1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

(Original Jurisdiction)

WRIT PETITION No. ______/2010 (DB) (PIL)

Between

Sri. Harsha.N.S
Son of A.Narayana Shettigar
Aged about 26 years
No.21-1, 4th cross,
Near SGR Dental college Road
Munnekolala
Marathahalli,
Bangalore -- Petitioner

And

1. The Convener, CAT 2009

IIM, Ahmedabad,
Ahmedabad

2. The Director
Indian Institute of Management
Bangalore

3. The Principal Secretary

Union of India
Ministry of Human Resources
Development
New Delhi -- Respondents

WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

The petitioner above named states as follows:-

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The present petition under article 226 of the

Constitution of India is being filed by way of public
interest litigation and the petitioner has no personal
interest in the matter.
 2

2. The IIMs have a well-deserved reputation for being

the best Business schools in the country. A seat in
the IIMs is coveted by lakhs of aspirants. This puts
tremendous responsibility to ensure that the students
are given a fair chance to get in into IIMs. Till last
year, the CAT was a paper and pencil based test.
However, this year there were various incidents
reported across the country about the computerized
CAT and the way IIMs have handled the issue is
making many students feel that the exams are not
fair. The reputation and credibility of the CAT exam
has been affected this year.

3. That the petitioner is one of the candidates who wrote

Common Administration Test (CAT) in 2009. The 3rd
respondent had called for applications for the CAT
2009 vide Notification dated 30-8-2009(Annexure A).
The said test was held between November 28th to
December 8th, 2009 and about 2.16 lakh candidates
attended the test. The 2009 CAT test was conducted
online by Prometric on behalf of the IIMs. Earlier the
said examination was conducted in the paper- pencil
format. The said test was conducted by IIMs in paper
pencil format for the last 33 years. This year they
have changed to computer based format. The task of
testing was handed over to US based company
Prometric. The said test incurred several technical
problems from the day one itself affecting around
several candidates across 10 days span. Even though
the method of computerized test is claimed to be fool
proof by the respondents, there were several cases of
 3

cheating, mismanagement, leaks, rampant reboots,

viruses and general all round mismanagement.

4. The petitioner further submits that, there was a

disclaimer regarding the conduct of the CAT exam. As
per the said disclaimer, disclosing, publishing,
reproducing, storing, transmitting, or facilitating
transmission and storage of the contents of the CAT
or any information therein in whole or part thereof in
any form or by any means, verbal or written,
electronically or mechanically for any purpose, shall
be in violation of the Indian Contract Act 1872 and or
the Copyright Act 1957 and /or the Information
Technology Act 2000. Such actions and/ or abetment
there as aforementioned may constitute a cognizable
offence punishable with imprisonment for a term up
to three years and fine upto Rs.2 Lakhs. Candidates
who want to appear for CAT have to agree to a non-
disclosure agreement at the time of the test.
Computer based testing is a proven and reliable
process that is administered to tens of millions of
people each year. As with paper and pencil testing, or
virtually every other human endeavor a very small
number of problems could occur that might prevent a
test from being delivered and/ or a result from being
generated. In the unlikely event this does occur,
every effort will be made to correct the problem, up
to and including the administration of another test.
The said disclaimer published by the respondent No.1
is marked as Annexure B.
 4

5. The petitioner submits that, there was rampant

cheating, mismanagement, failure, throughout India,
while the said test was held. There were incidents
reported wherein invigilators were waiting for the
phone call from superior Prometic officials to start the
sessions because of inadequate training. There were
many technical problems in the test centers. There
was a delay in loading the question paper to the
system.

