New Delhi, July 10 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Monday vacated its stay on counselling and admissions to IITs and other institutions related to JEE (Advanced), 2017 entrance examination.
The bench of Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar while vacating the stay also said that no high court would entertain any plea on this issue.
“We are inclined to vacate the order passed on July 7 and also convey that we are not inclined to interfere with the counselling and admission process and high courts should act accordingly and not interfere in the admission process,” the court order said.
The apex court also said it expected that errors, mistakes in the framing of questions and in printing of question papers should not happen.
The top court had on July 7 called a halt to further counselling and admissions to IITs in respect of entrance tests under JEE-Advanced across the country.
In all, 1.56 lakh students had appeared in the IIT-JEE (Advanced), 2017 and 33,307 students have already taken admission in IITs, NITs, Indian Institutes of Information Technology and Government-Funded Technical Institutions (GFTI).
The court was informed that as of now, 10,987 students had been admitted to IITs and only 31 seats in General category were remaining.
Referring to an earlier 2005 judgement, wherein the court had ordered fresh exercise of examination, the court said in such a complex examination, ordering fresh examination would not be appropriate.
The court noted that total students involved in the 2005 case were 10,000.
The top court was moved by several students through a batch of petitions challenging the grant of seven marks to all the candidates for printing errors in two questions — one in Chemistry and other in Maths — in the Hindi version of the paper.
While the Chemistry question carried three marks, the Maths question was of four marks.
Seven marks were given to all the candidates — those who correctly attempted these two questions, those who attempted them incorrectly and even those who did not attempt them.
“To award these marks to all candidates irrespective of whether or not they had even attempted to answer these questions is arbitrary and violative,” the petitioners had contended.