IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special original jurisdiction)
Writ
Petition No. of 2012
SYNOPSIS
SUMMARY OF MISTAKES IN THE CA
FINAL NOVEMBER 2011 EXAMS CONDUCTED BY INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF
INDIA (A BODY ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ACT OF PARLIAMENT)
(Mistakes /Errors
committed by respondent 2 while setting and evaluating the papers which would
have a direct impact on the marks obtained by the students)
Strategic Financial Management –
Group I Paper 2
|
Question No.
|
|
Particulars
|
Marks Allotted
|
|
3
(a)
|
|
Business valuations
|
10
|
|
3
(b)
|
|
Convertible Debentures
|
6
|
|
|
Total
|
16
|
|
Advanced Management Accounting
Group II Paper 5
|
Question No.
|
Particulars
|
Marks Allotted
|
|
|
1 (b)
|
Incremental Cost *
|
5
|
|
|
1 (d)
|
Total Quality Management
|
1
|
|
|
3 (a)
|
Activity Based Costing*
|
8
|
|
|
3 (b)
|
Transfer Pricing
|
8
|
|
|
4 (b)
|
Step Fixed Cost – CVP Analysis*
|
6
|
|
|
6 (a)
|
Network Analysis
|
10
|
|
|
Total
|
38
|
||
MISTAKES CLASSIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
o
Mistakes admitted by the Respondent 2- Paper
5- Q. 3(b)= 8 marks
o
Mistakes apparent on the face of the record-
Paper 5- Q.1. (b),1 (d), 3(a), 6(a)= 24 marks , Paper 2- Q.3(a), 3(b)= 16 marks
o
Mistakes confirmed by experts and subject to
interpretation- Paper 5- Q.4 (b)= 6 marks
CITATIONS OF HON’BLE SUPREME COURT FOR GRANTING
THE PRAYER
·
Sahiti and Ors. Vs. Respondent: The
Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and Ors 6202 of 2008/
Decided on 22.10.2008.
-“The above decision deals with the right of
the student or candidate to claim re-examination/re evaluation of his answer
sheet and the power of the High Court to order revaluation of answer sheets. It
does not deal with the power of the Board to order re-evaluation of answer
books if factual scenario so demands. Award of marks by an examiner has to be
fair and considering the fact that re-evaluation is not permissible under the
Statute at the instance of candidate, the examiner has to be careful, cautious
and has the duty to ensure that the answers are properly evaluated. Therefore,
where the authorities find that award of marks by an examiner is not fair or
that the examiner was not careful in evaluating the answer scripts
re-evaluation may be found necessary. There may be several instances wherein
re-evaluation of the answer scripts may be required to be ordered and this
Court need not make an exhaustive catalogue of the same. However, if the
authorities are of the opinion that re-evaluation of the answer scripts are
necessary then the Court would be slow to substitute its own views for that of
those who are expert in academic matters”.
Brief Comments and Suggestion for revaluation
necessitated because of the mistake of the respondent:
The Normal Practice in all the exams is to give Full Credit for the
student who attempts the wrong question. But in this type of professional exams
where students of high preparation when they see the question is wrong or
confusing they may not like to take a risk and solve them. So the marks
obtained by the student should be suitably adjusted, for example, if the actual
marks awarded to the student is say 31% in Paper 5, His marks must be changed
to (31/62)*100 = 50 Marks. This method should be the best in our opinion as the
student must solve all the questions, as they are compulsory and if he is
declared fail he must reappear all the four papers in the group again.
While considering the above we should first take into consideration
the psychology of the student who will have to write answer to the question
asked. If there is confusion because of the errors, the student will not be in
a position to handle it. If we take Question no. 3(a) in SFM, even a normal
person will know that it is a glaring mistake but the institute solved it with
the mistake and awarded marks for the students who did the mistake. So, if a
student identifies the mistake (no one will take the risk), he would not have
got marks.
Let us take a similar situation, Question No. 1(b) or 3 (b) in
paper 5, in spite of being asked wrongly they were solved after taking into
consideration the mistake. Thus a student who identifies the mistake and solves
would have got marks (total confusion and lack of clarity arising out of the
wrong setting of the papers).
Question No. 3 (a), the answer given assumes that introduction of
ABC will reduce the cost which is a total mistake, as ABC helps only in
scientific ascertainment of cost of a product and it is not a tool of cost
reduction. So, no student would have answered according the examiners
expectation and would have got very low marks for the correct answer.
