- This section contains EIGHT (08) questions. The answer to each question is NUMERICAL VALUE.
- For each question, enter the correct numerical value (in decimal notation, truncated/rounded off to the second decimal place; e.g. 6.25, 7.00, -0.33, -.30, 30.27, -127.30) using the mouse and the on-screen virtual numeric keypad in the place designated to enter the answer.
- Answer to each question will be evaluated according to the following marking scheme:
- Full Marks: +3 if ONLY the correct numerical value is entered as answer. Zero marks: 0 in all other cases.

There is apparently a question, which has an integer answer. Since I have not seen the question, let me assume that the answer is '2'. IIT JEE has announced that they will give marks to all those students who answered, 2 or 2.0 or 2.00 or even 2.000.

Some student who answered 2.00 has gone to court insisting that students who answered 2 or 2.0 (or 2.000) should not be given any mark, and giving them marks would change her ranking.

The court directed IIT JEE to grade as per the original instructions. IIT Kanpur being the host institution has informed the court that as per these instructions, 2 or 2.0 (and somehow even 2.000) are all correct answers and they have graded as per the instructions only.

The court is not pleased and has now come up with a specific order, which is very strange, to say the least. It is not saying that answer 2 or 2.0 is wrong as per the instructions and should get 0 marks It is saying that students should be penalized for not following the instruction and hence if two students have same marks and one student has followed the instruction and another has not then the student who has followed the instruction should be kept higher in the ranking.

The court gives NO reason for this order, which is rather strange. I have not seen any court orders in the past where the legal point has not been explained well.

By saying that 2 is an inferior answer than 2.00, first of all court is declaring that answers could be inferior or superior. For an extremely technical point, the court to make such a ruling, is, to say the least, strange. But why is 2 an inferior answer. Because students were asked to truncate or round off to two decimal places.

What happens when you truncate 2. Does it become 2.00

What happens when you round off 2. Does it become 2.00.

It should be obvious that the instructions are only meant for cases where truncation and rounding off makes sense. And in case of integers, the instructions do not make sense.

In fact, all those who wrote the answer as 2.00 are wrong, and their marks should be deducted as they have followed some instructions not applicable to this answer. IIT JEE has been kind enough to admit that these students might have been confused and agreed to give them marks. But now, they want the court to say that others who did the right thing by interpreting the instructions correctly should suffer.

And Madras High Court is essentially saying that when you truncate or round off an integer number 2, you will get 2.00. It has not specified in its order whether truncation will get 2.00 or rounding off will get 2.00. I would really like the honorable court to specify this too so that we can change all our school mathematics textbooks in the country as per the court decision.

Now, you might disagree with me that the interpretation of writing the answer as 2.00 is wrong. But can you deny that some students would read the same instruction and come to a conclusion that these instructions are only meaningful if the answer is a real number with more than 2 decimal places. And if their interpretation is a reasonable one, should they be penalized.

Last year, when IIT JEE had done lots of wrongs and yet courts supported them, I had written in my blog that for a long time courts have been ignoring anything and everything IITs do. They are letting IITs get away with murder. I didn't know that in just one year, we will have a complete U turn in the circumstances where the courts will support students who can't even interpret instructions properly and ask IITs to penalize those who understand and interpret the instructions properly.

---------------------------------------

And even if the interpretation of 2.00 is a better interpretation, why not allow an alternative interpretation as well. If those who wrote 2.00 had to spend extra time or would have done the rest of the paper in a better way had they known that alternative interpretations would be allowed, then, for a moment one can consider their request to penalize others. But if their exam has not been affected by it, and there is a genuine confusion, shouldn't that alternative interpretation be graded as well. What is the legal point in forcing only one interpretation when there was no impact on the exam (there will be impact on rank, but then there has to be a legal point supporting one interpretation). The court does not specify the legal point. (I guess it was important to pass a quick order in this case, and a reasoned order would have taken time. But the hurry to pronounce an order has unfortunately led to an order without reason.)

