Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court quashed the Government Order dated 1 July 2025, which altered the formula for calculating KEAM 2025 ranks from a 1:1:1 ratio for Maths, Physics, and Chemistry to a 5:3:2 ratio, issued merely one hour before publishing the rank list. The court directed the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations to prepare and publish the rank list based on the original prospectus issued on 19 February 2025, which prescribed the 1:1:1 ratio, ensuring fairness and adherence to settled rules.
Facts
Students who passed Class 12 under CBSE appeared for KEAM 2025, conducted between 23 and 29 April 2025 under a prospectus stipulating a 50:50 weightage between KEAM and +2 marks, with Maths, Physics, Chemistry weighted equally (1:1:1). On 1 July 2025, at 16:48 hours, the government issued an order changing the subject weightage to 5:3:2, claiming it corrected an illegality, and published the rank list with this new ratio at 17:48 hours. Students filed writ petitions challenging this last-minute change as arbitrary and mala fide.
Issues
- Whether the government could alter the evaluation formula after the exam was conducted and just before publishing the rank list.
- Whether Clause 1.6 of the prospectus allowed such a change at any stage, including after the exam.
- Whether the change violated Article 14 by unfairly altering the evaluation to favour certain students.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners argued that the sudden change in marks ratio was arbitrary, violated their legitimate expectations, and altered the ‘rules of the game’ after the exam and data collection were complete. They highlighted that the prospectus, based on expert committee recommendations since 2011, had ensured consistency for 14 years, and altering it an hour before rank publication was done to favour a particular constituency, violating Article 14.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued that Clause 1.6 of the prospectus allowed the government to modify the prospectus at any stage, including before rank publication, to correct alleged illegality. The government cited the Seema Sebastian decision, arguing that changes could be made post the last date if the existing criteria violated Article 14 and created discrimination among similarly placed students.
Analysis of the Law
The court examined:
- The doctrine of “rules of the game”, emphasizing that rules for competitive exams cannot be altered post-examination, citing constitutional principles of fairness.
- Clause 1.6, which provided the power to amend the prospectus, was examined to assess whether it permitted post-exam changes.
- The distinction between a permissible amendment to correct discrimination and impermissible changes for administrative convenience or to favour a section of candidates.
Precedent Analysis
The court considered:
- Seema Sebastian v. State of Kerala (2023 (3) KHC 284), where post-deadline amendments were upheld only to rectify constitutional violations and discrimination, not for administrative adjustments.
- The general principle laid down by the Supreme Court and High Courts that “rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has begun.”
The court held that while the power to amend exists, it cannot be exercised arbitrarily to the prejudice of candidates who have already appeared for the examination under the announced criteria.
Court’s Reasoning
The court found that:
- The government’s claim of rectifying illegality was a facade for an arbitrary decision, possibly to favour local board students.
- The government had complete data by 14 May 2025, and the change was made only on 1 July 2025, indicating mala fide intent.
- Changing the evaluation formula an hour before rank publication violated principles of fairness, certainty, and legitimate expectation under Article 14.
- Clause 1.6 cannot override constitutional principles to permit arbitrary post-exam changes.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court quashed the government’s order changing the KEAM 2025 marks ratio to 5:3:2 and directed the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations to publish the rank list based on the original 1:1:1 ratio prescribed in the 19 February 2025 prospectus, restoring fairness and consistency for all candidates.
Implications
This judgment ensures:
- Governments cannot alter entrance exam evaluation criteria post-exam under the guise of correcting illegality.
- Upholds candidates’ legitimate expectations and constitutional protections under Article 14 in competitive exams.
- Reinforces that Clause 1.6 powers cannot override the fundamental principles of fairness and predictability in examination processes.
Short notes on cases referred and relevance
- Seema Sebastian v. State of Kerala (2023): Post-deadline changes to rectify discrimination permissible; distinguished here as the KEAM change was arbitrary, not a discrimination correction.
- General “rules of the game” principles from Supreme Court jurisprudence supported quashing the government’s change.
FAQs
1. Can the government change entrance exam evaluation rules after the exam?
No, courts have held that post-exam changes violate fairness and candidates’ legitimate expectations.
2. What is the “rules of the game” principle in exams?
It means exam rules cannot be changed after the exam, ensuring fairness and transparency in competitive processes.
3. Why did the Kerala High Court quash the KEAM marks ratio change?
The change was made arbitrarily an hour before rank publication, violating Article 14 and fairness principles.