Question No. 4 (b), the workings given in the answer are not asked
in the question. First of all the question should have been asked to calculate
the Break Even Point. Whereas the actual question is to calculate the number of
students required to cross the Break Even Point. Crossing may be just crossing
or anything more. No student would have done the working as it was not asked.
So, he would have lost marks for the same on account of the fault of the
respondent.
Question No. 1 (d), inspection of raw material is taken as a
preventive cost in the suggested answer. The Same question was asked in May
2011 where the suggested answer says it is an appraisal cost. So, if one is
correct the other should have been wrong even according to the respondent
2.
V. Venkata Siva Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P. No. Of 2012
V. Venkata Siva Kumar
Chartered Accountant
16/11, Anusuya Street
Rangarajapuram, Kodambakkam
Chennai – 600 024 ... Petitioner ............... Petitioner
Versus
1.
Union of India
Ministry of Corporate
Affairs
Rep. by the Secretary
A-Wing, Shastri
Bhavan
Rajendra Prasad Road
New Delhi- 110 001
2.
President of ICAI
Institute of
Chartered Accountants of India
P.O. Box.No.7100 -
I.P. Marg
New Delhi-110 002
3.
Institute of Chartered Accountants of
India
Rep. by its Secretary
P.O. Box.No.7100 -
I.P. Marg
New Delhi-110 002
4.
The Union of India
Ministry of Law
Rep. by its Secretary
4th Floor,
A- Wing, Shastri Bhavan
Dr. Rajendra Prasad
Road
New Delhi - 110 001
5.
The Union of India
Ministry of Human
Resources Development
Rep. by its Secretary
Shastri Bhavan
Dr. Rajendra Prasad
Road
New Delhi- 110
001
... Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
OF THE PETITIONER
I,
V. Venkata Siva Kumar, son of Late V S Gandhi, residing at 16/11, Anusuya
Street, Rangarajapuram, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024 do hereby solemnly
affirm and sincerely state as follows;
1.
I
am the Petitioner herein and as such I am well acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case and as such competent to affirm this affidavit for
the benign consideration of this Hon’ble Court.
2.
I
state that the present writ petition is filed as a Public Interest Litigation and
that I have no personal interest in respect of the subject matter of the PIL. I
state that the averments contained herein are based on my personal knowledge,
information and belief and where statements made are based on records,
sufficient particulars of such records are given under valid references. I state
that I have filed the present PIL from and out of my own expenses and that I
have not received any monies from any person for this purpose. I further state
that no other PIL relating to the subject matter of this writ petition has been
filed before this Hon’ble Court or any other Court to the best of my knowledge.
I undertake to pay any cost imposed by this Hon’ble Court if the Hon’ble Court
comes to a finding that the same has been filed for an oblique motive or
personal interest.
3.
I
submit that I am a gold medalist in graduation, practicing as a Chartered
Accountant and am a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. I
state that I have been a Professor of costing, management accountancy and
Strategic financial management for students pursuing professional courses like
CA, MBA, ICWA for the past 25 years and in this capacity, I have been a member
of the faculty of leading management and professional institutions like
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, Loyola Institute of Business
Management and the Pearson group of institutions among others.
4.
I
state that I have authored several books on costing, management accountancy and
Strategic financial management particularly for students pursuing Chartered
Accountancy course. I have also written articles in professional journals on
management and other topics relevant to the profession of chartered accountancy
and student pursuing LL.B. Exams.
5.
I
state that having spent best part of my life as a teacher and having a long
association with students of Chartered accountancy course, I am deeply
conscious of the issues relating to educational administration and have got an authentic
and genuine interest in the welfare of the students of the chartered
accountancy course. I further state that I am conscious of the problems faced
by the CA students and this petition is borne out of a genuine will to seek
justice for the CA students’ community in general whose rights are being
violated with impunity due to the systemic arbitrary exercise of power,
capriciousness and transgression of constitutional and statutory provisions and
inefficiency in the administration of examinations of the 2nd and 3rd
Respondents.
The
facts leading up to the filing of the current writ petition are as follows:
6.
