Division Bench of State High Court has dismissed LPAs seeking reversal of the order of the Writ Court which had held that the Board of Professional Entrance Examination (BOPEE) has powers to nullify absurd questions and questions with wrong options. The issue had come up after the BOPEE had nullified 17 questions and change of answers of 2 questions in the Entrance test of 2014. The Divisional Bench established the authority of the BOPEE to take the corrective action. As it affected the interests of some students, they had sought legal protection.
Of course, the DB has given the judgment in favour of the Board and upheld finality of its authority in regard to taking corrective measure, yet in our view the vital part of the judgment is that one in which the Court has censured the Board in polite and subtle words. The Board has to realize that its inadequacy of rules and regulations has put many students to great inconvenience and even desperation which cannot be condoned in any way.
The real problem, as is pointed out by the DB is the mechanism of setting the question paper in a vague and controversial manner. In the first place comes the question of selection of paper setters whether within the State or outside the State. Engaging paper setter from outside the State does not mean that rationality, sensibility and non controversy are guaranteed. Very often paper setters are found trying to corner the examinees with a view to reject as many of them as they can. This perverse thinking is actually at the root of the troubles that arise. It is incumbent on the Board to be extraordinarily judicious in setting proper questions that are neither absurd nor vague. The questions have to be within the prescribed boundaries and essentially based on rational thinking and delivery. What is at stake is the career of hundreds and thousands of students. As such the Board can understand the embarrassment which intransigent paper setting can cause and has caused not only to the students but to the parents to the Board and to the judiciary as well. This has been very aptly described by the Bench in its judgment.
Another point which the DB touched upon in its judgment is that every year one or the other problem arises about the BOPEE conducting the examination. At one time leak out of the question papers was rumoured and inquiry had to be made which put a question mark on the credibility of the Board. Court cases related to the Board are frequent and students/applicants come with a variety of complaints. All this suggests that the functionality of the Board needs to be re-visited and loopholes if any need to be set right. Why should not a foolproof system come to stay provided the intentions of the policy planners are clear and not fractured? In a sense this judgment is a roadmap for the Board. That is the reason why the court has ordered that a copy of the verdict is sent to the Chief Secretary. After all it is the Government that must take note of the opinion of the court and go by its implicit directive.
Of course there is some responsibility with the aspiring candidates also. They should not frequently resort to agitational attitude if they are not able to do justice to the norms of the entrance test or the style of the question paper and answers. It is in their interests that they should acquaint themselves perfectly with the pattern of test to which they will be put. They are within their right to protest against grave discrepancy in the question paper. But this issue has to be tackled within the framework of law. The provision for students to ventilate their grievances is there provided by the rules and regulations and they would be well advised to restrain their protest to the limits of the law. In short both sides have to be moderate and sensible in seeing that Entrance Examination which is very crucial to the entire student community is conducted without hassles.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel