusion in the said report :

“A  comparison  between  my  findings  and  the  data  provided  by  IIT- Kharagpur reveals the following:

1. Number of candidates in the two categories:

Category A: I found 145,439 candidates in this category, in  perfect agreement with the data provided by IIT- Kharagpur.

Category B: I found 287,564 candidates in this category, in  perfect agreement with the data provided by IIT- Kharagpur.

2. Cut-off marks in Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry:

Mathematics Physics Chemistry

IIT-Kharagpur data 37 48 55

Category A of this study 7 4 6

Category  B  of  this  study,  provided  for  the  sake  of  completeness

-3 8 -6

In terms of cut-off marks, my findings do not agree at all with the data  provided by IIT-Kharagpur. Since the procedure used by IIT-Kharagpur  for  the  determination  of  the  cut-off  is  the  same  as  the  computation  I  performed for candidates in Category A, a direct comparison is valid.

3. For the subject of Chemistry,  following the formula provided by  IIT-Kharagpur,  the cut-off marks  determined by my analysis  is only 6,  whereas it is 55 in the data provided by IIT-Kharagpur.”

7

9. The JAB appointed a two member committee of IIT Directors (Mr.  

Gautam Barua, Director, IIT, Guwahati and Mr. Dewang Khakhar, Director,  

IIT, Bombay) to work out the cut-off marks for chemistry. They gave the  

following report dated 19.7.2009 :

“The committee first of all noted that the issue of cut-off marks in each of  the  subjects  of  the  examination,  namely,  Physics,  Chemistry  and  Mathematics has been present in the JEE system for a number of years.  The principle behind having cut-off marks is to ensure that a candidate  qualifying the JEE examination satisfies a minimum proficiency level in  each of the subjects. As the difficulty level of the question papers vary  from year to year, no absolute pass mark can be set as is normally done in  examinations. Thus the pass mark has to be relative to the performance of  the candidates of that particular year.

The committee examined the procedure for subject cut-off marks in JEE  2006  as  submitted  in  an  affidavit  to  the  Calcutta  High  Court  and  the  procedure given against an RTI application. The committee noted that the  procedures given in these document did not contain sufficient details to  calculate the cut offs.

A  presentation  was  made  before  the  committee  by  officials  of  IIT  Kharagpur,  including  the  Chairman  JEE 2006,  to  explain  in  detail  the  procedure  used  in  determining  the  cut-off  marks  in  JEE  2006.  The  procedure was also given in writing along with sample calculations based  on  the  actual  data  of  JEE  2006  (attached  as  Annexures  B-G).  A  demonstration  of  the  computer  program  implementing  the  above  procedure  and  using  the  actual  JEE  2006  data,  was  made  before  the  committee. The results obtained from this demonstration were found to be  the same as reported in the Annexures. The committee also examined the  computer program used in the demonstration and found that it was as per  the procedures reported in the Annexures. The committee was satisfied  that  the  procedures  outlined  in  the  Annexures  are  systematic  and  complete.  The  committee  also  verified  that  these  procedures  give  the  actual cut offs in JEE 2006 for all the subjects, including Chemistry, and  also the aggregate cut offs, as reported in the RTI disclosure.”

8

10. The division bench considered the said reports and the contentions of  

the parties and by impugned order dated 6.1.2010 held that it was unable to  

grant any relief to the first appellant as it was not inclined to sit over the  

wisdom of the body of experts and the appellants had not made out any  

malafides. It also noted that the procedure adopted in 2007 and 2008 was  

more transparent and simple than the selection process of 2006 and the JAB  

had made an effort after JEE 2006 to ensure that the candidates get a clearer  

picture, demonstrating that there were no possibilities of any unfair means in  

the process of selection. The said judgment is challenged in this appeal by  

special leave.               

11. The question for consideration is whether the procedure adopted by  

the Board to arrive at the cut off marks for JEE 2006 is arbitrary and mala  

fide and whether the High Court ought to have interfered in the matter.  

12. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the minutes of the  

meeting of JAB 2006 held on 17.9.2005 which laid down the procedure for  

holding the JEE 2006, furnished by the respondents, did not contain the cut  

off  procedure  for  JEE 2006.  It  was  submitted  that  the cut  off  procedure  

which was fixed before the examination was repeatedly changed after the  

9

examination  and  that  the  two  different  versions  given  by  the  Board  at  

different points of time demonstrated that none of the procedures showed  

55% as the chemistry cut off marks; that the procedure adopted was full of  

errors and defects; and that if the iterative procedure explained by the Board  

was implemented correctly, the effect would be to increasing the Maths cut  

off marks from 37 to 42 and decreasing Physics cut off marks from 48 to 44  

and Chemistry cut off marks from 55 to 51. It was also contended that the  

Chemistry cut off marks were probably manipulated to exclude appellant  

No.1 from the JEE merit list as Prof. S.K. Dube, Chairman, Joint Admission  

Board 2006 (then Director, IIT, Karagpur) and Prof. V.K.Tiwari, organizing  

Chairman, JEE 2006 had a personal grudge against the second appellant who  

was a Professor of Computer Science and Engineering at IIT, Kharagpur.  

13. On  the  other  hand  the  respondents  submitted  that  the  IIT-JEE  

examination is time tested and world renowned and has produced some of  

the brightest brains of India who have excelled in fields even apart from  

engineering  and  technology  such  as  civil  services,  management  etc;  and  

entrance  examination  is  held  in  high  regard  for  its  transparency  and  

objectivity. It was submitted that the JAB and the organizing Institute had  

ensured  that  all  steps  were  taken  to  maintain  the  confidentiality  of  the  

10

process as well as the identity of the candidates and for that purpose used a  

bar code on the left and right hand side of each OMR sheet and it was not  

possible to prejudice a particular candidate by any manual process. It was  

further submitted that the calculation of the cut off marks had been done on  

the basis of the procedure adopted by the Board in a completely transparent  

and  objective  manner;  and  there  was  no  possibility  of  any  manual  

intervention in either the calculation of cut off marks or in calculation of  

marks of any individual student.  

14. It is no doubt true that the simplest and most straight forward method  

of selecting the candidates to be called for counseling would be to take the  

candidates in the order of merit (with reference to actual marks) subject to  

their possessing a pre-declared minimum marks in each subject. For example  

the  Board  can  decide  beforehand  that  the  aggregate  cut  off  marks  for  

eligibility would be 150, that is 50 in each of the three subjects and prepare a  

merit list of the candidates who fulfil the said criteria and then call the first  

5500 students in the merit  list,  in the order of merit  for counseling. This  

would be the traditional method.

11

15. But the Board wants to select candidates with consistent performance  

in  all  three  subjects.  To  achieve  this  result  and  shortlist  about  5500  

candidates from out of 287564 candidates, the above mentioned traditional  

procedures will  not  be of  assistance.  Therefore,  a  rather  complicated  but  

scientific procedure has been followed. We may at this juncture set out the  

Evaluation  procedure for  JEE  2006  and  the  Procedure  for  cut-off   

determination in JEE 2006 done by iterative process, followed by the Board.  

“Evaluation Procedure for JEE 2006

Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) conducted by the IITs for admission to  the  Under-graduate  course  in  all  the  seven  IITs,  IT-BHU  and  ISM  Dhanbad is considered to be the best and the toughest admission test in the  world.  This  is  primarily  intended  to  attract  the  brightest  of  the  young  minds for education and research in engineering and technology in India.

