Holding

The JAB's cut‑off determination method was a bona‑fide, non‑arbitrary, non‑capricious procedure, and the courts have no jurisdiction to interfere absent a violation of law or mala‑fide intent.

Summary

The appellants, Sanchit Bansal and another, challenged the Joint Admission Board's (JAB) method of fixing cut‑off marks for the IIT‑JEE 2006, alleging that the procedure was arbitrary, capricious and motivated by personal enmity, which led to the first appellant's disqualification despite a high aggregate score. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, and the division bench upheld that dismissal. The Supreme Court examined whether the JAB's statistical method—using mean and standard deviation to set subject‑wise cut‑offs—was unlawful or mala‑fide, and whether the courts could intervene in such technical academic selection processes. It held that the procedure, though complex, was a bona‑fide attempt to ensure consistent performance across subjects and was neither arbitrary nor motivated by any ulterior motive. Consequently, the Court found no ground to interfere with the JAB's decision and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that judicial review is limited to cases of legal violation, arbitrariness, or mala‑fide conduct.

Issues considered

The legality of the JAB's cut‑off determination procedure for IIT‑JEE 2006 and whether it was arbitrary, capricious or mala‑fide.
Whether the High Court was correct in refusing to interfere with the JAB's technical admission process.
The scope of judicial review over academic and technical selection procedures in educational institutions.

Legislation cited

Right to Information Act, 2005

Subjects

admissionscut‑off marksJEEarbitrarycapriciousmala‑fideadministrative laweducational institutionsjudicial reviewRight to Information Act

Judgment

(2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1057

SANCHIT BANSAL &. ANR. A
v.
THE JOINT ADMISSION BOARD (JAB) & ORS.
(CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8520 OF 2011)
OCTOBER 11, 2011
B
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK , JJ.]

Education/Educational Institutions - Admissions to
undergraduate Engineering courses - Joint Entrance
Examination (llT-JEE 2006) -Determination of cut-off marks c
- The first appellant appeared in IJT-JEE 2006, as a general
category candidate - He secured 75 marks in Mathematics,
104 marks in Physics and 52 marks in Chemistry,
aggregating to 231 - The Joint Admission Board (JAB) had
fixed the cut off marks for admission as 37 for Maths, 48 for 0
Physics and 55 for Chemistry and the aggregate cut off marks
as 154 - As first appellant did not secure the minimum of 55
marks in Chemistry he was not qualified, even though his
aggregate in the three subjects was very high - Feeling
aggrieved by his non-selection, which according to the E
appellants was due to a defective, erroneous and malafide
process adopted for cut-off determination, the appellants filed
a writ petition - Writ petition dismissed by High Court -
Whether the procedure adopted by JAB to arrive at the cut
off marks for JEE 2006 was arbitrary and ma/a fide and
whether the High Court ought to have interfered in the matter F
- Held: The JAB wanted to select candidates with consistent
performance in all three subjects - To achieve this result, the
traditional procedures would not have been of any assistance
- The object of the procedure followed by JAB for arriving at
the cut-off marks was to select candidates well equipped in G
all the three subjects, with reference to their merit, weighed
against the average merit of all the candidates who appeared
in the examination - The fact that the procedure was

1057 H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A complicated did not make it arbitrary or unreasonable or
discriminatory - The appellants did not make out, even
remotely, any malafide motive, in regard to the procedure for
arriving at the cut-off marks - The claim that to deny
admission to one student from among more than 2, 87, 000
B students (i.e. the first appellant), the process of fixing cut-off
marks was manipulated, is too far fetched and difficult to
accept, apart from the fact that there was no iota of material
to support such a claim - Where minimum performance in
all the subjects is also relevant, a person who fails to get the
C minimum cut off marks in one subject, cannot contend that
he had secured very high marks in other two subjects and
therefore injustice has been done - By adopting mean and
standard deviation methods, the JAB arrived at different
minimum marks for different subjects, depending upon the
overall performance of all candidates in a given subject, and
0 enabled selection of those who did comparatively and
uniformly well in all subjects - The procedure though
complicated, sought to achieve a more balanced selection
when compared to the traditional methods - It was neither
arbitrary nor capricious - The procedure adopted in JEE 2006
E may not be the best of procedures, nor as sound and effective
as the present procedures - But no ground for Courts to ·
interfere with the procedure, even if it was not accurate or
efficient, in the absence of malafides or arbitrariness or
violation of law - No ground to grant any relief to the first
F appellant.
Education I Educational Institutions - Specialized
courses - Admissions - Scope for interference by Courts -
Held: The process of evaluation, the process of ranking and
selection of candidates for admission with reference to their
G performance, the process of achieving the objective of
selecting candidates who will be better equipped to suit the
specialized courses, are all technical matters in academic field
and courts will not interfere in such processes - Courts will
interfere only if they find all or any of the following : (i) violation
H
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION 1059
BOARD (JAB) & ORS.

of any enactment, statutory Rules and Regulations; (ii) ma/a A
tides or ulterior motives to assist or enable private gain to
someone or cause prejudice to anyone; or where the
procedure adopted is arbitrary and capricious.
Administrative Law - Administrative action - When
arbitrary and capricious - Held: An action is said to be B
arbitrary and capricious, where a person, in particular, a person
in authority does any action based on individual discretion by
ignoring prescribed rules, procedure or law and the action or
decision is founded on prejudice or preference rather than
reason or fact - To be termed as arbitrary and capricious, the C
action must be illogical and whimsical, something without any
reasonable explanation - When an action or procedure
seeks to achieve a specific objective in furtherance of
education in a bona fide manner, by adopting a process which
is uniform and non-discriminatory, it cannot be described as D
arbitrary or capricious or ma/a fide - Education! Educational
Institutions.
The first appellant is the son of second appellant who
is a Professor in the Indian Institute of Technology (llT),
Kharagpur. Admission to undergraduate courses in E
fifteen llTs as also IT-BHU and ISM, Dhanbad is through
the Common Entrance Examination known as the Joint
Entrance Examination (llT.JEE). llT.JEE is supervised by
the Joint Admission Board (JAB), the first respondent.
The first appellant appeared in the llT.JEE 2006, as F
a general category candidate. He secured 75 marks in
Mathematics, 104 marks in Physics and 52 marks in
Chemistry, aggregating to 231. The Board had fixed the
cut off marks for admission as 37 for Maths, 48 for
Physics and 55 for Chemistry and the aggregate cut off G
marks as 154. As first appellant did not secure the
minimum of 55 marks in Chemistry he was not qualified,
even though his aggregate in the three subjects was very
high.
H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Feeling aggrieved by his non-selection, which
according to appellants was due to a defective,
erroneous and malafide process adopted for cut-off
determination, the appellants filed a writ petition claiming
the following reliefs, apart from several consequential
B reliefs: (a)To quash the selection and merit list of
admissions to llT/ITBHU/ISM on the basis of JEE 2006 as
it was prepared on the basis of imposition of illogical and
cut off marks in three subjects without any rational basis;
{b)to prepare and publish fresh chemistry marks for
C admissions to llTs in regard to JEE 2006 after making
appropriate corrections in evaluation by adjusting the
wrong evaluation and on that basis prepare and publish
fresh merit list for admission to llTs/ITBHU/ISM in regard
to JEE 2006.
D A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the said
writ petition. Aggrieved, the appellants filed appeal before
the division bench. The division bench declined to grant
any relief to the first appellant.
In the instant appeal, the appellants contended that
E the minutes of the meeting of JAB 2006 which laid down
the procedure for holding the JEE 2006, furnished by the
respondents, did not contain the cut off procedure for
JEE 2006; that the cut off procedure fixed before the
examination was repeatedly changed after the
F examination and the two different versions given by the
Board at different points of time demonstrated that none
of the procedures showed 55% as the chemistry cut off
marks; that the procedure adopted was full of errors and
defects; and that if the iterative procedure explained by
G the Board was implemented correctly, the effect would be
to increasing the Maths cut off marks from 37 to 42 and
decreasing Physics cut off marks from 48 to 44 and
Chemistry cut off marks from 55 to 51 and further that the
Chemistry cut off marks were probably manipulated to
H exclude appellant No.1 from the JEE merit list as the
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION 1061
BOARD (JAB) & ORS.

