he Madras High Court, in a relief to Indian Institute of Technology-Kanpur, stayed its earlier order which directed them to redo the JEE Advanced 2018 rank list.
The division bench stayed the single bench’s order which maintained that evaluation should be according to instructions given at the time of the exam. He had said that the number of candidates selected would not be affected — only their rankings will be changed.
The appeal filed by IIT-Kanpur came up before a division bench of Justices Huluvadi G Ramesh and Dhandapani who held that the July 2 order of the single judge was totally unwarranted since the evaluation of the exam was already done.
Why was this case filed?
L Lakshmi Sree had filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court. She was an examinee in Joint Entrance Examination Advanced held in Chennai on May 20.
The petitioner sought a direction to quash the clarification issued by IIT-Kanpur against its original instructions given during the exam.
The petitioner said that the candidates were given instructions to answer the correct numerical value in decimal notation rounded off to the second decimal place. Only those who followed the exact instructions were supposed to be awarded full marks.
According to petitioner, she herself spent quality time to answer the questions according to the instructions. However, some candidates, without reading the instructions carefully, had answered with one decimal point or without any decimal notation.
However the IIT-Kanpur authorities later on issued a clarification whereby if an answer is the integer 11, all the answers entered as 11, 11.0, or 11.00 will be correct.
The petitioner was seeking a direction to quash this very clarification and the High Court ruled in her favour directing the institute to give preference to candidates who have answered according to the prior instructions.
IIT-Kanpur immediately filed an appeal in the court challenging the order by Justice S Vaidyanathan.
Senior counsel Vijay Narayanan submitted that the order passed after the evaluation of the test had created confusion among students and parents.
When the petitioner has already been allotted a seat such an order is totally unnecessary, he added
On the basis of the submission and hearing of both sides, the court stayed the previous order passed by the single bench.