CSIR vs Ramandeep Kaur Court Case

The wrong answer key publishing is nothing new but this time it is creating a big issue.

This was started in May 2017 when CSIR issued the Final answer Key and result published for CSIR UGC NET Dec. 2016 and Ramandeep Kaur filed a case against CSIR examination Unit.

She obtained 67 marks (33.50%) which was below 75.76 marks (37.88%), the cut off fixed for the unreserved category of JRF and 68.18 marks (34.09%), the cut off fixed for the unreserved category of Lecturer. The dispute has arisen with regard to the answers for two questions i.e. question No.44 and question No.71 of booklet B. After the conduct of the examination CSIR uploaded the answer key (as prescribed by the original experts who had set the paper) on its website and as per that answer key the options which had been marked by the petitioner were correct. Further, as per the practice, CSIR invited objections in respect of the answer key and apparently objections with regard to these two questions (along with others) were received. These objections were referred to a different set of experts who recommended that the options originally prescribed as correct were in fact wrong. These recommendations were accepted and the result with revised answer keys was issued in May 2017. With this change in the result the total of Ramandeep Kaur was reduced by 10.825 marks. This was because had her options been accepted as correct she would have been entitled for 8.5 marks and, because they were held to be wrong; she lost a further 2.325 marks on account of negative marking. If she had not suffered this loss she would have qualified the test both for the category of JRF and Lecturer. By way of present petition she has challenged this change in the answer key.

Now answers given by Ramandeep Kaur were right and proved (refer Attachment for the proof)  but She got –ve marks and hence she filed the case and won it (see decision) but a problem arises due to her victory. Some questions were asked by Ramandeep Kaur on the process of examination (we will discuss them in bottom of this page).

This new problems can be understood in the following way.

CSIR declared revised result along with final answer keys in May 2017 and on the basis of this result, most of the students who declared successful for JRF got admission in various institutes and their   JRF had been activated from 1 July 2017 while the outcome of this court case forced to publish a new result with re-revised answer key. This will declare some previously declared candidates ineligible for JRF and their fellowship will be stopped. This can never be a good behavior with PhD scholars because doing PhD is not an easy job. You have to work hard more than 16 hours a day and if their fellowship stopped how they can survive? (There may be suicide attempts as per my views because they are already facing financial issues and fighting for hike in fellowship as it is not revised since 2014).

To solve this problem, CSIR represented their problems in front of honorable High Court of Punjab and Haryana, by filing a new case against Ramandeep Kaur and this case is pending.

Why the result of June 2017 & Dec 2017 is subjected to outcome of court case?
As the case filed by Ramadeep Kaur was on Dec 2016, but the results of both examinations are subjected to the outcome of court case. Thus they are not getting their certificates so no fellowship. The result was provisionally declared after court order for both the examinations but without certificate they are not able to get any scholarship.

Now all the students with pending certificates will protest on 10th September 2018. Please support them beacuse they are facing a big problem for a mistake done by CSIR. Click here for more details.

Ramandeep Kaur asked some questions on the examination process which are reliable and the exams conducted in June 2017 & Dec 2017 were on the same process (and upcoming result of June 2018 will face the same problem), so the result is pending because now the whole process used in the examination, is a matter of court case.

Regarding Ramandeep Kaur's questions on examination process, court suggested-
 i) It must be mandatory that the objections which are received be also published on the website and cross objections be invited within a certain timeframe. This is necessary because just as the objectors have a right to show how and why the prescribed question or answer is wrong, those students who have answered it as per the answer key have a right to show that the prescribed question/answer is correct.

ii) It must be the duty of the original paper-setter/s to respond to the objections within the same time period and then the objections, cross-objections and the reply of the paper- setter/s should be referred to an independent subject experts who have to deal with the objections.

iii)The examining bodies must prescribe the permissible level of mistakes in question paper/s/answer keys and take appropriate punitive action against those examiners who flout the prescribed level of mistakes.

Once these further safeguards are engrafted to the system of competitive tests (especially those with objective type questions) it would go further in restoring the credibility of this dispute resolution system since the issue of correctness of questions/answers and any remedial measures to be taken would be decided after having the views of all concerned, thus obviating any allegation of arbitrariness or lack of hearing.

Now these suggestions are creating the problem because these are not applied in June 2017 & Dec 2017 (also June 2018) and all these certificates are pending.

If you found anything here is misleading the information, please let me on know in the comments section.

Disclaimer - Fiziks 2 Physics assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this site. The information contained in this site is provided on an “as is” basis with no guarantees of completeness, accuracy, usefulness or timeliness…