**Added on 6th July, 2018:**---------------------------------------

And even if the interpretation of 2.00 is a better interpretation, why not allow an alternative interpretation as well. If those who wrote 2.00 had to spend extra time or would have done the rest of the paper in a better way had they known that alternative interpretations would be allowed, then, for a moment one can consider their request to penalize others. But if their exam has not been affected by it, and there is a genuine confusion, shouldn't that alternative interpretation be graded as well. What is the legal point in forcing only one interpretation when there was no impact on the exam (there will be impact on rank, but then there has to be a legal point supporting one interpretation). The court does not specify the legal point. (I guess it was important to pass a quick order in this case, and a reasoned order would have taken time. But the hurry to pronounce an order has unfortunately led to an order without reason.)

Is accepting one interpretation over other really the most fair solution. Shouldn't we demand a retest whenever the slightest confusion appears in the language of any question or instruction. May be what JEE should do is to prepare 10 different question papers, and conduct exams over 10 days. The exam on 1st day will be graded. If there is no confusion, that is final. If there is a confusion, let us look at the test 2. If there is confusion in this, let us grade test 3, and so on. And hope that there will at least be one exam out of those 10 which will not have any confusion. That, to me, seems to be the only fair solution in future.

----------------------------------

A lot of comments here, on FB, on emails, and elsewhere, all saying just one thing. What was 7.00 doing in the instructions. Isn't the presence of 7.00 a proof that 7 was to be written as 7.00.

Sorry, guys. I disagree. Presence of 7.00 is NOT a proof that 7 was to be written as 7.00, That is your assumption. And I would ask a counter question. There is a specific mention of truncation/rounding off. Are you truncating 7 to get 7.00 or are you rounding off to get 7.00. You can't point out to just one number in the list, and not read the rest of the instruction.

The instructions is only saying what is the minimum you need to do to get full marks. And if you don't do that minimum, you will get a zero. The instructions are not meant to say that you can't do better than the minimum. If the answer is 6.997 you can write it as 7.00. That is the minimum expected. But if you write 6.997, it is not wrong. It is better. And in no exam can you be penalized to do better.

And further, I am saying that those who have made a mistake of assuming that mere presence of 7.00 is a proof that 7 is to be written as 7.00, have made a small mistake. We don't need to penalize them. But I am aghast at people saying that those who did better should be penalized.

------------------------------------------------

The Court's decision, besides being inconsistent with Mathematics, has other infirmities as well. If we look at the operating part of the decision, it is stated in Para #14 and Para #15, and these two paragraphs appear to be contradictory in nature.

**Added on 7th July, 2018:**----------------------------------

A lot of comments here, on FB, on emails, and elsewhere, all saying just one thing. What was 7.00 doing in the instructions. Isn't the presence of 7.00 a proof that 7 was to be written as 7.00.

Sorry, guys. I disagree. Presence of 7.00 is NOT a proof that 7 was to be written as 7.00, That is your assumption. And I would ask a counter question. There is a specific mention of truncation/rounding off. Are you truncating 7 to get 7.00 or are you rounding off to get 7.00. You can't point out to just one number in the list, and not read the rest of the instruction.

The instructions is only saying what is the minimum you need to do to get full marks. And if you don't do that minimum, you will get a zero. The instructions are not meant to say that you can't do better than the minimum. If the answer is 6.997 you can write it as 7.00. That is the minimum expected. But if you write 6.997, it is not wrong. It is better. And in no exam can you be penalized to do better.

And further, I am saying that those who have made a mistake of assuming that mere presence of 7.00 is a proof that 7 is to be written as 7.00, have made a small mistake. We don't need to penalize them. But I am aghast at people saying that those who did better should be penalized.

**Added on 7th July, 2018:**------------------------------------------------

The Court's decision, besides being inconsistent with Mathematics, has other infirmities as well. If we look at the operating part of the decision, it is stated in Para #14 and Para #15, and these two paragraphs appear to be contradictory in nature.