6. The petitioner further submits that, the test did not

start at the same time for all students and neither did
it end at the same time in many centers leading to
less than ideal testing conditions. The test time frame
was 2 ¼ hours. There are reports that questions were
repeated from one slot to another, which helps the
candidates who take exams in later slots. Further the
questions which have come in earlier CAT exams are
repeated in CAT 2009. This was made public by
dummy candidates and some coaching institutes on
Day1. Some coaching institutes even sent messages
to students to revise Old CAT papers and conducted
special crash courses for students. The said questions
were available in public domain. The said documents
are herewith produced for the kind perusal of this
Hon’ble court (Annexure C). The candidates who have
attended the earlier sessions have discussed the
questions in public domain like Orkut and other blogs.
This was unfair to students who took exams in earlier
slots or did not have the privilege of attending a
coaching institute or did not have a large friend circle.
 5

7. The petitioner further submits that, even there were

cases reported of virus attacks while conducting the
test. There were cases reported from Mohali that the
candidates have to wait for about 12 hours due to
technical fault. Later, Prometric which has been
authorized to conduct the CAT exams has issued
apology letters to the students and the faculty
associations at IIM Ahmedabad, Bangalore and
Calcutta have passed resolutions demanding
scrapping this year’s computerized test and re-
conducting the exam in the traditional version. Their
combined opinion was that the re-test alone would
help assure thousands of IIM aspirants that they
receive a fair opportunity during this year. Even now,
there are 8000 candidates who could not take the
test at the scheduled date. There are experts and
alumni of IIMs who openly came out and expressed
their opinion that CAT should be conducted with
utmost transparency and complete fairness to all its
aspirants (Annexure D). Even the questions from
previous year CAT papers were being repeated
especially in QA section of CAT 2009. Such scenario is
automatically biased against those who took the test
in the initial slots. The candidates which appeared for
the test from Day 2 onwards are at an advantage, as
by simply mugging up the QA questions from the last
years cat papers they can increase their attempt in
QA to as high as 17 to 18 questions out of 20, which
in turn causes injustice meted out to those who
attempt the papers on the first day or were without
 6

the knowledge that previous CAT question papers are

being repeated. Consequently, the percentile
calculation too will not be fair one, if it is on the basis
of raw scores across different days. It is reported that
there were CAT questions with errors. In turn, this
mismanagement would affect the thousands of real
good aspirants to get into the prestigious institutions
of IIMs.

8. Further the inadequate trained invigilators caused

problem to the test takes while taking the test. The
bugs in the test software lead to some students
getting extra time for the test. In a typical CAT exam
every minute makes a difference in scores and
percentiles, this means that some students are
getting huge unfair advantage of others. Since there
was a poor level of invigilation in many centers it lead
to copying as reported. Questions being repeated
from one exam slot to another lead to a situation in
which dummy candidates and friends could help other
candidates in later slots. The questions from CAT
were all over the internet in the CAT window period
and candidates who had access to them had an unfair
advantage. This is extremely unfair to those who
took the exams in the first few days. Further this
issue has led to a situation where some students
have got an unfair advantage over others.
9. The petitioner further submits that,
a. Delay in the start of the test: Quite a few of the
test-takers have reported a delay of up to 3 hours.
This delay not only added to their anxiety of not
 7

being able to take the test with a fresh and alert

mind, an absolute necessity for a test like the CAT.

b. Invigilator issues: Invigilators in many test centers

were not appropriately trained to handle
candidates queries or manage the test- taking
process, baffled the students by giving
incorrect/confused instructions, others showed
apathy towards the candidates, which points to
inadequate training of the invigilators.
c. Test software navigation: Some students have
reported that they were instructed not to use the
review button. This instruction has caused
inconvenience to some navigating in the test, thus
putting them at disadvantage compared to
candidates who use the review button.

d. Test software and hardware interruptions:

Candidates reported an interruption in their test
due to various technical glitches like slow loading
of test papers, sudden computer shutdown,
system hanging and system errors popping etc.

e. Unfair advantage: Despite disclaimers on the

official CAT- IIM website, reportedly as per the
student feedback there have been open
discussions in public forums, this would give an
unfair advantage to the participants in such
discussions thus violating the basic objective of
any test.
 8

10. The petitioner submits that, the said facts were

reported in the media, the copy of the media reports
is produced for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court
(Annexure E).Several students have protested the
said CAT 2009; the copy of the same is produced for
the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court(Annexure F).
The questions papers have been discussed in various
forums and files were freely available over internet;
same is produced for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble
Court.