Chairman, Joint Admission Board 2006 (then Director, llT, A
Karagpur) and the organizing Chairman, JEE 2006 had
a personal grudge against the second appellant.
The question which therefore arose for consideration
was whether the procedure adopted by the Board to
arrive at the cut off marks for JEE 2006 was arbitrary and B
ma/a fide and whether the High Court ought to have
interfered in the matter.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. It is no doubt true that the simplest and C
most straight forward method of selecting the candidates
to be called for counseling would be to take the
candidates in the order of merit (with reference to actual
marks) subject to their possessing a pre-declared
minimum marks in each subject. For example the Board o
can decide beforehand that the aggregate cut off marks
for eligibility would be 150; that is 50 in each of the three
subjects and prepare a merit list of the candidates who
fulfil the said criteria and then call the first 5500 students
in the merit list, in the order of merit for counseling. This E
would be the traditional method. [Para 14) [1074-H; 1075-
A-B]
2. But the Board wants to select candidates with
consistent performance in all three subjects. To achieve
this result and shortlist about 5500 candidates from out F
of 287564 candidates, the traditional procedures will not
be of assistance. Therefore, a rather complicated but
scientific procedure has been followed. For a layman, the
above procedure may appear to be highly cumbersome
and complicated. But the object of the aforesaid G
procedure for arriving at the cut-off marks is to select
candidates well equipped in all the three subjects, with
reference to their merit, weighed against the average merit
of all the candidates who appeared in the examination.
The fact that the procedure was complicated would not H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A make it arbitrary or unreasonable or discriminatory.
[Paras 15,16] [1075-C-D; 1083-G-H; 1084-A]
3. The process of evaluation, the process of ranking
and selection of candidates for admission with reference
to their performance, the process of achieving the
B objective of selecting candidates who will be better
equipped to suit the specialized courses, are all techl'lical
matters in academic field and courts will not interfere in
such processes. Courts will interfere only if they find all
or any of the following : (i) violation of any enactment,
C statutory Rules and Regulations; (ii) mala fides or ulterior
motives to assist or enable private gain to someone or
cause prejudice to anyone; or where the procedure
adopted is arbitrary and capricious. An action is said to
be arbitrary and capricious, where a person, in particular,
D' a person in authority does any action based on individual
discretion by ignoring prescribed rules, procedure or law
and the action or decision is founded on prejudice or
preference rather than reason or fact. To be termed as
arbitrary and capricious, the action must be illogical and
E whimsical, something without any reasonable
explanation. When an action or procedure seeks to
achieve a specific objective in furtherance of education
in a bona fide manner, by adopting a process which is
uniform and non-discriminatory, it cannot be described
F as arbitrary or capricious or mala fide. [Para 19] [1085-F-
H; 1086-A-C]
'
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth 1984
(4) SCC 27; All India Council for Technical Education v.
G Surinder Kumar Dhawan 2009 (11) SCC 726: 2009 (3) SCR
859 and Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain
2007 (4) SCC 737: 2007 (5) SCR 7 - relied on.
4. In the instant case, the appellants have not made
out, even remotely, any malafide motive, in regard to the
H procedure for arriving at the cut-off marks. The claim that
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION 1063
BOARD (JAB) & ORS.
to deny admission to one student from among more than A
2,87,000 students, they manipulated the process of fixing
cut-off marks is too far fetched and difficult to accept,
apart from the fact that there is no iota of material to
support such a claim. It is too much to assume that
where nearly three lakhs candidates appeared, a B
particular procedure was adopted to ensure that a
particular candidate failed. [Para 20] [1086-D-F]
5. The minimum aggregate cut off was 154. The
minimum cut off for individual subjects was 37, 48 and
55 for Maths, Physics and Chemistry. If a candidate had C
secured the minimum in three subjects and had also
secured the minimum of the aggregate which was only
154, he becomes eligible; whereas a candidate who got
231 in the aggregate but does not get the minimum cut
off marks in one of the subjects (as for example the first D
appellant who got only 52 which is less than the cut off
of 55), naturally cannot be qualified. Even in standard
traditional examinations, if total maximum marks was 600
(in six subjects) and minimum marks in each of the six
subjects was 35 out of 100, a candidate who may secure E
482 marks (that 90% in five subjects, but secures only 32
marks in one subject, will be considered as failed,
whereas a person who secures only 210 marks (that is
35 marks in all the six subjects) will be considered as
passed. Where minimum performance in all the subjects
F
is also relevant, a person who fails to get the minimum
cut off marks in one subject, cannot contend that he had
secured very high marks in other two subjects and
therefore injustice has been done. All procedures when
standardized, result in some kind of injustice to some or
the others. That cannot be helped. [Para 21] [1087-8-F] G
6. Where a huge number of candidates (more than
287,000) have participated in an examination, for filling
about 5500 seats, and it becomes necessary to select
candidates possessing comparatively better proficiency H
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A in all three subjects, the traditional methods of short-
listing may not be of assistance. The traditional methods
would result in the candidates who have done extremely
well in one subject or two subjects but have little or no
proficiency in the third subject to steal a march over
B candidates who have done uniformly well in all the three
subjects. For example, in the traditional method where
40% are the minimum marks required to be scored in
each subject, a candidate who just gets 40% in Maths and
40% in Physics and 91% in Chemistry, would be eligible
C and as his total marks are 171, will get admitted in
preference to a candidate who did uniformly well and
secured 52 marks in Maths, 53 marks in Physics and 65
marks in Chemistry whose total is 170 marks. The result
is that a candidate who is comparatively poor in Maths
and Physics, secures a seat by virtue of his good
D performance in Chemistry, in preference to a candidate
who has done uniformly well in all subjects. The
traditional procedure may not therefore help in securing
candidates who do well in all subjects. If one has to
choose the candidates with good performances in all
E subjects, with the average of the performance of all the
candidates who participated in a given examination as
the benchmark, it is necessary to apply the more
complicated mean and standard deviation methods. By
adopting mean and standard deviation methods, the
F Board does not start with a set of uniform minimum
passing marks but arrives at different minimum marks for
different subjects, depending upon the overall
performance of all candidates in a given subject, and
enables selection of those who have done comparatively
G and uniformly well in all subjects. That is how, for
example, JEE-2006, the cut-off marks were arrived at 37,
48 and 55 for Maths, Physics and Chemistry. This method
ensured that those who have done reasonably well in
Maths, when compared with the overall majority, got
H selected in spite of the fact that if the minimum marks had
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION 1065
BOARD (JAB) & ORS.
been prescribed as 40%, they would have failed. It A
enabled candidates who got good marks in Physics and
Chemistry (Say 80%) but got only 38% or 39% in Maths,
to get selected, in preference to a candidate who secured
a mere 40% in all three sul;>jects. In the traditional method,
the candidate with 39%, 80% and 90% would have been B
unsuccessful and person with 40%, 40% and 40% would
have been successful. The cut-off marks in Maths being
fixed at 37% (instead of the traditional minimum of 40%)
enabled the students who have done better in other
streams to have a reasonable chance of getting admitted. c
The procedure though complicated, sought to achieve a
more balanced selection when compared to the
traditional methods. It was neither arbitrary nor
capricious. [Para 22] [1087-F-H; 1088-A-H; 1085-A-B]
7. As regards the next contention of the appellants D
that different versions of the procedure adopted for
arriving at the cut-off marks was given at different stages,
and this made the entire exercise doubtful, it is found that
what were given were not different versions, but better
or more detailed disclosure of the same process or E
procedure. Apparently the Board was not initially willing
to disclose the entire process. The RTI Act had just come
into force and the apparent tendency initially was to give
thEt minimum information. Subsequently when pressed,
the Board has come out with complete disclosure of the F
process adopted. [Para 23] [1089-C-E]
8. All aspects connected with the selection process
are technical falling within the purview of the professional
experts in charge and the role of the courts is very
limited. The procedure adopted in JEE 2006 may not be G
the best of procedures, nor as sound and effective as the
present procedures. In fact the action taken by the
appellants in challenging the procedure for JEE 2006,
their attempts to bring in transparency in the procedure
by various RTI applications, and the debate generated by H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A the several views of experts during the course of the writ
proceedings, have helped in making the merit ranking
process more transparent and accurate. llTs and the
candidates who now participate in the examinations
must, to a certain extent, thank the appellants for their
B effort in bringing such transparency and accuracy in the
ranking procedure. But there is no ground for that Courts
to interfere with the procedure, even if it was not
accurate or efficient, in the absence of malafides or
arbitrariness or violation of law. It is true that if in JEE
c 2006, a different or better process had been adopted, or
the process now in vogue had been adopted, the results
would have been different and the first appellant might
have obtained a seat. But on that ground it is net possible
to impute malafides or arbitrariness, or grant any relief to
D the first appellant. Therefore, the appellant will have to be
satisfied in being one of the many unsung heroes who
helped in improving the system. [Paras 25, 26] [1091-A-
F]
Case Law Reference:
E 1984 (4) sec 27 relied on Para 18
2009 (3) SCR 859 relied on Para 18
2007 (5) SCR 7 relied on Para 18
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
F 8520 of 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 6.1.2010 of the Division
Bench of High Court of West Bengal at Calcutta in F.M.A. No.
1424 of 2008.
Prashant Bhushan and Pranav. Sachdeva for the
G Appellants.
Gopal Subramanium, SG, Anand Verma and Shekhar
Kumar for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Heard. Leave granted.
..
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION 1067
BOARD (JAB) & ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