I
state that the 3rd Respondent is a body created under an Act of
Parliament and is the Supreme Body for taking any decision touching the
regulation of the profession. I state that Central Council of the 3rd
Respondent comprises of 32 members elected by the members of the profession and
8 members are nominated by the government as government nominees. I state that
the elections for the council are held once in 3 years. The 32 elected members
again elect one of them as the Vice President who automatically becomes President
the next year and holds the position for one year. I state that the Central Council
is headed by the president, who exercises wide powers under the guidance of the
council in connection with making of policies for regulating the profession of
accountancy, its members and students, etc. I further state that the 3rd
Respondent consists of 5 Regional Councils to co-ordinate the administration of
the CA profession.
7.
I
state that the President, using his wide powers nominates and co-opts the
council members and outsiders to various committees which are entrusted with
carrying out and implementing the decisions taken by the council. The council
operates through various standing and non standing committees. The secretary
who is an officer, holding a statutory position heads the administration and is
responsible for the implementation of the policies under the guidance of these
committees.
8.
I
submit that the 3rd Respondent Institute conducts examination
through its Examination Committee (which includes President and Vice President
as ex-officio members) for students aspiring to become Chartered accountants at
three levels, namely- Foundation level known as CPE (Common proficiency
Examination), Intermediate level known as IPCE (Integrated professional
competence examination) and the final stage known as the Final Examination.
9.
I
state that the current PIL focuses on the issues of CA final students. The
students pursuing the final examination will have to qualify by appearing for 8
subjects split into 2 groups of 4 subjects each. I state that a student must
get a minimum of 40 marks in each subject and an overall aggregate of 50% marks
for qualifying a group. In case a student gets above 200 marks in all the four
subjects of a group but fails to secure 40 percent in each subject, he will be
declared as failed and he will have to appear for all the papers once again
even if he had secured 59 marks in the other three papers. I state that if in
case a student gets more than 40% in all the four subjects of a group and
secures less than 200, again he will be declared as failed and will have to
appear all the 4 papers once again. I state that thousands of students are
declared failed because of getting 39 marks in a subject or 199 marks in the
aggregate, such instances are numerous and a regular feature of every exam.
10.
I
state that as per the Regulation 39(4) of CA regulations, 1988, when a student
who has failed in spite of performing well in his opinion, he can apply for
re-totalling only and no revaluation or verification of answer sheets was
allowed during the last 60 years to see their valued answer sheets to exactly know
the reason for their failure.
11.
I
state that the number of students declared passed on re-totalling during this
period of 60 years is very negligible. I further state that a huge number of
students appear for the exams several times with great mental agony and
distress without knowing when they will pass. I state that this has in fact
lead to some people terming CA to mean “COME AGAIN”.
12.
I
state that the CA exams are conducted twice a year, during May and November.
The Respondent Institute publishes suggested answers as a book after the examination,
which is the key given to the examiners for valuation and is also available for
sale. I state that during the past few years, the suggested answers are also
being published in the website of the 3rd Respondent which can be
downloaded by the students freely, giving an opportunity, for the students to
compare their performance with the suggested answers. However, there is no
remedy or redressal mechanism in case of mistakes in the suggested answers. Therefore,
a student will be failing in spite of performing well and not knowing when he
will be successful.
13.
I
state that being genuinely interested in the welfare of the students, I had
been bringing to the notice of the 3rd Respondent Institute regarding
the numerous mistakes in the suggested answers published by the it. I further
state that the several Presidents of the Respondent Institute who assumed
office year after year, who in spite of admitting the mistakes brought before
them, have done precious little to address the problems which are affecting the
lives of lakhs of students and their families for no fault of theirs. I further
state that the inefficiency is further aggravated by lack of transparency in
the administration of examination system and Board of Studies of the 3rd
Respondent.
14.
I
state that the present petition concentrates only on questions asked in the CA
final exams, on the papers of Strategic Financial Management, Paper 2 (Group-I
Final) and Management Accounting, Paper 5 (Group- II Final) which is the areas
of the Petitioner’s specialization. I state that many questions asked are
invariably repeated and just a cut-paste copy of the question asked in the
previous exams. I state that the solutions given however differ from one exam
to another. I state that the presentations in the suggested answers are highly
confusing and are of very poor quality and the same opinion is being expressed
by professors specializing in other subjects.
15.
