'Is A Man Ever Satisfied?' P&H High Court Declines To Quash Law Entrance Of Panjab University In Plea Challenging It For Being 'Tough'

The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to quash the law entrance examination conducted by Panjab University for the 5-year undergraduate law course, which was challenged on the grounds of being too difficult.

Quoting Shakespeare, 'Is a man ever satisfied?', the Court said, the question "yet could not reach a resolution or a viable answer."

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel said, "assuming arguendo, some questions were tough or hard, yet since the entrance examination in question is a competitive exam and all candidates were subject to same rigour and are sought to be tested on the same anvil i.e. the same set of questions, the plea(s) put forth by the petitioners merits rejection."

"There can be no lucid and objective criteria fathomable to determine as to whether a particular question is hard or tough as a particular question may be tough for a particular candidate, but concurrently it may be an easy one for another candidate." added the bench.

Speaking for the bench Justice Goel quoted from Shakespeare's Hamlet and said, "The existential crisis of the Prince of Denmark, in William Shakespeare's Hamlet...is a dilemma that every candidate experiences, before and after, an exam/result thereof, quoted thus:"

“To be, or not to be, that is the question:

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer;

The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,

Or to take arms against a sea of troubles

And by opposing end them.”

The Court was hearing a plea filed by candidates who appeared for the 5 years Integrated Course for B.A/B.COM. LL.B for the Panjab University.

It was argued by the petitioners that the questions in the entrance examination in question, though objective type in nature, were hard and tough ones, especially in view of the fact that the candidates appearing therein were required to have 10+2 class qualification only, so as to be able to appear in the said exam.

The petitioner's Counsel iterated that questions posed were of LL.M/Post Graduate level and hence were uncalled for being included in the question paper.

After hearing the submissions, the Court opined, "A competitive exam, by its indicative name, is meant to test the skill, knowledge, preparedness, perspectives and general tendencies, within a pool of examinees; towards a particular goal for the successful ones. However, institutions have to lay out a mechanism to assess the candidates, and competitive examinations are the most pragmatic, equitable apparatuses for this purpose, wherein all candidates have the same time limit, as well as, the same number of questions to attempt."

The Court said that, even if it was to be granted that a certain degree of leaning towards certain topics is visible in exam questions, it may only point towards the notional subjectivity of the experts of the domain.

 It added further that, no foolproof blueprint can ever be prepared to test capacities and skills of a large pool of examinees, comprehensively and objectively, since each candidate has their own uniqueness. A competitive exam is invariably comparative, relative and approximate, in essence.

The bench highlighted that, "Any exacting or complicated question or even the entire pattern of examination, bears an equal advantage or disadvantage for one and all, unless, it can be proven that a singular person or a determinable group of persons only were subjected to a gross disadvantage, deliberately and intently."

While noting that the thousands of students have appeared in the entrance examination in question and result thereof stands declared, the Court refused to grant any relief.

Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate for the respondents.

Title: Shifali Verma and others v. Panjab University, Chandigarh and another

Click here to read/download the order