PMET: Appeal filed against single-judge order in high court
An appeal has been filed in the Punjab and Haryana high court challenging single judge order on Punjab Pre Medical Entrance Test (PMET2015) on Monday.education Updated: Sep 16, 2015 18:05 IST
An appeal has been filed in the Punjab and Haryana high court challenging single judge order on Punjab Pre Medical Entrance Test (PMET2015) on Monday.
The petitioners, including an SAS Nagar resident, have sought quashing of the single judge order. The petitioners have also sought directions to Baba Farid University of health Sciences (BFUHS), Faridkot, to get the exam re-conducted or get the disputed question paper assessed via an expert independent agency.
The high court single-judge bench of justice RK Jain on September 1 had disposed of a bunch of petitions challenging the May 17 examination ruling out a retest and directing the respondent university to revise the merit list after giving 12 marks to all 15,000 students.
The petitioners have submitted that there were many questions having more than one correct answer, whereas it was stated in the prospectus that out of the four options, there shall be only one correct or most appropriate response. The single-judge bench has ignored this fact. Also the bench failed to take into account the fact that CBSE and PSEB both prescribed its students to read from NCERT books, it has been stated.
BFUHS had admitted in its reply that the varsity was “guilty of extreme typographical errors” in the chemistry paper. But the singe-judge bench did not consider it while giving judgment, it has been contended. A large number of questions are disputable and the entire process of selection was tainted owing to “incorrect questions”.
It would be “unjust” on the students who prepared for entrance examination, under the mindset of only one correct answer and they were subjected to such ambiguous questions, thus, amounting to complete injustice, the petitioners have argued. On September 1, the HC had ruled out the possibility of a retest while stating that it was fully satisfied with the exhaustive averments, supported by documentary evidence, made in the reply furnished by the university (on validity of exam).