Joint Entrance Examination (JEE)-2006 was conducted on 9th April 2006  was one stage of examination as approved by the Joint Admission Board  (JAB).  In  this  examination,  there  were  three  question  papers  namely  Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry. Each question paper was objective  type  in  nature  to  test  the  aptitude  and  comprehension  ability  of  the  candidates. Each question paper is a question-cum-answer book named as  Question Paper Booklet (QPB). This question paper booklet has questions  with a space for rough work and the answer sheet which is a machine  gradable bar coded OMR sheet attached to the question paper at the end.

This OMR has two parts i.e. Left Hand Side and Right Hand Side with  codes on both the side.

After the examination, the question paper booklets are collected from the  candidates and submitted to the respective Institutes by the representatives  of that Institute. The evaluation procedure is as follows:

• This question paper booklet centre wise is given to different Professors  who are  named as  Chief  Coder/coders.  For  each subject  one  Chief  coder  along  with  10-12  coders  are  involved.  Depending  upon  the  

12

number of candidates the total numbers of coders vary from Institute  to Institute.

• Under the strict supervision of all the Chief coders, the coders separate  the OMR Sheet from each of the question paper booklets and arranged  them in the prescribed manner.

• These sheets are then separated into two parts i.e. Right Hand Side and  Left Hand Side and arranged in prescribed manner.

• Left Hand Side contains the personal data of the candidates including  the Centre of Examination and his Registration No.

• Right Hand Side contains the response of the candidates which he has  answered in response to each of the question. This response is given  by bubbling the appropriate answer circle as specified.

• RHS and LHS of these OMR answer sheet are separately scanned for  all  the  candidates.  Accuracy  and  consistency  in  this  process  of  scanning are verified with sufficient number of data points for each  subject and at each IIT with the same machine and its setting. While  compiling these marks, full secrecy about the identity of the candidates  is maintained by the Bar Code already present in the RHS and LHS.”

It may be mentioned that in order to maintain quality of the candidates  getting  admission  in  IITs/IT-BHU  and  ISM  Dhanbad,  the  consistent  performance in all three subjects is required. The candidates having marks  equal to zero or negative in any one of the subjects are notconsidered for  determining subject cut-off and ranking. Candidates having marks equal to  one (1) or more in all three subjects are considered for determining cut-off  and ranking.              “PROCEDURE FOR CUT-OFF DETERMINATION IN JEE-2006:

(i) For each subject, mean and standard deviation of the marks obtained  are computed. For this computation only scores of those candidates  who have secured minimum of 1 (one) mark in each of the three  subjects have been considered.

(ii) The cut-off marks of an individual subject is calculated as Cut-off mark of a subject =

           Mean of the marks for the subject – Standard deviation of the  marks for the subject.

The result has been rounded to the nearest integer.

13

(iii) The  mean  and  standard  deviation  of  the  aggregate  marks  are  calculated for those candidates who score at least one mark in each  subject.

(iv)The aggregate cut-off mark is calculated as Aggregate cut-off = (Mean  of  aggregate  marks – Standard  

deviation  of  Aggregate marks)                   rounded  to  nearest integer  

       --  a  positive number.

The number selected for counseling (i.e. qualified in JEE-2006 for  counseling)  is  1.3  x  the  number  of  seats  available  in  all  participating Institutions. Each time 1 (one) mark is added to the  mean-standard deviation of the aggregate marks and the number  obtained  is  compared  with  the  desired  number.  This  process  is  continued until one arrives at the desired number to be called for  counseling.

 PROCEDURE FOR RANKING:

Based on the cut-off marks in the individual subjects as well as aggregate  marks in the Examination, a common merit list will be prepared without  any  relaxed  criteria.  In  addition,  separate  merit  lists  of  candidates  belonging to SC, ST and PD categories will  be prepared with different  relaxed norms relevant  to  their  categories.  While  preparing these merit  lists, if a candidate belongs to more than one category of relaxed norms,  he/she shall be considered only in the category in which he/she gets the  maximum  benefit.  There  will  not  be  any  separate  list  of  wait  listed  candidates.