2. The first appellant is the son of second appellant who A
is a Professor in the Indian Institute of Technology (llT for short),
Kharagpur. Admission to undergraduate courses in fifteen llTs
as also IT--BHU and ISM, Dhanbad is through the Common
Entrance Examination known as the Joint Entrance Examination
(for short llT-JEE). The said examination is considered to be B
the toughest entrance examination in India, with more than 50
candidates vying for each seat in the said examination. llT-JEE
is conducted every year by a different llT on a rotation basis
and is supervised by the Joint Admission Board (JAB or the
'Board'), the first respondent herein. The first appellant C
appeared in the llT-JEE 2006, as a general category candidate.
He secured 75 marks in Methamatics, 104 marks in Physics
and 52 marks in Chemistry, aggregating to 231. The Board had
fixed the cut off marks for admission as 37 for Maths, 48 for
Physics and 55 for Chemistry and the aggregate cut off marks D
as 154. As first appellant did not secure the minimum of 55
marks in chemistry he was not qualified, even though his
aggregate in the three subjects was very high.

3. The second appellant wrote a letter dated 5.9.2006 to
all the llT Chairmen/Directors alleging anomalies and inherent E
contradictions in the selection process. He alleged that the cut
off marks were fixed arbitrarily and with malafides in a manner
that a student such as the first appellant with 231 marks was
found to be not qualified whereas a student who got aggregate
marks of 154 was found to have qualified. The appellants also F
filed several applications under the Right to Information Act
2005 and collected considerable data. The appellants claim that
when they sought information about the procedure for
computation of cut off marks for JEE 2006 the organising
Chairman, JEE 2006 gave two different versions at different G
points of time.