Para
14 is essentially saying that the judge is satisfied with IIT's view that the
answers with or without decimal are both correct and hence marks can be
awarded to both, but only as a tie breaking thing, those who have
written all answers in 2 decimal places shall be considered ahead of
those who have written answers till one decimal place and they should be
ahead in ranking of those who have written integer answers. It is not clear which category a student will be in if s/he has written some answers up to 2 decimal places and some answers up to 1 and some answers as integers. In any case, this is
only an additional tie breaking rule and one can see that this won't impact the counseling
process much. Almost everybody will get the same seat as they were
getting without this court order.

However, Para 15 is saying that seat allocation should be based on original instructions, and not based on clarifications issued later on, specifically with regards to writing the answer up to 2 decimal place. This seems to indicate that those who wrote an integer answer or up to one decimal place answer should get a zero in that question. This will cause havoc to the merit list as many people have written less than 2 decimal places not just in one question but many questions. And every such question was 3 marks.

What should IITs follow? If you follow Para 14, the petitioners aren't going to be happy, and they are likely to go for an appeal. If you follow Para 15, then all those affected now, will go for an appeal. Either way, the admission process is stuck. So it was best that IIT went for an appeal, and now the best is to wait for the decision of the 2-judge bench.

In the meanwhile, I would suggest that those who have written Integer answers or answers till 1 decimal place, request the high court to join this petition. Don't depend on IIT alone to fight it. As we have seen in many other cases, IITs don't represent their cases very well. They really depend on the fact that most courts are sympathetic to them and hence even if they don't represent the case well, they will win. But in this case, that is not happening. So I am hoping that they would have done their homework really well this time and prepared a good appeal. But don't depend on it. If you can afford a lawyer at Madras HC, join the case.

However, Para 15 is saying that seat allocation should be based on original instructions, and not based on clarifications issued later on, specifically with regards to writing the answer up to 2 decimal place. This seems to indicate that those who wrote an integer answer or up to one decimal place answer should get a zero in that question. This will cause havoc to the merit list as many people have written less than 2 decimal places not just in one question but many questions. And every such question was 3 marks.

What should IITs follow? If you follow Para 14, the petitioners aren't going to be happy, and they are likely to go for an appeal. If you follow Para 15, then all those affected now, will go for an appeal. Either way, the admission process is stuck. So it was best that IIT went for an appeal, and now the best is to wait for the decision of the 2-judge bench.

In the meanwhile, I would suggest that those who have written Integer answers or answers till 1 decimal place, request the high court to join this petition. Don't depend on IIT alone to fight it. As we have seen in many other cases, IITs don't represent their cases very well. They really depend on the fact that most courts are sympathetic to them and hence even if they don't represent the case well, they will win. But in this case, that is not happening. So I am hoping that they would have done their homework really well this time and prepared a good appeal. But don't depend on it. If you can afford a lawyer at Madras HC, join the case.

## 83 comments:

7.00 in the second point of instructions is the problem. It was clearly mentioned that you have to write 7.00 for 7. You can't change the rules of the game after the game is over. That's the big legal point.

IITs have always used the undue advantage of courts going by whatever they say. This time it's not happening. IIT Kanpur did the right thing offering clarification after the exam but, why after the exam? It should have been a part of the instructions. You're conducting one of the most prestigious exams of the country. Margin of error is zero.

and this is the real fact i think the problem facing students are maggu who donot apply his mind that 2 is not rounded off as 2.00 .it is only waste of tym

Very true. Why honorable could not understand this simple logic.

General guidelines in an exam paper does not mean one should forgo basic mathematical principles.

If the question is "How many eyes do you have?" Is the answer 2 or 2.00 according to this teenager and HC judges?

If the question is "How many concentric circles can be drawn to a given circle?" Will she write infinity (or use its symbol) or write infinity (or its symbol) followed by .00?

For her lack of basic knowledge she should be ranked low and the judge(s) should be demoted.

First of all I think it is unfair to give preference to anyone who is either marking 2 or 2.00 as both the sets of students where doing what seemed natural to them after reading the instructions those marking 2 will give the same reason given by yourself and those marking 2.00 will give example of 7.00 written in the instructions (without realizing it may be written after truncating/rounding off 7.001).

