THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ANR. versus T. K. RANGARAJAN AND ORS. on 22 November 2018

[2018] 13 S.C.R.

ATHE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ANDANR.

v.

T. K. RANGARAJAN AND ORS.

B(Civil Appeal No. 11230 of 2018)

NOVEMBER 22, 2018

[S. A. BOBDE AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.]

Education/Educational Institutions: MBBS/MD Course –National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test-UG – Bi-lingual examinationC– Questions set in English with an option of an additional regionallanguage – 24,000 students took examination in tamil language –Certain mistranslations in the tamil version for 49 questions andanswers – High Court awarded four grace marks for the 49questions, in total 196 grace marks – On appeal, held: KnowledgeDof the subject in English was considered a requirement and studentswere expected to resolve any ambiguity by reference to the questionsin English Language – English version would be final because theentire education for MBBS/BDS courses throughout the countryare taught in English – Simple reference to the English version wouldhave clarified the imprecise word occurred in the Tamil version –EMethod adopted by the High Court is manifestly arbitrary andunjustified and cannot be sustained as the students who gave theexamination in Tamil have been unduly benefited only because theyopted to give examination in Tamil – Thus, the judgment of the HighCourt is set aside.

F

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The Division Bench lost sight of the fact thatthe students appearing for the NEET-UG, 2018 Examinationapplied for admission to the course of MBBS/BDS which isentirely taught in English. The facility of a bilingual question paperGwas essentially meant for the students who were more familiar inTamil than in English. Moreover, the expert body which set theexamination seems to have contemplated the difficulty that mayarise in translation of words from English to Tamil and had takendue precaution by inserting instruction that required the students H

to refer to the English version in case of any ambiguity. Thisimplies that knowledge of the subject in English was considereda requirement and students were expected to resolve anyambiguity by reference to the questions in English Language.[Para 12][1172-E-H]

1.2 If one has a look at actual discrepancies in the questionsthat were said to have created confusion, it seems that the wordwith the imprecise meaning could have been easily discoveredto be faulty and a simple reference to the English version wouldhave clarified the same. A simple reference to the context in whichthe imprecise word occur in the Tamil version would show thatthe word could not have that meaning at all and there was obviouslysome mistake which needed to be resolved by reference to theEnglish version. The errors were not factual and could have easilybeen answered by referring to the English Version.[Para 14, 15][1173-C-D, G]

1.3 This Court may not be understood to be taking the viewthat mistakes in translation, which give a disparate meaning,should be allowed to appear in question papers. The translationmust be accurate. From the next academic year 2019-20, theNEET Examination will be conducted by the National TestingAgency (NTA), a society set up by the Government of India withthe objective of conducting examination for grant of admissionetc. The NTA is established to ensure that the methodology oftranslation to conduct the examination is improved. In order tomake it foolproof, it is proposed that the translation will be doneby subject experts who are proficient in both the languages i.e.the source language and the target language. The translation willbe done from the target language to the source language andback to the target language. Thus, for example a question inEnglish translated in Tamil will be re-translated back to English.This dual translation approach will remove any chance of ambiguityin the question paper. It is proposed that in case of any ambiguitybetween a regional language and English it will be the Englishversion which will be final as held by this Court in the order dated25.01.2018. The last mentioned clause is extremely significantto ensure that the students have some basic knowledge of Englisheven if they are allowed the facility to write the examination intheir regional language. Presumably, this is because the entire A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aeducation for MBBS/BDS courses throughout the country aretaught in English. [Paras 16, 17][1173-H; 1174-A-E]

1.4 Assuming that there was some justification in the pleathat students were prevented from understanding the questionand therefore could not answer properly, it is difficult to sustainBthe remedy provided by the High Court. Because of a mistake intranslation which could have been detected and avoided by thestudents, it is unjust that all the students across the board whotook the examination in Tamil have been awarded four marks forall the 49 questions without any reference to the answer of thosequestions. The consequence is equally unjust and unacceptableCas the students who gave the examination in Tamil have beenunduly benefited only because they opted to give examination inTamil. It is said that there are some students who might haveotherwise failed but for the addition of marks by the High Courtmost of these students have scored higher than those who gaveDthe examination in English and other regional languages. This ismainly due to the blind allocation of 196 marks to every studentwho gave the exam in Tamil. [Para 18][1174-E-H; 1175-A]

