No arbitrariness in revised MBBS CET merit list: IP Univ to HC

The Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University today defended its revised results and merit list of its medical common entrance test (CET) before Delhi High Court, after a student challenged the results as her rank dropped 77 positions despite her marks increasing.
In an affidavit filed before Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, the university said the revision to the second stage of CET was carried out on the basis of an expert panel's recommendations and was not an arbitrary process.
It said the earlier merit list and marks published on May 27 was on the basis of wrong questions in the test booklets and thus, counselling cannot be carried out as per the earlier rankings. The counselling was earlier scheduled for today.

The affidavit was filed in response to a plea by a candidate, who had sought that the earlier merit list be used for counselling, after her rank dropped 77 places even as her marks increased in the revised result of June 20. The court will hear the matter tomorrow.
The university said in its affidavit that while it had found five wrong questions, the experts panel had found there were seven wrong questions in the test held on May 23.
The panel had also found that answers to 11 Chemistry questions were incorrectly indicated in the answer key for all the test booklets, the affidavit said.

It said the panel had recommended dropping of seven wrong questions and awarding 21 marks to all candidates as well as use of corrected answer keys for re-evaluating the answers.

The revised merit list was arrived at after 21 marks were awarded and answers re-evaluated as per correct answer keys, the university said and added "there was no malafide or arbitrariness" on its part.
It also said when it got to know of the errors in the result declared on May 27, it "suo motu rectified the wrongs".
The university said the counselling could not be carried out as per earlier merit list which was based on wrong results and sought that the candidate Tripti Jha's petition be dismissed.

In her plea, Jha contended that minutes prior to the notification of the counselling schedule, the university informed on its site that the results had been revised. She alleged that re-evaluation was done in a "shady manner" without providing "any notice/information" to the candidates.
On the last date of hearing on June 26, the university had said the counselling would not be held till June 29.