More so importantly I don't understand when there are so many grounds on which iit kanpur could have justified it's giving equal preference to all students marking 2 or 2.00 , it still couldnt stop this order.

Why don't they understand not everyone in this country has got a under 1000 jee rank and so others have simultaneously applied for counselling of other institues like iiit Delhi, DTU, NSIT (through JAC) , bitsat, iiit hyd, daiict etc and just because josaa stops it counselling (which it has done for the time being by the way )doesn't mean all others will also do it , and when you have already submitted counselling fees of the order of 35,000 and 75,000 etc. You do want to know what all courses you are getting before the last withdrawal rounds.

As far as your suggestion of making 10 different papers is concerned, I personally don't think it is feasible at all considering the fact that you also need to maintain the quality of questions , it is very easy for exams like bitsat(with most questions of same difficulty and same pattern) but not so for exams like jee advanced( with their variety of questions and varying difficulty).what can be done is asking some proffesors who were not "actually invloved in setting in the question paper" to attempt the paper and then report any ambiguity which they find.( Actually this was suggested by kd Joshi sir(retired iit Bombay mathematics professor)) This will help in two ways -

1) any confusion in marking scheme or instructions can done away with .

2) ambiguous questions/wrong questions/typing errors can be identified.

It sounds to me like a much better way of identifing mistakes.

With due respect, why would the original instructions contain reference to 7.00 and not 7.0 or 7 - the point is, there was a goof up in the original instructions and the same had to be followed religiously. Post exam clarifications are bad, it’s same as changing the goal line after shot has been fired. Let’s take this with a pinch of salt - insistence on post exam clarifications is unfair and untenable in law. Also, my plain understanding after reading the original instructions is fully clear - all such answers have to be truncated / rounded off to two decimal points. It is an altogether different issue whether the exam authority had such intent in mind for integer answer.

Is 2 == 2.0? Of course not. But that is not the question that was posed. In exams you get marks for the question posed.

The question (as indicated by you in the preamble): If the answer is numerical, you are REQUIRED to write the answer in decimal notation. Whether 2 is a decimal notation or not, is not very clear, so the instructions go on to clarify mentioning 7.00 as a specific example.

Given a high-pressure exam such as JEE(A), it is perfectly reasonable to "stick to the instructions" especially since you know (a) this is the first time and (b) that the answer would be graded by a computer, not by a human. Therefore Lakshmi who petitioned correctly chose to truncate 2 to two decimal places. Or rounded, if you like.

Now, you ask

What happens when you truncate 2. Does it become 2.00Since 2 == 2.00000 (infinite zeros so to speak), the truncated value is 2.00 (Upto two decimal places).

And also the rounded value. No surprise.

Therefore Lakshmi chooses 2.00

What about lazy, clever Doraisawami who ignores instructions, and says, "obviously" this instruction does not apply to an integer, even though the "answer is numerical"? He is out on a limb. However, IIT Kanpur does not want to penalize clever students, that would be too drastic.

It was the fault of the question paper setters to not clarify what to do when the answer is numerical but also an integer. They even had an example like 7.00

They clarified after the fact by saying that a range of answer would be allowed. In fact, they even said this

if an answer is the number 11.367777777..., all answers entered within a specified range, for example 11.36 to 11.37 (this range is shown for illustration purposes only) will be correct. Thus both answers 11.36 and 11.37 will be correct.This is even though the correct rounded answer is indeed 11.37 and a student who enters 11.36 is not rounding.

Given this bewildering situation, I feel the honorable judge did not want to penalize people like Doraiswami since the results were already out, and in fact even the allocations had started. In such a situation, the best best was to give preference to Lakshmi (without embarrassing IIT Kanpur).

This will cause some inversions, but not drastic ones. Hmmn Don't understand this line of reasoning of the judges? See the trauma in this quora answer. Read the last sentence.

But the thing is the ones who read the instructions carefully and followed everything they turned out to be the biggest bunch of fools cause they were busy writing .00 after every integer answer they got because a vast majority of the ones taking the exam were smart enough to not follow the instructions.