11. The IIMs have compared the CAT exam to other

internationally accepted exams like GMAT. However,
they have failed to replicate the foolproof methods of
the GMAT conducting authority GMAC. Past cases of
cheating in GMAT have been severely dealt with. The
IIMs are trying to imitate GMAT without having fool-
proof methods in place. The copy of the media
reports is produced for the kind perusal of this
Hon'ble Court (Annexure F).

12. Re-exam was conducted in 2003 when a very small

number of candidates had access to leaked questions.
The copy of the media reports is produced for the
kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court (Annexure G).

13. That to the best of knowledge of the petitioner, no

public interest petition raising the same issue is filed
before this Hon'ble Court or before any other court.
 9

14. The present petition has been filed on the following

amongst other grounds

GROUNDS
15. The said test of the respondents incurred several
technical problems from the day one itself affecting
several candidates across a 10 day span. Even
though the method of computerized testing is claimed
to be fool proof by the respondents, there were
several cases reported of cheating, mismanagement,
leaks, rampant reboots, viruses and general all round
mismanagement.

16. Even though there was a disclaimer regarding the

conduct of the CAT exams. As per the said disclaimer,
the disclosing, publishing, reproducing, storing,
transmitting, storing or facilitating transmission and
storage of the contents of the CAT or any information
therein in whole or part thereof in any form or by any
means, verbal or written, electronically or
mechanically for any purpose, shall be in violation of
the Indian Contract Act 1872 and or the copyright act
1957 and /or the information technology act 2000.
Such actions and/ or abetment there as
aforementioned may constitute a cognizable offence
punishable with imprisonment for a term up to three
years and fine upto Rs.2 Lakhs. Candidates who want
to appear for CAT have to agree to a non-disclosure
agreement at the time of the test. Computer based
testing is a proven and reliable process that is
administered to tens of millions of people each year.
 10

As with paper and pencil testing, or virtually every

other human endeavor a very small number of
problems could occur that might prevent a test from
being delivered and/ or a result from being
generated. In the unlikely event this does occur,
every effort will be made to correct the problem, up
to and including the administration of another test.
But the respondents have not taken any action in this
regard even though there was a rampant cheating,
mismanagement, failure, had happened throughout
India, while the said test was held. There are
incidents reported wherein invigilators were waiting
for the phone call from superior Prometric officials to
start the sessions because of inadequate training.
There were technical problems in the test centers.
There was a delay in loading the question paper to
the system.

17. The test did not start at the same time for all
students nor did it end at the same time in many
centers leading to less than ideal testing conditions.
The test duration was for 2 ¼ hours. There are
reports that questions were repeated from one slot to
another, which helps the candidates who took exams
in later slots. Further the questions which have come
up in earlier CAT exams are repeated in the CAT 2009
question. The said questions were available on public
domain. The candidates who have attended the
earlier sessions have discussed the questions in
public domain like Orkut and other blogs.
 11

18. Even there are cases reported of virus attack while

conducting the test. There are cases were reported
from Mohali that the candidates have to wait for
about 12 hours due to technical fault. Later,
Prometric which has been authorized to conduct the
CAT exams has issued apology letters to the students
and the faculty associations at IIM Ahmedabad,
Bangalore and Calcutta have passed resolutions
demanding to scrap this year’s computerized test and
re-conduct the traditional version. Their combined
opinion was that the re-test alone would help assure
thousands of IIM aspirants that they receive a fair
opportunity during this year. Even there are 8000
candidates who could not take the test at the
schedule dates. There are experts and alumni of IIMs
who have openly come out and expressed their
opinion that CAT should be conducted with utmost
transparency and complete fairness to all its
aspirants. Even the questions from previous year CAT
were being repeated especially in QA section of CAT
2009. Such scenario is automatically biased against
those who have taken test on the first day or ignorant
about old CAT questions being repeated. The
candidates who appeared for CAT 2009 after first day
are at an advantage as by simply mugging up the QA
questions from the last years cat papers they can
increase their attempt in QA to as high as 17 to 18
questions out of 20, which in turn causes injustice
meted out to those who attempt the papers on the
first day. Consequently, the percentile calculation too
will not be fair one, if it is on the basis of raw scores
 12

across different days. It is reported that some CAT

questions had errors. In turn this mismanagement
would affect the thousands of real good aspirants to
get into the prestigious institutions of IIMs.