PROCEDURE FOR THE BREAKING:

Tie-breaking criterion adopted for awarding ranks to the candidates who  have scored same aggregate marks is as follows :

For each subject, the mean mark will be calculated on the basis of marks  obtained by those candidates who have appeared in all three subjects. A  candidate will be ranked higher, if he/she has scored higher marks in the  subject having the lowest mean marks. If two or more candidate scored the  same marks in the above mentioned subject, then the marks of the subject  

14

with  second  lowest  mean  marks  will  be  used  for  breaking  the  tie.  Candidates scoring the same marks in all three subjects will be given the  same rank.”   

“Flow Chart illustrating procedure for subject cut off determination of JEE 2006

15

START

Number of candidates  appeared in all the papers in  JEE 2006 : 287564

Number of seats available for  admission : 4217 (GE) +411  (SC) + 164(ST) = 5444

Set cut off marks for PCM to 1 and calculate number of candidates satisfying cut off marks (N)

Calculate mean and standard deviation of each subject for N candidates

Recalculate number of GE candidates appeared in list of N Number candidates (Nc)

If  Nc>ND

Yes

No

Recalculate cut off marks (rounded to nearest lower integer) for each subject cut off =  Mean mark –standard deviation  

Recalculate N by applying cut off marks obtained in previous step

A

Add 1 mark to each subject cut off  

Recalculate N by applying cut-off marks obtained in previous step

Recalculate number of GE candidates, Nc

If  Nc>ND

Yes

No

Subtract 1 mark from cut off marks of the subject having rhe lowest average  

Recalculate N by applying cut off marks obtained in previous step

Recalculate the number of GE candidates, Nc

If  Nc>ND

Yes

C

No

Subtract 1 mark from cut off marks of the subject having lower average.   

Number of GE candidates to be  qualified in the merit list  (No.):4217x1.3 =  5482.1 = 5500

Set cut off marks and data set of previous iteration  

START

A

Recalculate N by applying cut off marks obtained in previous step  

Recalculate number of GE candidates, Nc

B

By following the said procedure the respondents claim to have obtain the  

following successive subject cut off marks :  

Chemistry cut off  marks

Physics cut  off marks

Mathematics cut  off marks

GE calculated GE required

1 5 9

13 17 22 27 33 39 45 52 59

1 3 6 9

12 16 21 26 32 39 46 53

1 6 9

12 15 18 21 24 27 31 35 39

134449 105968 83130 64420 49696 37038 27227 19803 14192 9799 6580 4490 5500

53 54 55 55 55

47 48 49 49 48

36 37 38 37 37

6144 5717 5342 5472 5585

Thereafter taking the data set of the 5585 candidates shortlisted as per the  

subject cut off process, the aggregate cut off is determined by the following  

iterative process :

“Initially  the  cut  off  mark  is  taken  as  1  and  on  that  basis  calculate  the  number  of  

candidates satisfying the cut off marks. As against the total of the candidates who had  

secured one mark each in each of the 3 subjects the candidates were found to be 134449.  

Thereafter the mean in regard to each subject is calculated by dividing total number of  

marks secured by each candidate in a particular paper and then dividing the number of  

16

B

If  Nc > ND

Yes C

Obtain final cut off marks by subtracting 1 mark from cut off marks of the  subject having low average   

Print the final cut off marks for mathematics, physics and chemistry

C

candidates who appeared for the paper. This gives the mean. Then the standard deviation  

is arrived at by adopting the formula

    Then the idea is to reduce the number from 134449 to around 5500. The cut off marks  

were recalculated for each subject by adopting the formula of cut off marks being mean  

marks less standard deviation of the marks and rounding it off to the lowest integer. Then  

if the number is still more, again calculate by applying the cut off marks procedure with  

reference to the reduced number. By this process the cut off marks have been arrived at in  

regard to each subject for 5585 which was nearest to 5500. Thereafter taking the data set  

of the said 5585 shortlisted the aggregate cut off was determined by following iterative  

process :

“Step 1 Total desired number of candidates to be called for counseling  (including SC,ST and PD candidates) > 6307 (NTD). This number is disclosed in the Counseling Brochure sent to all  the qualified candidates  

Step 2 Take dataset (N) obtained after arriving at the final subject cut- off marks.