I
state during May 2010 CA Final Exams, in spite of the question papers on the
above two subjects being very simple, very large number of students were
declared failed in those subjects. Many of them, getting single digit marks and
the pass percentage was just 2% leading to a large-scale hue and cry among the
students all over India. This was also recognized by the then President of the
3rd Respondent Institute, Mr. Amerjit Chopra and then Chairman of
the Board of Studies, in the journals published by the 3rd
Respondent called upon the students to prepare rigorously for the next exam.
16.
I
state that I had sent a mail bringing to light all the mistakes in the
suggested answers. However, I was not informed about the same by the Institute inspite
of my repeated requests about the discussions in the Council regarding the
mistakes and the consequent remedy for the students who performed well but
failed.
17.
I
state that the President of the 3rd Respondent during the year 2011,
in a student’s conference held at Chennai said that during his period he made
sure that the percentage of pass is more than 25% compared to the period of
previous President when the results were only 2%. I state that he also
mentioned the pass percentage in the foreign institutions is around 60%. This
gives an inference that passing is more concerned with the discretion of the President
rather than the performance of the students which is nothing but violation of the
constitutional and statutory rights with impunity by the Respondent Institute.
18.
I
state that even in the November-2011 exams, there were a lot of mistakes in the
suggested answers published by the 3rd Respondent Institute. I state
that 16 mark questions were solved wrongly in strategic financial management
and about 38 marks in management accounting paper. The Respondent Institute published
the comments of the examiner’s on the performance of the students in the March
2012 student’s monthly journal, which clearly gives an inference that examiners
went by the suggested answers given to them in toto.
19.
I
state that the 3rd Respondent and the examiners in their comments
also have admitted that a question carrying 8 marks was a mistake. I state that
the comments of the examiners published in the CA student (March 2012) journal
clearly shows that they have not understood the glaring mistakes committed by
the 3rd Respondent Institute while setting the papers, thus
resulting in evaluating the student’s performance based on wrong answers and
thereby jeopardizing the hard preparation of thousands of students, inflicting
mental agony and untold sufferings to them and their families.
20.
I
state that I prepared a detailed report on the mistakes published in the
suggested answers and referred the matter to eminent professors, one Dr.
Jagadeesh Jaipurya (FCA & Ph.D) and another well known professor, Mr. R.
Sivakumar, Chartered and Cost Accountant with more than 35 years of experience
in teaching CA students on the above two papers. I state that I had sent
letters through e-mail and also through a hard copy to the 2nd and 3rd
Respondents several times, requesting them to address the issue which is
affecting thousands of students and their families for no fault of them.
21.
I
state that I had also spoken to the President, Chairman of the Board of Studies,
Director, Board of Studies and some Council Members of the 3rd
Respondent, who have all accepted that there were mistakes and assured the
Petitioner of addressing them. However, there was no action from their side and
all of them stopped responding to the calls of the Petitioner. I state that I
met the 2nd Respondent on appointment on 15th February,
2012, when he visited Chennai and agreed to deal with the issues raised and
promised to sort them in the best interest of the students but till date, no
action has been taken.
22.
I
state that I had sent a letter through post dated 6th March, 16th
March and through emails dated 22nd February, 26th
February 2012 to the Respondent Institute
for publishing my report against the comments of the examiners in the CA
student journal March 2012 while also citing the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in LIC of India V. Prof. Manubhai
D. Shah (AIR 1993 SC 171=1993(3) SCC 637);
“The attitude on the part of LIC refusing to
publish the rejoinder in their magazine financed from public funds can be
described as both unfair and unreasonable; unfair because fairness demanded
that both view- points were placed before the readers, however limited be their
number, to enable them to draw their own conclusions and unreasonably because
there was no logic or proper justification for refusing applications”.
23.
I
state that during the past 10 years in particular, the enrollment of the
students to Chartered Accountancy course have increased significantly and at
present, there are about 10 lakhs students on rolls and conducting the
examinations two times in a year has become a gigantic task and the
responsibility has further increased because of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court, allowing the students to take Photostat copy of the answer sheets.
24.