1.5 In the impugned judgment no attempt was made to havethe marks evaluated by an independent expert body instead theEHigh Court resorted to blind allocation of full marks for each ofthe questions. No attempt was made to see whether the studentshave in fact attempted answers to the questions, which wereclaimed to be imperfectly translated and has proceeded to awardthe full marks for 49 questions to all candidates who had opted togive the examination in Tamil. The method adopted by the HighFCourt is manifestly arbitrary and unjustified and cannot besustained. [Para 19][1175-C-F]

1.6 The list of students who opted to give the NEET-UG,2018 Examination in Tamil after the addition of 196 marks isstartling. The High Court lost sight of the primary duty of CourtGin such matter that is to avoid arbitrary results. The judgment ofthe High Court is set aside. It is directed that from the year 2019-20 onwards the NEET-UG Examination would be conducted bythe National Testing Agency and the bilingual examination wouldbe conducted after the question paper is translated as set out H

THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION v.T. K. RANGARAJAN

according to the instructions in the affidavit signed by the Director,National Testing Agency. [Paras 20 and 22][1175-F-H;1176-F-G]

Kanpur University, Through Vice Chancellor and Othersv. Samir Gupta and Ors. (1983) 4 SCC 309 : [1984] 1SCR 73 – distinguished.

Guru Nanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg and others(2005) 13 SCC 749 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

(2005) 13 SCC 749referred to

Para 19

[1984] 1 SCR 73distinguishedPara 21

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11230of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.07.2018 of the High Courtof Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench in W.P. (MD) No. 11916 of2018.

With

Civil Appeal Nos. 11232, 11237, 11234, 11241, 11236, 11239, 11235,11240, 11238, 11233, 11231, 11242 of 2018.

Maninder Singh, ASG, Guru Krishna Kumar, Ms. V. Mohana, Sr.Advs., Tara Chandra Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Ms. PankhuriShrivastava, Parangat Pandey, Ms. Ashita Chawla, R. Nedumaran, P.R. Kovilan, Padhbanaban, Mrs. Geetha Kovilan, V. Vasudevan, Ms.Jubli Momalia, Kaustubh Shukla, Sandeep Dubey, Abhay Singh, N. G.R. Prasad, T. Harish Kumar, Harish Pandey, S. K. Gupta, Prashant,Ms. Priya Mishra for G. S. Makker, Rajeev Sharma, Prabhas Bajaj,Gaurav Sharma, A. P. Mayee, A. Selvin Raja, Chirag Jain, Advs. for theappearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S. A. BOBDE, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. One of these appealsis preferred by the Central Board ofSecondary Education (CBSE) and the rest are filed by students whohave appeared in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test-UG (for short‘NEET-UG’), 2018 and have taken the exam in English.This test is

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aconducted according to the regulations framed under the Indian MedicalCouncil Act, 1956 and the Dentists Act, 1948.

3. The questions in the NEET-UG, 2018 paper consists of 180objective type questions. Bi-lingual questions were set for this examinationin English with an option of an additional regional language. The correctBanswer to the questions presented in the exam is one of the four optionsoffered for each question. Each correct answer carries four marks andeach incorrect answer results in the deduction of one mark.

4. In a writ petition filed by the students, who had taken theexamination in the regional language of Tamil. The High Court of MadrasCnoticed certain mistranslations in the Tamil version for the questions andanswers in 49 questions. The High Court decided thatnearly 24,000students who took the examination in Tamil are entitled to four gracemarks for each incorrectly translated question therefore, each of thesestudents are entitled to a total of 196 grace marks, (i.e., 49 x 4).