What? Were you blind enough to not read the instructions in the first place? Or were you too confident enough to not write the correct answers because your dad owns IITs? Or were you just another typical, mediocre guy who thinks “I can do whatever I want and if things don’t work out the way I want I’m going to whine on social media about how everyone wants me to fail and IITs should be sympathetic towards my condition because the exam pressure caught me?”

It was clearly mentioned that you needed to answer in decimal system.

And then you guys whine and rant on twitter on quora about how sad it is that IITs are ruining your lives, and how hard you worked and how missing a decimal point would not get you qualified… It makes me sick!

And you know what? Congratulations cause you won! But none of you deserved those marks. 5% of the guys work their asses off and follow every rules and end up getting screwed because the crowd doesn’t wish to mend their ways. Welcome to India!

Sir,I agree with your views,but can you please tell us about what further action would be taken by IITK in this matter,will it abide by the ruling of HC Madras or will it go to SC.

Sir,

I have a slightly different take on this. I reproduce the instructions from the paper below,

"For each question, enter the correct numerical value (in decimal notation, truncated/rounded-off to the second decimal place; e.g. 6.25, 7.00, -0.33, -.30, 30.27, -127.30) using the mouse and the onscreen virtual numeric keypad in the place designated to enter the answer."

Sir nowhere in the instructions it says that for an integer the answer can be written as '2' or '11' and all real numbers should be written truncated to the second decimal place, as '6.25' or '-0.33'. In fact in the examples in the bracket it shows '7.00' as an example which means integers should also be written as '2.00' or '11.00'.

As per court anybody who has not followed the instructions as stated above is wrong although '2 = 2.00 = 2.0' mathematically and new instructions after the exam has concluded are like shifting the goal post after the ball has been hit.

Sir we need ur support , not to redo rank list

Sir I do agree with u.

@Vivek, as I wrote on your FB post as well, if IITs knew that such a simple instruction would be misunderstood and further, people will go to court insisting that people having alternate interpretations (which is mathematically more correct) should be penalized, they would have certainly included that in the instructions. Asking why did they not do it earlier is assuming that IITs knew this happen in advance and somehow deliberately caused confusion. I disagree with that assumption.

@Sk, I am also suggesting that both groups get same marks. I am only saying that if preference is to be given at all (which I am not suggesting) then those who wrote the integer answer should get it. I am told that JEE does have a system of vetting question papers and this year that process was improved further to ensure that the probability of errors is reduced. Of course, I realize that 10 papers cannot be conducted.

@Sunil k, And can you please explain whether you truncate 7 or round off 7 to get 7.00.

@Unknown, as per media reports, IIT Kanpur has appealed the decision and requested Madras High Court to consider it in multiple-judge bench.

Exactly what happened to me.

My email to see advanced yesterday:

Sir, I appeared for Jee advanced 2018, my AIR is 150(general). I read instruction very carefully and thought that the 7.00 was given to show rounding off in cases like 7.00343, etc. And if there are no decimal places in answers like 'in a question to find number of books, etc' there is no need for it. I don't know why I thought this way but there is no line in instruction which violates it. It is not written in instruction what to do with integers, I thought they can be written any way. There can't be any rounding off or truncation if there is no digits to do so. So I thought it was unnecessary (I don't think doing that waste more time than 2 sec per question). This order by Madras High Court hit me in two ways, first having disadvantage even after solving problem correctly, second it happened even after I read and understood the instruction completely. Court is against anyone who doesn't follow instructions. Why it's hitting me then?

I hope you will respond.

@askingforSanity, You and I may disagree with what is a better interpretation of the instructions given. However, what IIT Kanpur has to consider is whether the two interpretations are both reasonable. If yes, give marks to both. There is no other way to solve this. And this is exactly what I am proposing too (though IIT Kanpur JEE office would not talk to me). For someone to propose that other party be penalized, they have to show that the alternative interpretation is so erroneous.