19. The bugs in the test software leading to some

students getting extra time for the test. In a typical
CAT exam every minute makes a difference in scores
and percentiles, this means that some students are
getting huge unfair advantage of others. Since there
was poor level of invigilation in many centers it lead
to copying. As reported, questions were being
repeated from one exam slot to another. This is
extremely unfair to those who took the exams on the
first few days. Further this issue has led to a situation
where some students have got an unfair advantage
over others.

20. Delay in the start of the test: Quite a few of the test-
takers have reported a delay of up to 3 hours. This
delay not only added to their anxiety not able to take
the test with a fresh and alert mind, an absolute
necessity for a test like the CAT.

21. Invigilator issues: Invigilators in many test centers

were not appropriately trained to handle candidate’s
queries or manage the test- taking process. They
baffled the students by giving incorrect/confused
instructions; others showed apathy towards the
candidates.
 13

22. Test software navigation: Some students have

reported that they were instructed not to use the
review button. This instruction has forced some
navigating in the test, thus putting them at
disadvantage compared to candidates who use the
review button.

23. Test software and hardware interruptions:

Candidates reported an interruption in their test due
to various technical glitches like slow loading of test,
sudden computer shutdown, system hanging and
system errors popping etc.,

24. Unfair advantage: Despite disclaimers on the official

CAT- IIM website, reportedly as per the student
feedback there have been open discussions, this
would give an unfair advantage to the participants in
such discussions thus violating the basic objective of
any test.

GROUNDS FOR INTERIM PRAYER

25. The grounds urged to the main petition may be read
as grounds for interim prayer.

26. If the further proceedings of CAT 2009 are not

stayed, the petitioner and other candidates would be
put to severe hardship, loss and injury.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to issue such appropriate writ, order or
 14

direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case be pleased to

a) Direct the respondents 1 and 3 authorities to

cancel the earlier CAT 2009 and re-conduct the CAT
2009 in paper pencil format which can ensure it to be
fool-proof, as the CAT 2009-online test was a failure
due to the malafide administration and consequent
infringement of the legal rights of the candidates of
CAT 2009;

b) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems

fit, in the interest of justice and equity.

INTERIM PRAYER
Pending disposal of the above writ petition, the petitioner
prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the further
proceedings in CAT 2009 and direct the respondents not to
announce the results of CAT 2009, in the interest of justice.

Bangalore
Date: Advocate for Petitioner

ADDRESS FOR SERVICE

SIJI MALAYIL AND ASSOCIATES
Advocates
No.6, Murphy Road,
Indiranagar,
Bangalore – 560 008
 15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

WRIT PETITION No. ______/2010 (DB) (PIL)

Between

Sri. Harsha.N.S -- Petitioner

And

The Convener, CAT 2009

IIM, Ahmedbad,
And others -- Respondents

VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT

I, Harsha.N.S Son of A.Narayana Shettigar Aged

th
about 26 years No.21-1, 4 cross, Near SGR Dental college
Road Munnekolala Marathahalli, Bangalore, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:-

1. I am the petitioner in the above case. I know the facts

of the case. Hence I am swearing to this affidavit.

2. I submit that, the averments made in the petition from

paras 1 to 26 are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief.

I, the deponent do hereby verify and declare that the

averments made above are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief.

Identified by me

Deponent
Advocate Sworn to before me
Bangalore
Date:
 16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

WRIT PETITION No. ______/2010 (DB) (PIL)

Between

Sri. Harsha.N.S -- Petitioner

And

The Convener, CAT 2009

IIM, Ahmedabad,
And others -- Respondents

SYNOPSIS

Sl. No. Events Dates

1 Notification calling for the students for the 30th
August
CAT 2009
2009
2. Date of CAT 2009 fixed 28th
November
–
December
7th 2009
3. Date of commencement of CAT 2009 28th
November
2009
4. Date of completion of CAT 2009 December
8th 2009
5. Petitioner prefers this PIL petition
challenging the method adopted for CAT
2009.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The IIM’s have well-deserved reputation for being the best

Business schools in the country. A seat in the IIM is coveted
by Lakhs of aspirants. This puts tremendous responsibility to
ensure the students are given fair chance to get in into the
IIMs. Till last year, the CAT was a paper and pencil based test,
 17

the various incidents reported across the country about

computerized CAT and the way IIMs have handled the issue is
making many students feels that the exams are not fair. The
reputation and credibility of the CAT exam has been affected
this year.