I
state that the elected positions to the Council are honorary in nature and the
members are allowed to continue with their private practice and only contribute
their expertise in deliberations of the Council, which is more of an
intellectual work such as setting standards in accounting and auditing,
carrying out the quasi judicial functions for regulating the members and
profession for the betterment of the nation. I state that before 2002, the Council
members used to take policy decisions and leave its implementation to the
administration headed by the Secretary. However, during the past 10 years with
mind boggling increase in the revenues (touching Rupees fifty thousand lakhs
per annum) and with no independent audit, with no annual general meeting, with
no supervision by Comptroller and Auditor General of India and the entire power
being concentrated in the hands of few elected representatives, the involvement
and the interference of the Council members in the affairs of the 3rd
Respondent has increased to such an extent that even the day to day
administration and decision making was taken over by the President and the Council
members who claim that they are working 24x7 throughout the year for years.
25.
I
state that the Secretary of the 3rd Respondent who was a highly
qualified person was made to resign in 2008 and as no replacement could be
found in spite of several advertisements incurring lakhs of Rupees (18 Lakhs as
per RTI reply). I state that the council therefore promoted an officer (without
any professional qualification as called for in the advertisement) who joined
the organization and grew from the ranks. This officer also resigned citing
health grounds but he is yet to be relived as they couldn’t find any
replacement in spite of giving advertisements once again incurring lakhs of
Rupees. Now the entire administration / decision making has gone in to the
hands of few council members who operate without any transparency and
accountability.
26.
I
state that a certain Council member who was in the examination committee during
2010 & 2011, announced that he was intending to strengthen and reform the
entire examination system but there were so many mistakes during his active
association with the examination committee which necessitated this writ
petition. But, in 2012 the same gentle man was nominated as vice chairman board
of studies, now he gave his vision for the coaching board and students
declaring through a message in the journal that his main goal is “to make the educational material more
readable”. Which implies that he admits the present study material is not
or less readable. The time available for achieving this
gigantic task is just few months as the elections to the central council are
slated during this year.
27.
I
state that the Council members in addition to their lucrative private practice,
are nominated to many committees in the ICAI by the President. I further state
that they hold directorships in various listed companies and are involved very
actively in conducting several national and International conferences during
the year as they get an opportunity to meet Union Ministers and Government
dignitaries. They also frequently travel to foreign countries on behalf of ICAI
leaving very little time for concentrating on the work of the Committees such
as Examination Committee, Board of Studies, which involve dealing with the life
of several lacks of students and their families.
28.
I
state that with the increasing involvement in the day to day administration and
affairs of the Committees in spite of their busy schedule and lack of expertise
on many technical matters, they come out with different visions from that of
the predecessors results in discontinuity in the policies. I state that the officers
are in the constant fear of being transferred if they disobey the Council
members. So the officers are more concerned about pleasing the council members
who change every year, the result is nobody is made accountable for the
failures. I state for instance that the virtual coaching classes after spending
millions of rupees became a total failure and scrapped within few months.
29.
I
state that the presidents of the respondent, in spite of several deficiencies
in the system always make statements in the press almost on a weekly basis on
various issues giving an impression to the public they are doing the job in the
most efficient way which is contrary to the reality. Respondent 2 entered into
a tie-up with Everonn education limited for live virtual coaching classes to
the students pursuing the CA Course throughout India. The said company’s
managing director was caught by CBI along with the commissioner of the Income
Tax at Chennai, in a tax fraud/Bribing case. The then president of the
respondent 2 in August 2011 made an announcement in the media that he ordered
for a thorough investigation into the Everonn tax fraud/bribe episode by ICAI.
The news was published prominently in the media. I state that when I made a
query on the above issue through RTI in January 2012, the respondent 2 stated
that no such enquiry committee was ever formed and no investigation took place
till date. I state that in an answer to another query the respondent 2 stated
that they have not paid any amount to Everonn for the classes conducted in 83
places across India and no accounts with regard to the expenses on the virtual
coaching classes other than payment of fees to the faculty were maintained by
the respondent 2
30.
I
state that because of the growing interference of the council members without
any accountability, the frequent changes in the policies on account of the
changing chairmen of the committees year after year, the officers who are
responsible for the execution are not able to perform independently thus
resulting in administrative paralysis creeping in to the system. The petitioner
states that elections to the council during the past few years are being fought
bitterly and during the last election in 2010 a member, who is now in the
central council actively participating in all the committees and voting in the
Vice- presidents election was charged with booth capturing and an FIR was
lodged by the Respondent Institute against him shows the keen interest of the
members for somehow getting elected to the council of 3rd Respondent
Institute.
