Introduction:

In a noteworthy decision, the Karnataka High Court addressed the controversy surrounding the Karnataka Common Entrance Test (CET) 2024, where approximately 50 questions were excluded from the examination for being out of syllabus. The case was brought before the court by 18-year-old Thanmay U, who represented himself. The petitioner sought a direction to the Karnataka Examination Authority (KEA) to include all 180 questions in the rank list for Engineering seats, arguing that the exclusion of these questions prejudiced his performance and ranking. The court, however, upheld the state government’s decision to exclude the questions based on the recommendations of an expert committee.

Arguments:

The petitioner, Thanmay U, argued that the exclusion of out-of-syllabus questions after the CET 2024 examination was unjust and detrimental to the candidates, including himself. He contended that had he known the questions would be expunged, he would have allocated his time differently, focusing on questions within the syllabus. Thanmay sought a direction to conduct counseling for Engineering seats based on a rank list that included all 180 questions. He also requested higher marks in consideration of the difficulty level of the CBSE syllabus compared to the PUC syllabus, highlighting the disadvantage faced by CBSE students.

The state government, represented by Additional Advocate General Vikram Huilgol, opposed the petition, arguing that the syllabus for CET was publicly available, and the decision to exclude out-of-syllabus questions was justified. The government emphasized that the action was taken following complaints from students, parents, and teachers regarding the inclusion of questions outside the prescribed syllabus. The respondents argued that individual grievances should not disrupt the entire examination process and that the exclusion of out-of-syllabus questions was a necessary corrective measure.

Court’s Judgment:

A single judge bench of Justice S. Suni Dutt Yadav presided over the case. After examining the arguments and evidence, the court upheld the state government’s decision to exclude the out-of-syllabus questions. Justice Yadav noted that the decision was based on expert recommendations and aimed at ensuring fairness in the examination process.

The court acknowledged the petitioner’s concerns about the time spent on the out-of-syllabus questions and the potential impact on his ranking. However, it emphasized that such grievances should not overturn the entire process. The court stated that individual cases of prejudice, like that of the petitioner, must be considered in policy-level discussions rather than through judicial intervention.

Furthermore, the court directed the KEA and the state government to take preventive measures to avoid similar issues in future examinations. Justice Yadav remarked, “Needless to state that such mistakes ought not to occur in future. The KEA and the State are required to take adequate measures to avoid such situations in future.”

In denying the petitioner’s request for higher marks based on the CBSE syllabus’s perceived difficulty, the court noted that it would not be practical to pass such directions for the current year. It suggested that these matters should be open for appropriate consideration at the policy level by the government.