Step 3 Calculate Mean and Standard Deviation of the aggregate marks  for dataset N.

Step 4 Calculate aggregate cut-off of GE candidates by the formula: Aggregate cut-off (171) = mean of aggregate marks (212.555) –  standard deviation of aggregate marks (41.30975).

(Note : The value was rounded off to the nearest lower integer)

Step 5 Calculate cut-off marks of SC/ST, PD by the formula: Subject cut-off of SC/ST = 0.3 x subject cut-off of GE candidates Aggregate  cut-off  of  SC/ST =  0.6  x  aggregate  cut-off  of  GE  candidates Subject cut-off of PD = 0.8 x subject cut-off of GE candidates Aggregate cut-off of PD = 0.9 x aggregate cut-off GE candidates

17

Standard  Deviation  =  s,  Mean  =  X,  Individual  marks  =  M,  Number of Student = n.

Step 6 Use subject cut-off and aggregate cut-offs for all  categories to  obtain the total desired number, NTD.

Step 7 Calculate total numbers of candidates, NT.

Step 8 If NT < NTD, decrease GE aggregate cut-off by 1 mark and go  to step 4.

Step 9 If NT  > NTD, Print NT with all categories. The calculation is  stopped.”

16. For  a  layman,  the  above  procedure  may  appear  to  be  highly  

cumbersome and complicated. But the object of the aforesaid procedure for  

arriving at the cut-off marks is to select candidates well equipped in 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 complicated would not make it arbitrary or unreasonable  

or discriminatory.

17. There  are  several  statistical  methods  of  preparing  the  ranking  for  

purpose of  selecting the best  candidates for  admission to a course,  some  

simple  and  some  complex.  Each  method  or  system  has  its  merits  and  

demerits and can be adopted only under certain conditions or by making  

certain  assumptions.  Any  such  statistical  techniques  should  be  under  

continuous review and evaluation to achieve improvement, in the light of  

18

experience gained over the years and new developments, if it is a reliable  

tool in the selection process.

18. In  Maharashtra  State  Board  of  Secondary  and  Higher  Secondary   

Education  v.  Paritosh  Bhupeshkumar  Sheth [1984  (4)  SCC  27]  it  was  

observed thus :

“...the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as  to  what  is  wise,  prudent  and proper in  relation  to  academic  matters  in  preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical  expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational  institutions and the departments controlling them.”

In  All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan   

[2009 (11) SCC 726] this court held :

“The  courts  are  neither  equipped  nor  have  the  academic  or  technical  background  to  substitute  themselves  in  place  of  statutory  professional  technical  bodies  and  take  decisions  in  academic  matters  involving  standards and quality of technical education. If the courts start entertaining  petitions from individual institutions or students to permit courses of their  choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide  better  opportunities,  or  because  they  think  that  one  course  is  equal  to  another,  without  realizing  the  repercussions  on  the  field  of  technical  education in general, it will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in  standards  of  education.  ……  The  role  of  statutory  expert  bodies  on   education and role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a   question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the   courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle of law has   to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with   education, the courts will step in.”