4. The first response given by the Organizing Chairman,
JEE 2006 on 14.5.2007 read as follows :
H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A "Procedure for computation· of cut-off marks etc. for JEE
2006
1. "Consistent with announced criteria of "Ranking" and
"Tie-breaking" given in Section 11.1 and 11.2 of the
Information Brochure of JEE 2006 the different cut-off:;
B were decided.
2. On the basis of overall performance of candidates who
appeared in all the three subjects (Mathematics, Physics
& Chemistry), mean marks of each of the three subjects
along with standard deviation was determined. The cut-off
c in each subject was decided as mean marks minus one
standard deviation. Further depending on the number of
candidates required to be qualified on All India basis, the
aggregate marks cut-off was obtained. The cut-off marks
of individual subject and aggregate are given below for GE
D category candidates:-
Mathematics 37
Physics 48
Chemistry 55
Aggregate 154"
E The second response given by the organizing Chairman, JEE
2006 on 12.7.2007 was as under:·
"Procedure for cut-off determination in JEE-2006:
(i) For each subject, mean and standard deviation of
the marks obtained are computed. For this
F computation only scores of those candidates who
have secured minimum 1 (one) mark in each of the
three subjects have been considered.
(ii) The cut-off marks of an individual subject is
calculated as Cut-off mark of a subject = Mean of
G the marks for the subject
- Standard deviation of the marks for the subject
The result has been rounded to the nearest integer.
(iii) The mean and standard deviation of the aggregate
marks are calculated for those candidates who
H score at least one mark in each subject
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION 1069
BOARD (JAB) & ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
(iv) The aggregate cut-off mark is calculated as A
Aggregate cut-off = (Mean of aggregate marks
- Standard deviation of
aggregate marks)
rounded to nearest integer
+ a positive number B
The number selected for counseling (i.e. qualified in JEE-
2006 for counseling) is 1.3 X the number of seats available
in all participating Institutions. Each time 1(one) mark is
added to the mean-standard deviation of the aggregate
marks and the number obtained is compared with the C
desired number. This process is continued until one
arrives at the desired number to be called for counseling."
5. Feeling aggrieved by his non-selection, which according
to appellants was due to a defective, erroneous and malafide
process adopted for cut-off determination, the appellants filed D
a writ petition (WP 11434 (W) of 2007) claiming the following
reliefs, apart from several consequential reliefs :
(a) To quash the selection and merit list of admissions to
llT/ITBHU/ISM on the basis of JEE 2006 as it was prepared E
on the basis of imposition of illogical and cut off marks in
three subjects without any rational basis;
(b) to prepare and publish fresh chemistry marks for
admissions to llTs in regard to JEE 2006 after making
appropriate corrections in evaluation by adjusting the F
wrong evaluation and on that basis prepare and publish
fresh merit list for admission to llTs/ITBHU/ISM in regard
to JEE 2006.
6. A learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition
holding as follows : G
(a) The appellants could not challenge the procedure for
determination of cut off in JEE 2006 as they had given a
signed declaration that the decision of JAB regarding the
admission to be final and they would abide by the said
H
1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A decision.
(b) The respondents had justified as to the manner of
arriving at the cut off marks for Chemistry in JEE 2006 and
it was within the domain of the Joint Admission Board to
decide upon the procedure for determining such cut off and
B !here was no material to show that the procedure adopted
was flawed or arbitrary.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal. A
division bench by an interim order dated 7.7.2009 directed the
C Chairman of the first respondent Board to cause any of the
Directors of the llTs in India to prepare and submit a report
regarding the working out of cut off marks of Chemistry based
on formula and/or norms on the basis of information disclosed
under the RTI Act and also disclosed in the affidavit in
opposition. The division bench also permitted the appellants
D to procure any expert's report in regard to working out of cut
off marks in regard to Chemistry by following the aforesaid two
norms and submit the report.
8. In pursuance of it, the appellants secured the two reports
E both dated 17.7.2009 from T.A.Abinandanan, Professor,
Department of Materials Engineering, Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore. The first report was on the calculation of the cut off
marks in Chemistry. The concluding portion of the said opinion
is extracted below:
F "Therefore, the cut-off marks of Chemistry as per the
formula provided in the affidavit-in-opposition comes out
to be Six (6). This cannot be 55.
Conclusions : Cut-off marks in Chemistry were calculated
in two different methods; in both the methods, the formula
G is the same: "Mean minus Standard Deviation"; however,
the methods differ in the candidate populations used for
computing the Mean and Standard Deviation. The
calculated value of the Mean and Standard Deviation will
depend on the candidate population used in arriving at
H these two quantities.
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION 1071
BOARD (JAB) & ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

The cut-off marks in Chemistry, comes out, correctly and A
precisely, to be MINUS SIX and SIX, respectively, based
on the formula and/or norms on the basis of information
disclosed under the Right to Information Act, and disclosed
in the affidavit in opposition.
The Chemistry cut-off marks cannot be 55 by any of the B
disclosed formulas."
The second report dated 17.7.2009 of Prof. T.A.
Abinandanan was on the analysis of candidates' performance
in JEE 2006. We extract below the conclusion in the said C
report:
"A comparison between my findings and the data provided
by llT-Kharagpur reveals the following:
1. Number of candidates in the two categories:
Category A: I found 145,439 candidates in this D
category,in perfect agreement with the data
provided by llT-Kharagpur.
Category B: I found 287,564 candidates in this
category.in perfect agreement with the data E
provided by llT-Kharagpur.
2. Cut-off marks in Mathematics, Physics, and
Chemistry:
Ma them- Phy- Che-
atics sics mistry F
llT-Kharagpur data 37 48 55

Category A of this study 7 4 6

Category B of this study, -3 8 -6
G
provided for the sake of
completeness

In terms of cut-off marks, my findings do not agree at all
with the data provided by llT-Kharagpur. Since the H
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A procedure used by llT-Kharagpur for the determination of
the cut-off is the same as the computation I performed for
candidates in Category A, a direct comparison is valid.
3. For the subject of Chemistry, following the formula
provided by llT-Kharagpur, the cut-off marks determined
B by my analysis is only 6, whereas it is 55 in the data
provided by llT-Kharagpur."
9. The JAB appointed a two member committee of llT
Directors (Mr. Gautam Barua, Director, llT, Guwahati and Mr.
Dewang Khakhar, Director, llT, Bombay) to work out the cut-
e off marks for chemistry. They gave the following report dated
19.7.2009 :
"The committee first of all noted that the issue of cut-off
marks in each of the subjects of the examination, namely,
Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics has been present in
the JEE system for a number of years. The principle
behind having cut-off marks is to ensure that a candidate
qualifying the JEE examination satisfies a minimum
proficiency level in each of the subjects. As the difficulty
level of the question papers vary from year to year, no
E
absolute pass mark can be set as is normally done in
examinations. Thus the pass mark has to be relative to the
performance of the candidates of that particular year.
The committee examined the procedure for subject cut-off
F marks in JEE 2006 as submitted in an affidavit to the
Calcutta High Court and the procedure given against an
RTI application. The committee noted that the procedures
given in these document did not contain sufficient details
to calculate the cut offs.
G A presentation was made before the committee by officials
of llT Kharagpur, including the Chairman JEE 2006, to
explain in detail the procedure used in determining the cut-
off marks in JEE 2006. The procedure was also given in
writing along with sample calculations based on the actual
H
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION 1073
BOARD (JAB) & ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