5. The result is obviously an unprecedented awarding of marks toa certain section of students who opted for the examination in Tamil,thus securing them higher marks than all the other type of studentsirrespective of their actual performance in the examination. The problemarises because of the bi-lingual system of the examination.

D

E6. Out of 13,23,672 lakh students, who appeared for theexamination, approximately 10.5 lakh took it in English, approximately1.5 lakh opted for regional languages and of these about nearly 24,000candidates took the examination in Tamil language.

7. The dispute in the present case concerns these 24,000 studentsonly who have been benefited by the High Court’s order and have beenFawarded 4 marks for the 49 questions each irrespective of their actualanswers.

8. The genesis is as follows – Owing to nation wide increasingdemand that the NEET examination should also have the option of aregional language, the CBSE introduced question papers in 13 languages,Gi.e. English and 12 regional languages. In the year 2017-18, apparently,two sets of questions papers were set. One in English and the other inthe regional languages. This examinationwas challenged since it wasbelieved that the objective of the common entrance test cannot be fulfilled H

THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION v.T. K. RANGARAJAN [S. A. BOBDE, J.]

if the questions are different. The matter came up before this Court.The CBSE justified the method adopted by it as the principle of equivalentdifficulty. This Court in Writ Petition (C) No.390 of 2017 vide orderdated 25.01.2018 observed as follows: - “We are disposed to think that it would be appropriate forCBSE the questions papers set in English, Hindi or any otherregional languages should be the same. It shall facilitate thestudent’s community to choose the language they intend toadopt to answer the questions and in that event the principleof uniformity shall be appositely maintained for all thecategories of students. When there is appropriate translation,the identity and uniformity of the question papers will be inthe realm of certainty. We have been apprised that it is difficultto translate certain areas in regional languages pertainingto medical terms. In such circumstances, it shall be within thedomain of the experts to use the medical terms as they are.”

This would help the students to choose the language they adoptfor answering the questions and there would be uniformity for allcategories of students, i.e., those opting to answer in English and thoseopting to answer in a regional language. In turn, the CBSE decided andstated before this Court that the pattern of the NEET-UG, 2018examination as regards to language would be as follows:- “(c) Language of the Question Papers.

i. Candidates can opt for question Papers in either of thefollowing languages:

ENGLISH HINDI ASSAMESE BENGALI GUJARATI KANADAMARATHIORIYA TAMIL TELUGU URDU

ii. Option of medium of Question Paper will be exercised whilefiling in the application form. The option once exercised bycandidates cannot be changed later.

iii Candidates opting for English would be provided TestBooklet in English only.

iv Candidates opting for Hindi would be provided BilingualTest Booklet i.e. in Hindi and in English.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Av. Candidates opting for vernacular languages would beprovided Bilingual Test Booklet i.e. in selected language andin English.

vi. In case of any ambiguity in translation of any of thequestions, its English version shall be treated as final.”

B

9. Instruction (vi) above, assumes significance in this case. Thisinstruction was also incorporated in the hall ticket which allowed admissionto the examination hall to ensure that it is not missed.

10. The main grievance of the Petitioners before the High Courtseems to have been that the Tamil translation of the English questionsCmisled them. As the translation did not have the same meaning as theEnglish questions,since some of the words used in Tamil were notaccurately translated from English.This led to incorrect answers. Thisbeing so, the Petitioners prayed for the grant of ’Grace Marks’ to all thestudents who gave the NEET-UG, 2018 Examination in the Tamil mediumDfor all 49 questions in which such errors occurred.

11. The High Court held that the 49 question in Tamil wereambiguous especially in respect of the students who had throughoutstudied in Tamil medium and had scant knowledge of English. The HighCourt further noted that the average knowledge of English even for oneEwho has studied in an English Medium school is just about adequate.