(emphasis supplied)

19

This  Court  also  repeatedly  held  that  courts  are  not  concerned  with  the  

practicality or wisdom of the policies but only illegality. In  Directorate of   

Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain [2007 (4) SCC 737] this court held :

“….Courts do not and cannot act as appellate authorities examining the  correctness,  suitability  and  appropriateness  of  a  policy,  nor  are  courts  advisors  to  the  executive  on  matters  of  policy  which  the  executive  is  entitled  to  formulate.  The  scope  of  judicial  review  when  examining  a  policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental  rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or  opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary.  Courts cannot   interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the   ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of  the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of  judicial review…”  

(emphasis supplied)  

19. Thus, the process of evaluation, the process of ranking and selection  

of candidates for admission with reference to their 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 of any  

enactment,  statutory  Rules  and  Regulations;  (ii)  mala  fides  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.  An  

20

action is said to be arbitrary and capricious, where a person, in particular, a  

person  in  authority  does  any  action  based  on  individual  discretion  by  

ignoring prescribed rules,  procedure or  law and the action or  decision  is  

founded on prejudice or preference rather than reason or fact. To be termed  

as  arbitrary  and  capricious,  the  action  must  be  illogical  and  whimsical,  

something without any reasonable explanation. When an action or procedure  

seeks to achieve a specific objective in furtherance of education in a bona  

fide  manner,  by  adopting  a  process  which  is  uniform  and  non-

discriminatory, it cannot be described as arbitrary or capricious or mala fide.  

20. The appellants  in  this  case  have  alleged mala  fides  on the part  of  

Chairman of the Board and Chairman of the Organising Committee.  The  

allegation  is  that  on  account  of  personal  enmity,  rivalry  and  hostility  

harboured  by  them towards  the  second  appellant,  who  happens  to  be  a  

professor  at  IIT,  Kharagpur,  they  manipulated  the  ranking  and  selection  

process  and  deliberately  set  cut-off  marks  to  deny  admission  to  second  

appellants’ son, a seat in an IIT. The appellants have not made out, even  

remotely, any such 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 students, they manipulated the process of fixing cut-off  

21

marks is too far fetched and difficult to accept, apart from the fact that there  

is no iota of material to support such a claim. It is too much to assume that  

where nearly three lakhs candidates appeared,  a particular procedure was  

adopted to  ensure that  a  particular  candidate  failed.  It  would appear  that  

somewhat similar procedure was adopted in the year 2000 and 2001. The  

iterative  procedure  involving mean  and standard  deviation  of  the  scores,  

similar  to JEE 2006 was followed in JEE 2001. The object  of the entire  

exercise  was  to  ensure  a  balanced  selection  among  the  candidates  who  

participated in the examination. IIT-JEE is a renowned examination trusted  

by the entire student world. It is not only a difficult examination to pass, but  

a difficult examination to rank and select the best of candidates having good  

knowledge in all three subjects.

21. The  appellants  next  contended  that  the  first  appellant  had  

obtained  231  marks  and  he  had  been  found  to  be  unsuitable  whereas  

candidates who got 154 were found suitable, this was absurd and illogical.  

There is nothing illogical about the process. The minimum aggregate cut off  

was 154. The minimum cut off for individual subjects was 37, 48 and 55 for  

Maths, Physics and Chemistry. If a candidate had secured the minimum in  

three subjects and had also secured the minimum of the aggregate which was  

only  154,  he  becomes  eligible;  whereas  a  candidate  who got  231 in the  

22

aggregate but does not get the minimum cut off marks in one of the subjects  

(as for example the first appellant who got only 52 which is less than the cut  

off  of  55),  naturally  cannot  be  qualified.  Even  in  standard  traditional  

examinations,  if  total  maximum  marks  was  600  (in  six  subjects)  and  

minimum marks in each of the six subjects was 35 out of 100, a candidate  

who may secure 482 marks (that 90% in five subjects, but secures only 32  

marks in one subject, will be considered as failed, whereas a person who  

secures only 210 marks (that  is  35 marks in all  the six subjects)  will  be  

considered as passed.  Where minimum performance in all  the subjects is  

also relevant, a person who fails to get the 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.  All  procedures  when  

standardized, result in some kind of injustice to some or the others. That  

cannot be helped.