data of JEE 2006 (attached as Annexures B-G). A A
demonstration of the computer program implementing the
above procedure and using the actual JEE 2006 data, was
made before the committee. The results obtained from this
demonstration were found to be the same as reported in
the Annexures. The committee also examined the computer B
program used in the demonstration and found that it was
as per the procedures reported in the Annexures. The
committee was satisfied that the procedures outlined in the
Annexures are systematic and complete. The committee
also verified that these procedures give the actual cut offs c
in JEE 2006 for all the subjects, including Chemistry, and
also the aggregate cut offs, as reported in the RTI
disclosure."
10. The division bench considered the said reports and
the contentions of the parties and by impugned order dated D
6.1.201 O held that it was unable to grant any relief to the first
appellant as it was not inclined to sit over the wisdom of the
body of experts and the appellants had not made out any
malafides. It also noted that the procedure adopted in 2007 and
2008 was more transparent and simple than the selection E
process of 2006 and the JAB had made an effort after JEE
2006 to ensure that the candidates get a clearer picture,
demonstrating that there were no possibilities of any unfair
means in the process of selection. The said judgment is
challenged in this appeal by special leave.
F
11. The question for consideration is whether the
procedure adopted by the Board to arrive at the cut off marks
for JEE 2006 is arbitrary and mala fide and whether the High
Court ought to have interfered in the matter.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the G
minutes of the meeting of JAB 2006 held on 17.9.2005 which
laid down the procedure for holding the JEE 2006, furnished
by the respondents, did not contain the cut off procedure for
JEE 2006. It was submitted that the cut off procedure which was
LI
1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A fixed before the examination was repeatedly changed after the
examination and that the two different versions given by the
Board at different points of time demonstrated that none of the
· procedures showed 55% as the chemistry cut off marks; that
the procedure adopted was full of errors and defects; and that
B if the iterative procedure explained by the Board was
implemented correctly, the effect would be to increasing the
Maths cut off marks from 37 to 42 and decreasing Physics cut
off marks from 48 to 44 and Chemistry cut off marks from 55
to 51. It was also contended that the Chemistry cut off marks
C were probably manipulated to exclude appellant No.1 from the
JEE merit list as Prof. S.K. Dube, Chairman, Joint Admission
Board 2006 (then Director, llT, Karagpur) and Prof. V.K.nwari,
organizing Chairman, JEE 2006 had a personal grudge against
the second appellant who was a Professor of Computer
Science and Engineering at llT, Kharagpur.
0
13. On the other hand the respondents submitted that the
llT-JEE examination is time tested and world renowned and
has produced some of the brightest brains of India who have
excelled in fields even apart from engineering and technology
E such as civil services, management etc; and entrance
examination is held in high regard for its transparency and
objectivity. It was submitted that the JAB and the organizing
Institute had ensured that all steps were taken to maintain the
confidentiality of the process as well as the identity of the
candidates and for that purpose used a bar code on the left
F and right hand side of each OMR sheet and it was not possible
to prejudice a particular candidate by any manual process. It
was further submitted that the calculation of the cut off marks
had been done on the basis of the procedure adopted by the
Board in a completely transparent and objective manner; and
G there was no possibility of any manual intervention in either the
calculation of cut off marks or in calculation of marks of any
individual student.
14. It is no doubt true that the simplest and most straight
H forward method of selecting the candidates to be called for
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION 1075
BOARD (JAB) & ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
counseling would be to take the candidates in the order of merit A
(with reference to actual marks) subject to their possessing a
pre-declared minimum marks in each subject. For example the
Board can decide beforehand that the aggregate cut off marks
for eligibility would be 150, that is 50 in each of the three
subjects and prepare a merit list of the candidates who fulfil the B
said criteria and then call the first 5500 students in the merit
list, in the order of merit for counseling. This would be the
traditional method.
15. But the Board wants to select candidates with
consistent performance in all three subjects. To achieve this c
result and shortlist about 5500 candidates from out of 287564
candidates, the above mentioned traditional procedures will not
be of assistance. Therefore, a rather complicated but scientific
procedure has been followed. We may at this juncture set out
the Evaluation procedure for JEE 2006 and the Procedure for D
cut-off determination in JEE 2006 done by iterative process,
followed by the Board.
"Evaluation Procedure for JEE 2006
Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) conducted by the llTs
for admission to the Under-graduate course in all the seven E
llTs, IT-BHU and ISM Dhanbad is considered to be the
best and the toughest admission test in the world. This is
primarily intended to attract the brightest of the young minds
for education and research in engineering and technology
in India. F
Joint Entrance Examination (JEE)-2006 was conducted on
9th April 2006 was one stage of examination as approved
by the Joint Admission Board (JAB). In this examination,
there were three question papers namely Mathematics, G
Physics and Chemistry. Each question paper was
objective type in nature to test the aptitude and
comprehension ability of the candidates. Each question
paper is a question-cum-answer book named as Question
Paper Booklet (QPB). This question paper booklet has
H
•
1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A questions with a space for rough work and the answer
sheet which is a machine gradable bar coded OMR sheet
attached to the question paper at the end.
This OMR has fwo parts i.e. Left Hand Side and Right
Hand Side with codes on both the side.
B
After the examination, the question paper booklets are
collected from the candidates and submitted to the
respective Institutes by the representatives of that Institute.
The evaluation procedure is as follows:

c • This question paper booklet centre wise is given to
different Professors who are named as Chief
Coder/coders. For each subject one Chief coder
along with 10-12 coders are involved. Depending
upon the number of candidates the total numbers
of coders vary from Institute to Institute.
D
• Under the strict supervision of all the Chief coders,
the coders separate the OMR Sheet from each of
the question paper booklets and arranged them in
the prescribed manner.
E • These sheets are then separated into two parts i.e .
Right Hand Side and Left Hand Side and arranged
in prescribed manner.
• Left Hand Side contains the personal data of the
candidates including the Centre of Examination and
F his Registration No.
• Right Hand Side contains the response of the
candidates which he has answered in response to
each of the question. This response is given by
bubbling the appropriate answer circle as specified.
G * RHS and LHS of these OMR answer sheet are
separately scanned for all the candidates. Accuracy
and consistency in this process of scanning are
verified with sufficient number of data points for
each subject and at each llT with the same machine
H
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION 1077
BOARD (JAB) & ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
and its setting. While compiling these marks, full A
secrecy about the identity of the candidates is
maintained by the Bar Code already present in the
RHS and LHS."
It may be mentioned that in order to maintain quality of the
candidates getting admission in llTs/IT-BHU and ISM B
Dhanbad, the consistent performance in all three subjects
is required. The candidates having marks equal to zero or
negative in any one of the subjects are notconsidered for
determining subject cut-off and ranking. Candidates having
marks equal to one (1) or more in all three subjects are C
considered for determining cut-off and ranking.
"PROCEDURE FOR CUT-OFF DETERMINATION IN
JEE-2006:
(i) For each subject, mean and standard deviation of 0
the marks obtained are computed. For this
computation only scores of those candidates who
have secured minimum of 1 (one) mark in each of
the three subjects have been considered.
(ii) The cut-off marks of an individual subject is E
calculated as Cut-off mark of a subject =
Mean of the marks for the subject - Standard
deviation of the marks for the subject.
The result has been rounded to the nearest integer.
(iii) The mean and standard deviation of the aggregate F
marks are calculated for those candidates who
score at least one mark in each subject.
(iv) The aggregate cut-off mark is calculated as
Aggregate cut-off = (Mean of aggregate marks - G
Standard
deviation of Aggregate
marks)rounded to nearest
integer
-- a positive number. H
1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R

A The number selected for counseling (i.e. qualified in JEE-
2006 for counseling) is 1.3 x the number of seats available
in all participating Institutions. Each time 1 (one) mark is
added to the mean-standard deviation of the aggregate
marks and the number obtained is corl'/pared with the
B desired number. This process is continued until one
arrives at the desired number to be called for counseling.