12. The Division Bench seems to have lost sight of the fact thatthe students appearing for the NEET-UG, 2018 Examination applied foradmission to the course of MBBS/BDS which is entirely taught in English.The facility of a bilingual question paper was essentially meant for thestudents who were more familiar in Tamil than in English. Moreover,Fthe expert body which set the examination seems to have contemplatedthe difficulty that may arise in translation of words from English to Tamiland had taken due precaution by inserting instruction(vi) (supra)thatrequired the students to refer to the English version in case of anyambiguity.

G

This implies that knowledge of the subject in English wasconsidered a requirement and students were expected to resolve anyambiguity by reference to the questions in English Language. We mustmake note that there is no grievance whatsoever that there was anydifficulty about the questions in English language.

H

THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION v.T. K. RANGARAJAN [S. A. BOBDE, J.]

13. Some of the examples of the discrepancies in translation whichoccurred in the Tamil version, are as follows: - In the English version the students were asked to select the incorrectoption for the following sets of examples for divergent evolution:-

(1) Forelimbs of man, bat and cheetah

(2) Heart of bat, man and cheetah

(3) Eye of octopus, bat and man

(4) Brain of bat, man and cheetah

14. If one has a look at actual discrepanciesin the questions thatwere said to have created confusion, it seems that the word with theimprecise meaning could have been easily discovered to be faulty and asimple reference to the English version would have clarified the same.A simple reference to the context in which the imprecise word occur inthe Tamil version would show that the word could not have that meaningat all and there was obviously some mistake which needed to be resolvedby reference to the English version.

15. According to the Respondent No. 1in the Tamil version theword ‘Cheetah’ is translated as ‘Sita’. Now it would be obvious toapply the common sense that Sita, which is a name of Goddess and usedfor human beings, cannot occur in the example for divergent evolutionthatdeals with man, bat and cheetah etc. This mistake in‘Cheetah’appearing as ‘Sita’ is said to have occurred because ofmispronunciation of the word ‘Chiruthaiyin’ as ‘Seethavin’. Similarly,the word ‘Octopus’ has been translated as ‘Aathadapuz’ which seemsto be the result of mispronunciation. Likewise, it was pointed out that inrespect of translating ‘Ragam’ which means variety. In Tamil translationwas ‘Nagam’ which means ‘Nail’. We do agree that a plainreading,sounds absurd but it would be obvious to anyone that the word‘Nail’would make no sense where the question deals with a new varietyof rice which was patented by a foreign company simply because therecannot be a nail of rice.The errors were not factual and could haveeasily been answered by referring to the English Version.

16. We may not be understood to be taking the view that mistakesin translation, which give a disparate meaning, should be allowed to appearin question papers. The translation must be accurate. We are informed A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

Athat from the next academic year 2019-20, the NEET Examination willbe conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA), a society set upby the Government of India with the objective of conducting examinationfor grant of admission etc. The NTAis established to ensure that themethodology of translation to conduct the examinationis improved. Inorder to make it foolproof, it is proposed that the translation will be doneBby subject experts who are proficient in both the languages i.e.the sourcelanguage and the target language.

17. The translation will be done from the target language to thesource language and back to the target language. Thus, for example aquestion in English translated in Tamil will be re-translated back to English.CThis dual translation approach will remove any chance of ambiguity inthe question paper. In spite of this safeguard, it is proposed that in caseof any ambiguity between a regional language and English it will theEnglish version which will be final as held by this Court in the orderdated 25.01.2018 referred above.

D

We find this last mentioned clause is extremely significant toensure that the students have some basic knowledge of English even ifthey are allowed the facility to write the examination in their regionallanguage. Presumably, this is because the entire education for MBBS/BDS courses throughout the country are taught in English.