22. The  next  complaint  was  about  the  procedure  adopted  based  on  

variable  cut-offs  instead  of  pre-declared  fixed  cut-offs.   Where  a  huge  

number  of  candidates  (more  than  287,000)  have  participated  in  an  

examination, for filling about 5500 seats, and it becomes necessary to select  

candidates possessing comparatively better proficiency in all three subjects,  

the  traditional  methods  of  short-listing  may  not  be  of  assistance.  The  

23

traditional methods would result in the candidates who have done extremely  

well in one subject or two subjects but have little or no proficiency in the  

third subject to steal a march over candidates who have done uniformly well  

in all the three subjects. For example, in the traditional method where 40%  

are the minimum marks required to be scored in each subject, a candidate  

who just gets 40% in Maths and 40% in Physics and 91% in Chemistry,  

would  be  eligible  and  as  his  total  marks  are  171,  will  get  admitted  in  

preference to a candidate who did uniformly well and secured 52 marks in  

Maths, 53 marks in Physics and 65 marks in Chemistry whose total is 170  

marks. The result is that a candidate who is comparatively poor in Maths and  

Physics, secures a seat by virtue of his good performance in Chemistry, in  

preference to a candidate who has done uniformly well in all subjects. The  

traditional procedure may not therefore help in securing candidates who do  

well  in  all  subjects.  If  one  has  to  choose  the  candidates  with  good  

performances in all subjects, with the average of the performance of all the  

candidates who participated in a given examination as the benchmark, it is  

necessary  to  apply  the  more  complicated  mean  and  standard  deviation  

methods.  

Let us take another illustration. Assume that Maths was a very tough subject and  

many would have failed if  40% was to be the minimum marks to pass in the  

24

examination. Candidates who secured 38% or 39% in Maths will fail, though their  

performance in Maths was reasonable and even if they had secured 70% in both  

Physics and Chemistry. By adopting mean and standard deviation methods, the  

Board does not start with a set of uniform minimum passing marks but arrives at  

different  minimum  marks  for  different  subjects,  depending  upon  the  overall  

performance of all candidates in a given subject, and enables selection of those  

who have done comparatively and uniformly well in all subjects. That is how, for  

example, JEE-2006, the cut-off marks were arrived at 37, 48 and 55 for Maths,  

Physics and Chemistry. This method ensured that those who have done reasonably  

well in Maths, when compared with the overall majority, got selected in spite of  

the fact that if the minimum marks had been prescribed as 40%, they would have  

failed. It enabled candidates who got good marks in Physics and Chemistry (Say  

80%)  but  got  only  38% or  39% in  Maths,  to  get  selected,  in  preference  to  a  

candidate who secured a mere 40% in all three subjects. In the traditional method,  

the candidate with 39%, 80% and 90% would have been unsuccessful and person  

with 40%, 40% and 40% would have been successful. The cut-off marks in Maths  

being  fixed  at  37% (instead  of  the  traditional  minimum of  40%)  enabled  the  

students who have done better in other streams to have a reasonable chance of  

getting admitted. The procedure though complicated, sought to achieve a more  

balanced  selection  when  compared  to  the  traditional  methods.  It  was  neither  

arbitrary nor capricious.     

25

23. The appellants next contended that different versions of the procedure  

adopted for arriving at the cut-off marks was given at different stages, and  

this made the entire exercise doubtful. On a careful examination we find that  

what  were given were not  different  versions,  but  better  or  more detailed  

disclosure of the same process or procedure. Apparently the Board was not  

initially willing to disclose the entire process. The RTI Act had just come  

into  force  and the  apparent  tendency  initially  was  to  give  the  minimum  

information.  Subsequently  when  pressed,  the  Board  has  come  out  with  

complete disclosure of the process adopted.

