Madras HC stays order directing redo of JEE Advanced rank list

Chennai: The Madras High Court today stayed an order directing IIT-Kanpur to redo the rank list of JEE Advanced exam held in May, giving preference to candidates who followed original instructions given by the institute and not based on the clarification issued afterwards.

When an appeal filed by IIT-Kanpur came up, a division bench of Justices Huluvadi G Ramesh and Dhandapani held that the July 2 order of the single judge was “totally unwarranted” since the evaluation of the exam was already done.’ The bench then posted the matter after three weeks.

The matter related to a petition filed by L Lakshmi Sree who had appeared for JEE Advanced test in Chennai on May 20. The petitioner sought a direction to quash the clarification issued by the Indian Institute of Technology-Kanpur against its original instructions given during the May 20 exam.

She submitted that during the exam, candidates were instructed to answer in correct numerical value in decimal notation rounded off to the second decimal place. It was made clear that full marks would be granted only if answers were given as per the instructions.

The petitioner also submitted that most candidates including herself read the instructions carefully and entered the correct numerical value in decimal notation, rounding off to the second decimal place. However, some candidates gave answers which were not up to the second decimal, which the petitioner said was against the instructions given during the examination.

Subsequently, the authorities concerned made a clarification on their website stating that “if an answer is the integer 11, all the answered entered as 11, 11.0, or 11.00 will be correct”. The petitioner claimed that if marks were awarded to candidates who did not follow the instructions, it would affect the ranks of candidates like her.

Hence, the petitioner moved the court seeking a direction to quash the subsequent clarification order issued after the examination by IIT-Kanpur. Immediately, the institute suspended the seat allocation process and filed an appeal in the court challenging the single judge order.

During the hearing, 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 had already secured a seat of her choice such an order was not necessary, he added. Recording the submissions, the bench stayed the order of the single judge.