Sir, with due respect, please refer to two specific entries in the original instructions: 7.00 and -127.30. Let’s restrict ourselves only to the issue in hand, following emerges very clearly:

1) All such answers have to have 2 decimal points and anything else is incorrect.

2) Assuming a answer is arrived as 14.678 - in such a scenario, two correct answers will be arrived either by truncating to 14.67 or rounding off to 14.68. Please note, the issue is not about whether 7 = 7.0 = 7.00 , but more about following very specifically following what was contained in the instructions. Let me ask you as well as all those who are here: why the reference is to 7.00 or - 127.30 in the instructions and not 7 or - 127.3 ?

On an extended logic, why would 6.997 be rounded of to 7.00 and not 7. Pl note, in no way it can be justified that. 7.00 was the only was the answer had to be reported even if the answer was a perfect integer 7

I assume AIR 1 has written answers as 7.00 or 23.50 etc etc. So, what we are trying to suggest that his capability is lower to those who wrote the answers as 7 or 23.5. JEE is full of traps, and this was mother of all traps. Those who were smarter ( and in no way less capable) responded well by putting all answers in two decimals.

Sir, what will happen finally as I froze my seat in the second round and I did not use the decimal notation for integers

[Those reading this, please see the original post by me.]

You and I may disagree with what is a better interpretation of the instructions given. However, what IIT Kanpur has to consider is whether the two interpretations are both reasonable

Exactly. And when two reasonable people disagree, we go to the court who listens to both sides. And rules.

It seems you agree (now) that 2 != 2.00, but that is not the question.

The question asked by JEE was "Write your answer good till two decimal places". Implicit in this is statement is "Write your answer good till two decimal places, whether or not it is the right answer". For example, if the right answer is 11.367, do not write 11.367. Write 11.37 (rounded). Why? Because of many reasons, but one common one is that the computer is going to grade it. Anyway, DO IT. you are the student, we are the question paper setters.

[Don't like rounded? Ok, truncate, so 11.36 is also the right answer. But 11.367 is not the answer for which you can get marks -- remember -- you get marks for what has been asked for, not for something we did not ask you.]

As to your second point

For someone to propose that other party be penalized, they have to show that the alternative interpretation is so erroneous.

The other party should be penalized because here are the instructions

Full Marks: +3 if ONLY the correct numerical value is entered as answer. Zero marks: 0 in all other cases.

Since the definition of correct numerical value has been sorted out earlier, an answer such as 11 is incorrect. (Again, paper setters did not clarify what to do when an integer is the answer, so the interpretation is that 11 != 11.00 just like 11.367 != 11.37 (for the purposes of JEE advanced) but to get marks you have to write 11.00

Per the above statement, zero marks should be given.

However we obviously don't want to penalize someone so harshly, hence the compromise formula from the judge.

The problem is that we while giving the exam did not know whether the answers would be checked as a string of characters or as a number. If it would be as a string of characters, 2 is different from 2.00 and when the instructions explicitly stated 7.00 is the correct answer, it is imperative that we should follow it.

Peace.

"For each question enter the correct numerical value.

In case your answer exceeds two decimal places round it off to two decimal places."

this would have been a much better instruction instead of confusing students.

If iitk had the intention that i enter an integer answer as it is, then why didnt they mention one in the example?

The entire career of a student depends on one exam. Can't the paper setters take care to give the instructions in an unambiguous manner, and that too when a new patter is introduced and examination mode is changed.

They also complicated the instructions for the multiple correct section, although after careful reading they meant the same as in 2016 and 2017

Not sure if others see the irony but ...

Notice how the paper setters pompously(?) clarify what is eight even though IIT Kanpur did not clarify in the paper what to do when the answer is an integer (thus numerical) .

This section contains EIGHT (08) questions.

Not "eight". EIGHT in capitals. And "08" not "8"

What is the subliminal message to the candidates? ANSWER our question upto two decimal places.

OK SIR!

Imstructuons mention to answer integers as 12.56,-3.50,3.00,4.17

It does explain how to answer an integer.