24. It  is  true  that  the  procedure  for  ranking  by  IIT-JEE has  not  been  

uniform. Some years, variable cut-off marks were adopted and some years  

fixed minimum marks were adopted. In JEE 2000 and JEE 2001, there was  

independent cut off for each subject and also for the aggregate, as in JEE  

2006. In JEE 2004, the qualifying criteria and the ranks in the screening tests  

were based on the total marks scored and there were no individual subject  

cut off marks. A common merit list was prepared based on the performance  

in individual subjects as well as aggregate in the main examination. In JEE  

2005, the qualifying criteria and the ranks in the screening tests were based  

on the total marks scored and there were no individual subject cut off marks.  

In JEE 2006 there were independent cut off marks for each subject and also  

26

for the aggregate, and the cut off procedure was not disclosed before the JEE  

examination. However in JEE 2007 and JEE 2008 subject cut off procedure  

was made available to the public through the JEE website before the JEE  

examination. During JEE 2007, the subjects cut off were determined on the  

basis that top 80% candidates qualified in each subject (that is 1, 4 and 3 in  

Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry and aggregate cut off was 206). During  

JEE 2008, the subject cut off was 5, 0 and 3 in Mathematics, Physics and  

Chemistry and aggregate cut off for common merit list was 172. The subject  

cut off procedure ensured the number of candidates above each subject cut  

off were exactly the same. In the year 2009 the subject cut off for General  

category was 11, 8 and 11 for Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry (out of  

160 each) and the aggregate cut off was 178. The cut off marks (that is the  

minimum qualifying marks for ranking (MQMR) is arrived at by computing  

the average of the marks secured by all the candidates for each of the three  

subjects. In the year 2010 also the subject cut off were based on the average  

of the marks secured by all candidates in each subject. This would show that  

there is a gradual evolution in the process of standardizing ranking, leading  

to improvement and stabilization of the procedure.  

27

25. We may note that even now many feel that the current pattern of IIT-

Joint Entrance Examination, has failed to ensure the selection of best among  

the  aspirants.  They  feel  that  that  coaching  classes  have  given  several  

candidates of limited ability an edge over others, by training them to answer  

the multiple choice questions and get through, thereby blocking the chances  

of better candidates with deeper understanding of concepts and analytical  

skills required for a course of study at IITs. They also suggest that weightage  

should be given to class XII marks, in selection to IITs, so that the coaching  

class culture is discouraged. On the other hand coaching centres contend that  

the  improve  the  skills  of  the  candidates  and  make  them  ready  for  the  

undergoing the  tough course.  There are  those who are  satisfied  with the  

existing system and those who find several faults with it. All that can be said  

is that the selection process requires to be upgraded and fine tuned year after  

year with periodic changes in the process, so that the selection process and  

examination remain relevant and meaningful. But all aspects connected with  

the  process  are  technical  falling  within  the  purview  of  the  professional  

experts in charge and the role of the courts is very limited.  

26. The  procedure  adopted  in  JEE  2006  may  not  be  the  best  of  

procedures, nor as sound and effective as the present procedures. In fact the  

28

action taken by the appellants in challenging the procedure for JEE 2006,  

their  attempts  to  bring  in  transparency  in  the  procedure  by  various  RTI  

applications, and the debate generated by the several views of experts during  

the course of the writ proceedings, have helped in making the merit ranking  

process more transparent  and accurate.  IITs and the candidates who now  

participate in the examinations must, to a certain extent, thank the appellants  

for their effort in bringing such transparency and accuracy in the ranking  

procedure.  But  there  is  no  ground  for  that  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. It is true that if in JEE 2006, a  

different or better process had been adopted, or the process now in vogue  

had  been  adopted,  the  results  would  have  been  different  and  the  first  

appellant might have obtained a seat. But on that ground it is not possible to  

impute malafides or arbitrariness, or grant any relief to the first appellant.  

Therefore, the appellant will have to be satisfied in being one of the many  

unsung heroes who helped in improving the system.  

27. We find no reason for interfering with the order of the High Court.  

The appeal is dismissed.

29

…………………………..J. (R V Raveendran)

New Delhi; …………………………..J. October 11, 2011.  (A K Patnaik)    

30