PROCEOURE FOR RANKING:
Based on the cut-off marks in the individual subjects as
c well as aggregate marks in the Examination, a common
merit list will be prepared without any relaxed criteria. In
addition, separate merit lists of candidates belonging to
SC, ST and PD categories will be prepared with different
relaxed norms relevant to their categories. While preparing
D these merit lists, if a candidate belongs to more than one
category of relaxed norms, he/she shall be considered only
in the category in which he/she gets the maximum benefit.
There will not be any separate list of wait listed candidates.
PROCEDURE FOR THE BREAKING:
E
Tie-breaking criterion adopted for awarding ran ks to the
candidates who have scored same aggregate marks is as
follows:
For each subject, the mean mark will be calculated on the
F basis of marks obtained by those candidates who have
appeared in all three subjects. A candidate will be ranked
higher, if he/she has scored higher marks in the subject
having the lowest mean marks. If two or more candidate
scored the same marks in the above mentioned subject,
G then the marks of the subject with second lowest mean
marks will be used for breaking the tie. Candidates scoring
the same marks in all three subjects will be given the same
rank."

H
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION 1079
BOARD (JAB) & ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.)

"Flow Chart illustrating procedure for subject cut off A
determination of JEE 2006

START

B

Number of candidates Number of seats available for Number of GE candidates to be
appeared in all the papers in admission :4217(GE)+4ll qualified in the merit list
JEE 2006 : 287564 (SC) + I 64(ST) = 5444 (No.):4217xl.3 = 5482.1 =5500

c
Set cut off marks for PCM. to I and calculate number of candidates satisfying cut off marks (N)

Calculate mean and standard deviation of each subjcx:t for N candidates D

Recalculate cut off marks (rounded to nearest lower integer) for each subject cut off=
Mean mark -standard deviation

E
Recalculate N by applying cut off marks obtained in previous step

Recalculate number of GE candidates appeared in list ofN Number candidates (Ne)

Yes
F

Set cut off marks and data set O:f previous iteration
G

H
1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A

-----..i Add 1 mark to each subject cut off

B Recalculate N by applying cut-offmarlcs obtained in previous step .

Recalculate number of GE candidates, Ne

Yes

Subtract 1 mark from cut off marks of the subject having rhe lowest average
D

Recalculate N by applying cut off marks obtained in previous step

Recalculate the number of GE candidates, Ne
E
Yes

c

F
Subtract 1 mark from cut off marks of the subject having lower average.

Recalculate N by applying cut off markS obtained in previous step

G
Recalculate number of GE candidates, Ne

H
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION 1081
80ARD (JAB) & ORS. [RV. RAVEENDRAN. J]

A

I Yes (;\
~u B

Obtain final cut off marks by subtracting I mark from cut off marks of the
subject having low average c

Print the final cut off marks for mathematics, p:1vsics and chemistry

By following the said procedure the respondents clarm to D
have obtain the following successive subject cut off marks :

Chemistry Physics Mathe- GE GE
cut off cut off matics calculated required
marks marks cut of marks
E
1 1 1 134449
5 3 6 105968
9 6 9 83130
13 9 12 64420
17 12 15 49696
22 16 18 37038 F
27 21 21 27227
33 26 24 19803
39 32 27 14192
45 39 31 9799
52 46 35 6580
59 53 39 4490 5500 G
53 47 36 6144
54 48 37 5717
55 49 38 5342
55 49 37 5472
55 48 37 5585
··- H
1082 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R

A Thereafter taking the data set of the 5585 candidates
shortlisted as per the subject cut off process, the aggregate cut
off is determined by the following iterative process :
"Initially the cut off mark is taken as 1 and on that basis
calculate the number of candidates satisfying the cut off
B marks. As against the total of the candidates who had
secured one mark each in each of the 3 subjects the·
candidates were found to be 134449. Thereafter the mean
in regard to each subject is calculated by dividing total
number of marks secured by each candidate in a particular
c paper and then dividing the number of candidates who
appeared for the paper. This gives the mean. Then the
standard deviation is arrived at by adopting the formula

s~ L(X-M)' Standard Deviation = s, Mean = X, Individual marks = M,
Number of Student= n.
D n-1

Then the idea is to reduce the number from 134449 to
around 5500. The cut off marks were recalculated for each
subject by adopting the formula of cut off marks being
E mean marks less standard deviation of the marks and
rounding it off to the lowest integer. Then if the number is
still more, again calculate by applying the cut off marks
procedure with reference to the reduced number. By this
process the cut off marks have been arrived at in regard
F to each subject for 5585 which was nearest to 5500.
Thereafter taking the data set of the said 5585 shortlisted
the aggregate cut off was determined by following iterative
process :
"Step 1 Total desired number of candidates to be called
G for counseling (including SC.ST and PD
candidates) > 6307 (NTD).
This number is disclosed in the Counseling
Brochure sent to all the qualified candidates
Step 2 Take dataset (N) obtained after arriving at the final
H subject cut-off marks.
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION 1083
BOARD (JAB) & ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
Step 3 Calculate Mean and Standard Deviation of the A
aggregate marks for dataset N.
Step ·4 Calculate aggregate cut-off of GE candidates by
the formula:
=
Aggregate cut-off (171) mean of aggregate
marks (212.555) - standard deviation of B
aggregate marks (41.30975).
(Note : The value was rounded off to the nearest
lower integer)
Step 5 Calculate 'cut-off marks _of SC/ST, PD by the
formula:
c
Subject cut-off of SC/ST =0.3 x subject cut-off of
GE candidates
=
Aggregate cut-off of SC/ST 0.6 x aggregate cut-
off of GE candidates D
=
Subject cut-off of PD 0.8 x subject cut-off of GE
candidates
=
Aggregate cut-off of PD 0.9 x aggregate cut-off
GE candidates
Step 6 Use subject cut-off and aggregate cut-offs for all E
categories to obtain the total desired number,
NTD.
Step 7 Calculate total numbers of candidates, NT.
Step 8 If NT < NTD, decrease GE aggregate cut-off by 1 F
mark and go to step 4.
Step 9 If NT > NTD, Print NT with all categories. The
calculation is stopped."
16. For a layman, the above proeedure may appear to be
highly cumbersome and complicated. But the object of the G
aforesaid procedure for arriving at the cut-off marks is to select
candidates well equipped in all the three subjects, with
reference to their merit, weighed against the average merit of
all the candidates who appeared ·in the examination. The fact
that the procedure was complicated would not make it arbitrary H
1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A or unreasonable or discriminatory.
17. There are several statistical methods of preparing the
ranking for purpose of selecting the best candidates for
admission to a course, some simple and some complex. Each
method or system has its merits and demerits and can be
B adopted only under certain conditions or by making certain
assumptions. Any such statistical techniques should be under
continuous review and evaluation to achieve improvement, in
· the light of experience gained over the years and new
developments, if it is a reliable tool in the selection process.
C 18. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [1984
(4) sec 27] it was observed thus :
•...the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its
own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in
D relation to academic matters in preference to those
formulated by professional men possessing technical
expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working
of educational institutions and the departments controlling
them."
E In A// India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder
Kumar Dhawan [2009 (11) SCC 726) this court held :
"The courts are neither equipped nor have the academic
or technical background to substitute themselves in place
F of statutory professional technical bodies and take
decisions in academic matters involving standards and
quality of technical education. If the courts start entertaining
petitions from individual institutions or students to permit
courses of their choice, either for their convenience or to
alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, or
G because they think that one course is equal to another,
without realizing the repercussions on the field of technical
education in general, it will lead to chaos in education and
deterioration in standards of education ....... The role of
statutory expert bodies on education and role of courts are
H
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION 1085
BOARD (JAB) & ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of A
educational policy or an issue involving academic matter,
the courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or
principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced,
. with reference to or connected with education, the courts
will step in." B
(emphasis supplied)
This Court also repeatedly held that courts are not
concerned with the practicality or wisdom of the policies but only
illegality. In Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain
[2007 (4) sec 737) this court held : · C
•.... Courts do not and cannot act as appellate authorities
examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness
of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on
matters of policy which the executive is entitled to D
formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a
policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the
fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the
provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory
provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere
with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on E
the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is
available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or
soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review ... •
(emphasis supplied)
F
19. Thus, the process of evaluation, the process of ranking
and selection of candidates for admission with reference to their
performance, the process of achieving the objective of
selecting candidates who will be better equipped to suit the
specialized courses, are all technical matters in academic field G
and courts will not interfere in such processes. Courts will
interfere only if they find all or any of the following : (i) violation
of any enactment, statutory Rules and Regulations; (ii) mala
tides or ulterior motives to. assist or enable private gain to
someone or cause prejudice to anyone; or where the procedure
H
1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A adopted is arbitrary and capricious. An action is said to be
arbitrary and capricious, where a person, in particular, a person
in authority does any action based on individual discretion by
ignoring prescribed rules, procedure or law and the action or
decision is founded on prejudice or preference rather than
. 8 reason or fact. To be termed as arbitrary and capricious, the
action must be illogical and whimsical, something without any
reasonable explanation. When an action or procedure seeks
to achieve a specific objective in furtherance of education in a
bona fide manner, by adopting a process which is uniform and
C non-discriminatory, ii cannot be described as arbitrary or
capricious or mala fide.
20. The appellants in this case have alleged mala tides
on the part of Chairman of the Board and Chairman of the
Organising Committee. The allegation is that on account of
personal enmity, rivalry and hostility harboured by them towards
0
the second appellant, who happens to be a professor at llT,
Kharagpur, they manipulated the ranking and selection process
and deliberately set cut-off marks to deny admission to second
appellants' son, a seat in an llT. The appellants have not made
out, even remotely, any such motive, in regard to the procedure
E for arriving at the cut-off marks. The claim that to deny
admission to one student from among more than 2,87,000
students, they manipulated the process of fixing cut-off marks
is too far fetched and difficult to accept, apart from the fact that
there is no iota of material to support such a claim. It is too much
F to assume that where nearly three lakhs candidates appeared,
a particular procedure was adopted to ensure that a particular
candidate failed. It would appear that somewhat similar
procedure was adopted in the year 2000 and 2001. The
iterative procedure involving mean and standard deviation of
G the scores, similar to JEE 2006 was followed in JEE 2001. The
object of the entire exercise was to ensure a balanced selection
among the candidates who participated in the examination. llT-
JEE is a renowned examination trusted by the entire student
world. II is not only a difficult examination to ~ass, but a difficult
examination to rank and select the best of candidates having
H
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION 1087
BOARD (JAB) & ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
good knowledge in all three subjects. A
21. The appellants next contended that the first appellant
had obtained 231 marks and he had been found to be
unsuitable whereas candidates who got 154 were found
suitable, this was absurd and illogical. There is nothing illogical
about the process. The minimum aggregate cut off was 154. · B
The minimum cut off for individual subjects was 37, 48 and 55
for Maths, Physics and Chemistry. If a candidate had secured
the minimum in three subjects and had also secured the
minimum of the aggregate which was only 154, he becomes
eligible; whereas a candidate who got 231 in the aggregate c
but does not get the minimum cut off marks in one of the
subjects (as for example the first appellant who got only 52
which is less than the cut off of 55), naturally cannot be qualified.
Even in standard traditional examinations, if total maximum
marks was 600 (in six subjects) and minimum marks in each D
of the six subjects was 35 out of 100, a candidate who may
secure 482 marks (that 90% in five subjects, but secures only
32 marks in one subject, will be considered as failed, whereas
a person who secures only 210 marks (that is 35 marks in all
the six subjects) will be considered as passed. Where
minimum performance in all the subjects is also relevant, a E
person who fails to get the minimum cut off marks in one
subject, cannot contend that he had secured very high marks
in other two subjects and therefore injustice has been done. All
procedures when standardized, resulrin some kind of.injustice
to some or the others. That cannot be helped. F
22. The next complaint was about the procedure adopted
based on variable cut-offs instead of pre-declared fixed cut-offs.
Where a huge number of candidates (more than 287,000) have
participated in an examination, for filling about 5500 seats, and
it becomes necessary to select candidates possessing G
comparatively better proficiency in all three subjects, the
traditional methods of short-listing may not be of assistance.
The traditional methods·would result in the candidates who have
done extremely well in one subject or two subjects but have little
or no proficiency in the third subject to steal a march over H
1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A candidates who have done uniformly well in all the three
subjects. For example, in the traditional method where 40% are
the minimum marks required to be scored in each subject, a
candidate who just gets 40% in Maths and 40% in Physics and
91 % in Chemistry, would be eligible and as his total marks are
B 171, will get admitted in preference to a candidate who did
uniformly well and secured 52 marks in Maths, 53 marks in
Physics and 65 marks in Chemistry whose total is 170 marks.
The result is that a candidate who is comparatively poor in
Maths and Physics, secures a seat by virtue of his good
performance in Chemistry, in preference to a candidate who
C has done uniformly well in all subjects. The traditional procedure
· may not therefore help in securing candidates who do well in
all subjects. If one has to choose the candidates with good
performances in all subjects, with the average of the
performance of all the candidates who participated in a given
D examination as the benchmark, it is necessary to apply the more
complicated mean and standard deviation methods.
Let us take another illustration. Assume that Maths was a
very tough subject and many would have failed if 40% was to
be the minimum marks to pass in the examination. Candidates
E who secured 38% or 39% in Maths will fail, though their
performance in Maths was reasonable and even if they had
secured 70% in both Physics and Chemistry. By adopting
mean and standard deviation methods, the Board does not
start with a set of uniform minimum passing marks but arrives
F at different minimum marks for different subjects, depending
upon the overall performance of all candidates in a given
subject, and enables selection of those who have done
comparatively and uniformly well in all subjects. That is how, for
example, JEE-2006, the cut-off marks were arrived at 37, 48
G and 55 for Maths, Physics and Chemistry. This method ensured
that those who have done reasonably well in Maths, when
compared with the overall majority, got selected in spite of the
fact that if the minimum marks had been prescribed as 40%, .
they would have failed. It enabled candidates who got good
marks in Physics and Chemistry (Say 80%) but got only 38%
H
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION 1089
BOARD (JAB) & ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
or 39% in Maths, to get selected, in preference to a candidate A
who secured a mere 40% in all three subjects. In the traditional
method, the candidate with 39%, 80% and 90% would have
been unsuccessful and person with 40%, 40% and 40% would
have been successful. The cut-off marks in Maths being fixed
at 37% (instead of the traditional minimum of 40%) enabled the B
students who have done better in other streams to have a
reasonable chance of getting admitted. The procedure though
complicated, sought to achieve a more balanced selection
when compared to the traditional methods. It was neither
arbitrary nor capricious.
c
23. The appellants next contended that different versions
of the procedure adopted for arriving at the cut-off marks was
given at different stages, and this made the entire exercise
doubtful. On a careful examination we find that what were given
were not different versions, but better or more detailed D
disclosure of the same process or procedure. Apparently the
Board was not initially willing to disclose the entire process. The
RTI Act had just come into force and the apparent tendency
initially was to give the minimum information. Subsequently
when pressed, the Board has come out with complete
disclosure of the process adopted. E
24. It is true that the procedure for ranking by llT-JEE has
not been uniform. Some years, variable cut-off marks were
adopted and some years fixed minimum marks were adopted.
In JEE 2000 and JEE 2001, there was independent cut off for
each subject and also for the aggregate, as in JEE 2006. In F
JEE 2004, the qualifying criteria and the ranks in the screening
tests were based on the total marks scored and there were no
individual subject cut off marks. A common merit list was
prepared based on the performance in individual subjects as
well as aggregate in the main examination. In JEE 2005, the G
qualifying criteria and the ranks in the screening tests were
based on the total marks scored and there were no individual·
subject cut off marks. In JEE 2006 there were independent cut
off marks for each subject and also for the aggregate, and the
cut off procedure was n·ot disclosed before the JEE H
1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A examination. However in JEE 2007 and JEE 2008 subject cut
off procedure was made available to the public through the JEE
website before the JEE examination. During JEE 2007, the
subjects cut off were determined on the basis that top 80%
candidates qualified in each subject (that is 1, 4 and 3 in
8 Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry and aggregate cut off was
206). During JEE 2008, the subject cut off was 5, 0 and 3 in
Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry and aggregate cut off for
common merit list was 172. The subject cut off procedure
ensured the number of candidates above each subject cut off
C were exactly the same. In the year 2009 the subject cut off for
General category was 11, 8 and 11 for Mathematics, Physics
and Chemistry (out of 160 each) and the aggregate cut off was
178. The cut off marks (that is the minimum qualifying marks
for ranking (MQMR) is arrived at by computing the average of
the marks secured by all the candidates for each of the three
D subjects. In the year 2010 also the subject cut off were based
on the average of the marks secured by all candidates in each
subject. This would show that there is a gradual evolution in the
process of standardizing ranking, leading to improvement and
stabilization of the procedure.
E 25. We may note that even now many feel that the current
pattern of llT-Joint Entrance Examination, has failed to ensure
the selection of best among the aspirants. They feel that that
coaching classes have given several candidates of limited
ability an edge over others, by training them to answer the
F multiple choice questions and get through, thereby blocking the
. chances of better candidates with deeper understanding of
concepts and analytical skills required for a course of study at
llTs. They also suggest that weightage should be given to class
XII marks, in selection to llTs, so that the coaching class culture
G is discouraged. On the other hand coaching centres contend
that the improve the skills of the candidates and make them
ready for the undergoing the tough course. There are those who
are satisfied with the existing system and those who find several
faults with it. All that can be said is that the selection process
requires to be upgraded and fine tuned year after year with
H
SANCHIT BANSAL & ANR. v. JOINT ADMISSION 1091
BOARD (JAB) & ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