There is a example given in the 'Instructions to candidates' page where it's written 7.00 as an answer, what should I make out of it while giving JEE Advanced. Or should I say 'obviously' and write only 7 as answer?

There is no compromise formula proposed in the judgement. The reasoning part (mid Paras of the order) does talk about relativity of answers, but the judgment without any ambiguity (last para only of the order) clearly states: “evaluations to be done strictly as per original instructions only. “

Sir I agree with your point that 2 is equal to 2.00, but what about for example Physics Q10 Paper 1 where the correct answer was 2.09 but all answers in the range 2.00 to 2.20 were considered correct. There were 14 such cases. What is the reason for that ?

In this case 2.09 = 2Ï€/3 . Why were others considered correct?

Honourable Sir, I worked hard for 3 years, dropped an year for J.E.E. I most humbly beg to object against the petitioner L Laxmi Sree from Madras.

According to errors and measurement defined in Physics as standard parameters for measurement (Which were clearly followed by honorable I.I.T. Kanpur while releasing clarification next day after paper), .00 after an integer comes into account only when it is mentioned “ACCURACY UPTO TWO SIGNIFICANT DIGITS AFTER DECIMAL POINT” and for some measuring device with least count and zero error upto 2 decimal places. But exact words “ACCURACY UPTO TWO SIGNIFICANT DIGITS AFTER DECIMAL POINT” were NOT mentioned in instructions. When the above things are not mentioned, then 7, 7.0 and 7.00 are the same thing and 7 is automatically taken to be 7.00 and the .00 would be of no use until anything regarding least count is mentioned or until we had to round off to certain numerical value from 3rd/4th or further decimal place (which was not even required for many questions which had exact and perfect integral answers). Rounding off to two decimal places would come into account when we have to eliminate 3rd-4th or further decimal place. For example 7.00 would be interpreted as rounding off 7.003 or 6.997 to 7.00. But if .00 was compulsory even after integers then after writing answer as only integer, the software would itself had shown "you cannot proceed with an incomplete answer. Kindly specifying upto 2 decimal places". Like the system was designed for single correct questions of the same paper to follow the compulsion that only one option can be locked in single correct, when we clicked one option, and after that clicked on another, only the one which we clicked on later was taken into account and the earlier one was eliminated. Or else they would have clearly mentioned it in instructions like they did in Multiple correct regarding +1,+2,+3 and +4. They would have clearly written that “.00 is necessary after integral answers also”. So, the clarification issued by I.I.T. Kanpur is obviously justified according to instructions and science since they are one of the most important institutes of our country and accommodate the core talent of our country. They would always keep these things in mind before releasing clarification.

Many people had worked hard for J.E.E. Advanced 2018 for 2–3 years dedicated towards J.E.E. Advanced. They had learnt the concepts by heart to a great deep level and finally solved tough problems of J.E.E. Advanced on that day. Would I.I.T.’s really like it, if the deserving candidate who solved a question correctly but just missed .00 is being awarded the same score (i.e. 0) equivalent to that of the candidate who had null idea about the questions and left them. This would make the deserving candidate fall down by a huge margin. For instance, let there be two candidates, X and Y. X scored 135/360. Y scored 155/360. Y had studies a lot for J.E.E. Advanced for years and just missed to insert .00 which resulted in deduction of 30 marks, he finally scored 125/360. Due to which X got better rank than Y. Despite of having knowledge and potential to become an I.I.T.ian, Y didn't get seat whereas X got his desired seat. Y didn't insert .00 and I.I.T.’s lost a potential candidate. Whereas it wouldn't even make sense to insert .00 in questions of chemistry where we were asked to count number of certain compounds. In one question they asked greatest integer function. So it would be invalid to insert decimal in greatest integer function. In questions involving addition of masses in chemistry, according to addition of significant figures .00 at the end would have only made sense, if molar masses in questions were given as A.00, B.00. So, the case has just been put up to vent out frustration of under performance by pulling down the marks of those candidates who scored higher than the petitioner because of his/her immense knowledge regarding subjects. Since, this petition wont increase the score of the petitioner. It would just pull down deserving candidates.

