Delhi High Court: In a case wherein the normalization procedure adopted by Respondent 1, NTA in JEE (Main) Exam was challenged, C. Hari Shankar, J.*, opined that it did not possess the expertise to subjectively go into the intricacies of the normalization procedure and in the matters of academic policy, the Court had to defer to the authorities, unless the procedure was found to be so arbitrary or resulting in constitutionally unsustainable results which the Court could not uphold at any cost. No such case was made out in the present petition.
Background
A petition was filed by a student who appeared for JEE (Main) examination on 27-1-2024 for entrance into various Indian Institutes of Technology (‘IITs’). In order to ensure that there was complete transparency, it was not possible to provide the same question paper to all candidates, thus, there was a possibility that there might be varying levels of difficulty of question papers. Therefore, to counter-balance this possibility, JEE followed a normalization procedure.
It was submitted that the process of normalization, on percentile basis, was a detailed statistical process and this was a procedure and a formula which was adopted worldwide and was in fact adopted based on the recommendation of a high-powered committee in November 2018, which was subsequently reviewed in October 2020.
Petitioner was aggrieved by the method of calculation of result and the result in percentile declared by Respondent 1 of the session I of JEE Main 2024 with regards to the discrepancies in the so-called normalization process adopted by Respondent 1 while declaring the results of the students/applicants who appeared for the examination. Petitioner submitted that the basis of percentile adopted by Respondent 1 was in violation of the Right to Equality as Respondent 1 never shared Approved Procedure/Methodology/Information/Policy/Factor/Formula of Calculation of Percentile from Raw Marks scored across different shifts nor they had shared total number of raw marks in the result sheet. Aspirants who appeared in different shifts and scored the same grade/raw marks were allocated with different percentile at the time of declaring the result.
Petitioner also submitted that the so-called normalization process was unjust and unfair for students. As a Testing Agency, it was the ownership of Respondent 1 to set papers that were at equal difficulty levels for all shifts for the same examination so that it was equal opportunity and assessment for all aspirants. Equal opportunity was a state of fairness in which all aspirants for the same examination were treated similarly, unhampered by artificial barriers, prejudices, or preferences.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that the entire challenge of petitioner was nebulous. The Court observed that petitioner was, even while undertaking the examination, well aware of the normalization procedure followed by IITs and it was in full consciousness of this procedure that he went ahead and undertook the examination.
The Court opined that a candidate could not, in awareness of the system of conducting an examination and the marking process adopted in that regard, challenge the examination or the manner in which it was conducted, after the results were declared. The Court stated that if petitioner had obtained a percentile score to his satisfaction, the present petition would never have been filed.
The Court opined that it was not the absolute marks of the candidate which were considered but the relative marks of the candidates vis-à-vis the marks obtained by other candidates who attempt the paper of the same difficulty level. In that process, there was every possibility of a candidate who had obtained lower absolute marks in a qualifying paper qualifying for advancement, whereas a candidate who had obtained higher absolute marks in another paper, for the same examination, but of a possibly different difficulty level, did not qualify. The Court observed that to iron out the discrepancy which arises as a result of the unavoidable possibility of different papers being of different difficulty levels that the process of normalization was adopted.
The Court agreed with the fact that when JEE was being conducted across the country with lakhs of students undertaking the examination, it was but inevitable that all the students could not be given the same paper, or papers which were clinically of the same level of difficulty. The Court opined that it was a well-settled practice, followed in such cases, to provide different papers to different batches of students, normally attempting papers at different locations. In such cases, absolute mathematical accuracy, to ensure that all papers were of identical difficulty level, was impossible. Individual discomfitures were inevitable in such a process and could not afford a basis to unseat the entire examination.
The Court opined that it did not possess the expertise to subjectively go into the intricacies of the normalization procedure and in the matters of academic policy, the Court had to defer to the authorities, unless the procedure was found to be so arbitrary or resulting in constitutionally unsustainable results which the Court could not uphold at any cost. No such case was made out in the present petition.
The Court also opined that “the Courts had to be conscious even while issuing notice in such cases, where lakhs of students were involved. The very fact that an examination such as IIT JEE, which governed entrance to IITs, NITs and other centrally funded technical institutions, might be subject matter of a Court proceeding, was itself a serious issue. It also created uncertainty in the minds of students who attempted the papers. The Courts had, therefore, to be extremely careful even while issuing notice in such cases. It was only if the procedure being followed was constitutionally completely unacceptable that such cases deserve issuance of notice.”.
The Court opined that the challenge did not deserve to be entertained and thus, the writ petition was dismissed in limine.
[Setu Vinit Goenka v. NTA, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1402, decided on 27-02-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Arun Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shiva Lakshmi, SPC; Archana Kumari, GP; Apoorv Kurup, Nidhi Mittal, Gauri Gobardhan, Akhil Hasija, Muskaan Gupta, Sarika Soam, Advocates
Looks like the court considered the question paper difficulty level difference as the only reason for scoring different percentile. Scoring marks is based on individual’s knowledge and preparation level as well; not only on the question paper difficulty level. In the current normalisation method, NTA is assuming that all the students are of equal intelligence and preparation level which is not True.
NTA do not have the data who is intelligent, who has prepared well and who is not.. It is impossible for NTA to ensure the same distribtion of students based on their intellignence/preparation level in all the groups by any randomisation method.
In the current method, students can score high percently if they get into a group with less intelligent students and vice versa.
The only solution is 1 Exam similar to NEET. Why NTA can not do the exam in the same day if they can do it for NEET?
We are not challenging the transparency here; we are challenging the wrong process which impacting the future of many students.