periodic changes in the process, so that the selection process A
and examination remain relevant and meaningful. But all
aspects connected with the process are technical falling within
the purview of the professional experts in charge and the role
of the courts is very limited.
26. The procedure adopted in JEE 2006 may not be the B
best of procedures, nor as sound and effective as the present
procedures. In fact the action taken by the appellants in
challenging the procedure for JEE 2006, their attempts to bring
in transparency in the procedure by various RTI applications,
and the debate generated by the several views of experts c
during the course of the writ proceedings, have helped in
making the merit ranking process more transparent and
accurate. llTs and the candidates who now participate in the
examinations must, to a certain extent, thank the appellants for
their effort in bringing such transparency and accuracy in the D
ranking procedure. But there is no ground for that Courts to
interfere with the procedure, even if it was not accurate or
efficient, in the absence of malafides or arbitrariness or violation
of law. It is true that if in JEE 2006, a different or better process
had been adopted, or the process now in vogue had been
adopted, the results would have been different and the first E
appellant might have obtained a seat. But on that ground it is
not possible to impute malafides or arbitrariness, or grant any
relief to the first appellant. Therefore, the appellant will have to
be satisfied in being one of the many unsung heroes who
helped in improving the system. F
27. We find no reason for interfering with the order of the
High Court. The appeal is dismissed.
B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.