Kerala HC upholds new standardisation formula for preparing engineering entrance exam rank list

Kochi: High court has upheld the new standardisation formula introduced by the state govt to ensure uniformity in the evaluation of marks awarded by different boards, including the CBSE, ICSE, and Kerala Board of Public Examinations, for the preparation of the rank list for various engineering courses based on the entrance examination.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas further observed that the introduction of the new scheme for the normalisation of marks is a matter of policy and that HC can interfere with it only if it is demonstrated that the policy is contrary to any statutory provision or the Constitution of India, or is so arbitrary and unreasonable that no prudent person would have adopted it.

HC was considering petitions filed by certain CBSE Class XII students challenging the introduction of the new standardisation formula for the preparation of the rank list for the 2026 engineering entrance examination. The petitioners contended that the change in the formula was an arbitrary departure from the existing system, introduced without any scientific evaluation and in a highly prejudicial manner, thereby adversely affecting the student community at large.

However, the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations filed a counter-affidavit asserting that the new method had been introduced to eliminate disparities that existed under the earlier standardisation formula. It was also stated that an internal review committee constituted by the state govt, comprising the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, Director of Technical Education, and Director of SCERT, had reviewed the previous standardisation method in light of various complaints and decided to adopt a new normalisation method identical to the one followed by Tamil Nadu. The new formula was subsequently accepted and approved by the state govt.

After considering the contentions advanced by both the petitioners and the state, HC observed that minor errors may arise while introducing a new scheme of normalisation. At times, such errors become visible or identifiable only after the scheme is put to the test. However, merely because there may be minor errors in an examination or evaluation system introduced by the govt, courts should not sit in judgment over the wisdom of such a scheme unless serious prejudice is clearly demonstrated. Accordingly, the bench dismissed the petitions.