31.
I
state that there is a trend of long time teachers of SIRC of ICAI contesting in
election for council posts. However, contrary to expectations, this trend
resulted in the continuing negative interference with the coaching activities
undertaken by the ICAI rather than leading to its growth, so much so, the
Petitioner submits that the specially constituted Student Committee entrusted
with the task of regulating and administering coaching classes has been
completely sidelined and this role has been all but usurped by the Regional
Councils. I state that this trend also lead to some alarming development and
damaging suggestions about the vested interests within the Central Council and
Regional Councils that have tampered with the CA examinations so as to give an
upper hand to students enrolled in the private coaching centres in which
members of the Councils held a stake.
32.
I
state that the respondent, before the Honorable Supreme Court bench comprising
of Justice RV Raveendran and Justice AK Patnaik ICAI in a related case, had
contended that the disclosure of Answer Sheets would burden the examination
body with extra work. However, the Supreme Court announced that “Additional
workload is not a defense. If there are practical insurmountable difficulties,
it is open to the examining bodies to bring them to the notice of the
government for consideration so that any changes to the Act can be deliberated
upon. Examining Bodies like ICAI should change their old mindsets and tune them
to the new regime of disclosure of maximum information.”
33.
I
state that with many fold increase in the number of students running into
several lakhs, with already proven administrative and policy deficiencies, the
present administrative structure for the reasons explained below, the
respondent will not be able to discharge the gigantic burden which is likely to
affect lakhs of students and their families.
34.
I
state that the above instances clearly show the indifferent attitude of the 3rd
Respondent in addressing the pressing grievances of the poor CA students in
particular, who are facing untold mental agony and humiliation because of the
inefficiency, admitted incapacity arbitrary exercise of power, capriciousness
and transgression of fundamental rights with impunity by the 3rd
Respondent.
35.
I
submit that I had brought all these issues in the form of resolutions for
deliberation in the 60th Annual General Meeting of the Regional
council of the respondent 2 as per regulation 150 of the CA Regulations, 1988
Act. The respondent 2 however did not circulate the resolutions for the 40,000
plus members of the region through its monthly journals along with the notice
of 60th AGM because of which only less than hundred out of 40000
members attended the meeting which concluded without any fruitful
deliberations. The respondent 2 did not even circulate the deliberations held
in the 60th Annual General Meeting of SIRC to the members and even
refused to give the adopted minutes even for an RTI query.
36.
I
submit that being left with no other alternative remedy and with the CA exams fast
approaching (in May 2012), with no response from the 3rd Respondent,
I am constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. I submit that the Petitioner has an excellent case on merits and the
prima facie case and balance of convenience lie entirely in favour of his
petition for the grant of interim relief as prayed for. On the other hand no
prejudice or hardship would be caused to the Respondents by granting an interim
order as sought as the next CA Final exams are yet to be held (will be held
only in May-2012). The petitioner submits that the grant of interim relief
would only be to the benefit of thousands of students, who took up CA Final
exams in November-2011 throughout India.
In the circumstances
the petitioner most humbly prays that this honorable court may be pleased to,
a)
Issue
an order of ad interim injunction restraining the 3rd Respondent
Institute from holding the CA Final Exams in May 2012 or any other subsequent
time without revaluation of the November 2011 answer scripts pending disposal
of the writ petition;
b)
Issue
WRIT in the nature of a DIRECTION, directing the 3rd Respondent to
re-valuate the answer scripts of the students who appeared in the November 2011
exams in line with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2009)
1 SCC 599;
c)
Issue
a WRIT in the nature of a DIRECTION, directing the 3rd Respondent to
constitute an Independent Expert Committee study the existing examination
system and consider the necessity and possibility of re-vamping the same in the
interest of the students and to look into student activities such as setting
question papers, answer keys/suggested answers etc.;
d)
Pass
any or such other orders as this honourable court may deem fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Dated at
Chennai on this the 25th day
of April, 2012.
PETITIONER
IN PERSON
IN
THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special
Original Jurisdiction)
W.P.
No. of 2012
V.
Venkata Siva Kumar
… Petitioner
Versus
Union
of India
&
Others.
… Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
OF V. VENKATASIVAKUMAR
V.
VENKATASIVAKUMAR
PARTY-IN-PERSON
No comments:
Post a Comment