That the petitioner is one of the candidates who wrote

Common Administration Test (CAT) in 2009. The 3rd
respondent had called for applications for the CAT 2009 vide
Notification dated 30-8-2009. The said test was held between
November 20 to December 8, 2009 and about 2.16 Lakhs
candidates attended the test. The 2009 CAT test was
conducted by Prometric in an on-line format. Earlier the said
examination was conducted in the paper pencil format. The
said test was conducted by the IIM in paper pencil mode for
the last 33 years. This year they have changed to computer
based format. The task of testing was handed over to US
based company called Prometric. The said test incurred
several technical problems from the day one itself affecting
several candidates across a 10 day span. Even though the
method of computerized test is claimed to be fool proof by the
respondents, there are several cases of cheating,
mismanagement, leaking, rampant reboots, viruses and
general all round mismanagement.

The petitioner further submits that, there was a disclaimer

regarding the conduct of the CAT exams. As per the said
disclaimer, the disclosing, publishing, reproducing, storing,
transmitting, storing or facilitating transmission and storage of
the contents of the CAT or any information therein in whole or
part thereof in any form or by any means, verbal or written,
electronically or mechanically for any purpose, shall be in
 18

violation of the Indian Contract Act 1872 and or the copyright

act 1957 and /or the information technology act 2000. Such
actions and/ or abetment there as aforementioned may
constitute a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment
for a term up to three years and fine upto Rs.2 Lakhs.
Candidates who want to appear for CAT have to agree to a
non-disclosure agreement at the time of the test. Computer
based testing is a proven and reliable process that is
administered to tens of millions of people each year. As with
paper and pencil testing, or virtually every other human
endeavor a very small number of problems could occur that
might prevent a test from being delivered and/ or a result
from being generated. In the unlikely even this does occur,
every effort will be made to correct the problem, up to and
including the administration of another test.

The petitioner submits that, there was a rampant cheating,

mismanagement, failure, had happened throughout India,
while the said test was held. There are incidents reported
wherein invigilators were waiting for the phone call from
superior Prometric officials to start the sessions. There were
some technical problems in the test centers. There was a
delay in loading the question paper to the system.

The petitioner further submits that, the test did not start at
the same time for all students and neither did it end at the
same time in many centers leading to less than ideal testing
conditions. The test time frame was 2 ¼ hours. There are
reports that questions were repeated from one slot to
another, which helps the candidates who took exams in later
slots. Further the questions which have come up in earlier CAT
exams are repeated in the CAT 2009 question. The said
 19

questions were available on public domain. The candidates

who have attended the earlier sessions have discussed the
questions in public domain like Orkut and other blogs.
The petitioner further submits that,
a. Delay in the start of the test: Quite a few of the
test-takers have reported a delay of up to 3 hours.
This delay not only added to their anxiety not able
to take the test with a fresh and alert mind, an
absolute necessity for a test like the CAT.

b. Invigilator issues: Invigilators in many test centers

were not appropriately trained to handle
candidate’s queries or manage the test- taking
process. They baffled the students by giving
incorrect/confused instructions; others showed
apathy towards the candidates.

c. Test software navigation: Some students have

reported that they were instructed not to use the
review button. This instruction has caused
inconvenience to some navigating in the test, thus
putting them at disadvantage compared to
candidates who use the review button
d. Test software and hardware interruptions:
Candidates reported an interruption in their test
due to various technical glitches like slow loading
of test, sudden computer shutdown, system
hanging and system errors popping etc.,
e. Unfair advantage: Despite disclaimers on the
official CAT- IIM website, reportedly as per the
student feedback there have been open
discussions, this would give an unfair advantage to
the participants in such discussions thus violating
the basic objective of any test.

Hence this writ petition filed by the petitioner in the interest of

public to ensure justice.

Place: Bangalore
Date: Advocate for Petitioner