E

18. Assuming that there was some justification in the plea thatstudents were prevented from understanding the question and thereforecould not answer properly, we find it difficult to sustain the remedyprovided by the High Court. The number of students that appeared inthe NEET-UG, 2018was 13,23,672, approximately 10.5 lakh took it inFEnglish, approximately 1.5 lakh opted for regional languages and of thesenearly 24,000 candidates took the examination in Tamil language. Becauseof a mistake in translation which could have been detected and avoidedby the students, we find it unjust that all the students across the boardwho took the examination in Tamil have been awarded four marks forall the 49 questions without any reference to the answer of thoseGquestions. The consequence is equally unjust and unacceptable as thestudents who gave the examination in Tamil have been unduly benefitedonly because they opted to give examination in Tamil. It is said thatthere are some students who might have otherwise failed but for the addition of marks by the High Court most of these students have scoredhigher than those who gave the examination in English and other regionallanguages. This is mainly due to the blind allocation of 196 marks toevery student who gave the exam in Tamil.

19. In Guru Nanak Dev University v.Saumil Gargand others[1],in somewhat similar circumstances where after the CBSE opined that10 out of the 21 key answers were incorrect, this Court called for areport from the CBSE and the Delhi University as regards correctnessof those 10 answers and thereupon in order to preserve merit the Courtdirected the University to re-evaluate the answers to the aforesaid 8questions with reference to key answers.

This course adopted by this Court was to prevent arbitrariness inawarding marks. We see no attempt in the impugned judgement to havethe marks evaluated by an independent expert body instead the HighCourt resorted to blind allocation of full marks for each of the questions.

In fact, in the Guru Nanak Dev University case (supra) whereinthis Court found that in respect of vague questions which were incapableof correct answers, the University could not have given credit for thosequestions to all the students, irrespective if the said questions have beenattempted or not.

Even so by the impugned judgment, the High Court has made noattempt to see whether the students have in fact attempted answers tothe questions, which were claimed to be imperfectly translated and hasproceeded to award the full marks for 49 questions to all candidateswho had opted to give the examination in Tamil. The method adopted bythe High Court is manifestly arbitrary and unjustified and cannot besustained.

20. The list of students who opted to give the NEET-UG, 2018Examination in Tamilafter the addition of 196 marks is startling. Forinstance, a student who got 260 marks has been awarded a total of 456marks. A student with 137 marks becomes entitled to 333 marks andthe student who got 92 marks becomes entitled to 288 marks. Evenstudents who have 21 marks been entitled to 217 marks. It is clear thatthe High Court lost sight of the primary duty of Court in such matter thatis to avoid arbitrary results.

1(2005) 13 SCC 749

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A

A21. The learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 placed relianceon the judgment of this Court in Kanpur University, Through ViceChancellor and Others v. Samir Gupta and Ors.[2]. According to thelearned counsel this Court in the above case granted marks to all thestudents appearing in the examination after finding an error in the answerkey. The learned counsel submits that the same approach should beBadopted in the present case. That case was decided in entirely differentcircumstances. In the first place, the examination then was not bi-lingual.Moreover, the question before this Court was called upon to decidewhether a student who answeredthe question correctly be failed for ananswer which though correct, doesn’t accord with the key answerCsupplied by the University.

No such situation has arisen in the case before us. This is not acase wherein the students claimed that they have been failed thoughthey gave the correct answer; merely because the answer key waswrong. The case is that the student couldn’t answer because the questionDwas wrongly translated from English; there was no dispute about thecorrectness of question in English. In any case, in the Kanpur case(supra)the relief granted to the students was the grant of three marksfor each of the questions answered correctly by them and the additionof one mark since one mark was wrongly deducted for the questionswrongly answered. The award of marks by the Court didn’t result inEgranting any undue advantage to one section of students over the otherstudents.

22. For these reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment of theHigh Court of Madras dated 10.07.2018. We direct that from theyear2019-20 onwards the NEET-UG Examination will be conducted by theFNational Testing Agency and the bilingual examination will be conductedafter the question paper is translated as set out according to theinstructions in the affidavit dated 22.10.2018signed by Dr. Vikas Gupta,Director, National Testing Agency as mentioned above.

23. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed.G

Nidhi Jain

Appeals allowed.

H2(1983) 4 SCC 309