Instructions never said that 7 is an incorrect example of answering a question,

they merely said that 7.00 is one of the examples.Therefore you can't question the integrity of answer 7 or 7.0 or 7.000.Giving preference to 7.00 is in no way a valid argument.

I agree with your points. There is one more thing I would like to add. The instructions were clearly ambiguous. Different students attempting paper under time limit could have interpreted it differently. IITK should have made sure that there was no confusion in a paper of such importance. Of course, it is easy to criticize in hindsight.

@Amish, This judgment is only talking about integers being written as real numbers. I do not know enough about the other issue of ranges for real numbers. I am aware that there is range because in general, you would get different answers depending on how much accuracy you have used in different steps of a numerical and to handle that a range is necessary. But how ranges in each question were arrived at, and whether the ranges could have been narrower, I don't know.

I think one of the Wonders of JEE Exam is always has been that they always change the pattern of their exam. This way Student has to be aware at every moment of exam and has to read every instruction, marking scheme etc. carefully. Clarification given by IIT Kanpur (Though it is Justifiable) ruined JEE Exam's Beauty in a way.

Court is finally making the right choice by giving justice to the students who wasted their precious time to follow the instructions of the paper ,unlike those students who just acted on a whim by beig careless reading the instructions

It’s sad, the kind of wrong interpretations are being circulated. Summary of Madras High Court order is as below and not what many have been claiming:

1) All answers by those who have answered by Rounding off to 1 digit or 0 digit after decimal is also as correct as answers with 2 decimal points. (Pl stop the debates on this is right or that was right - Court has rightly observed all 3 types as correct. In fact this was never the issue ever.)

2) Those students (2 digits ones) have to be preferred over the other students (1 or 0 digit ones) and doing so will only affect the inter-se rankings and not affect the total selections. (Court has not stated this to be used as a tie-breaker, I don’t know from where this interpretation has come).

3) Prepare new rank list strictly as per pre-exam instructions and allot seats accordingly. ( Again very clear instructions and no ambiguity as being claimed by many).

Legal interpretations of the order are fair and clear, why we are attempting to create confusion and mis-report in media ?

Sir though 6.997 is more accurate than 7.00 in general but according to the instructions the answer must be rounded off to 2 decimal places thus 6.997 is totally wrong with respect to the examination and the candidates must know this as rounding off is a topic in jee(physics) syllabus thus writing 6.997 as 7.00 is the only correct answer.

P.S. Also 7 if rounded off to 2 decimal places is 7.00 you may check on java or the web or on the link- https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/math/roundingnumbers.php?x=7&round=2&action=solve

Instructions never said that 7 is an incorrect example of answering a question,

they merely said that 7.00 is one of the examples.Therefore you can't question the integrity of answer 7 or 7.0 or 7.000.Giving preference to 7.00 is in no way a valid argument.

Whatever the answer is, I think that the one who had not followed the instructions had done the wrong thing. They are definitely careless than the others. And IITs must prefer those candidates who strictly followed the instructions, who are actually the responsible ones. And IITs want the attentive candidates right, so they have to decide whom they have to choose, those who do not took the instructions seriously who are not at all attentive or the rests. Through their exam JEE, they want to select only deserving ones, and the instructions are also a part of exam work and see it worked. It showed the difference between many. And not favouring the petitioner's decision surely meant that IITs do not give the correct instructions and these instructions can be altered according to their mindset. If such a huge exam is not believed to stick to instructions then what message they give to students, that they need not to comply with the orders!! Candidates like the petitioner had given the valuable time ( lets say at least 3 to 5 minutes) in writing the answers in 2 decimal places and if the instructions would have not been so, they must have given this time in solving other questions which they had not done or which they did wrong doing silly mistake due to time shortage. Even I would have scored 8 marks more if i got 3-5 minutes. So all that she did is a hats off act and the HC is doing the best thing with all this.

While there is merit in every reasoning given above, the point that reflects to me is, should the instructions in the paper be first referred to the legal experts before being printed. Even then where is the guarantee that a court will not take a different opinion as orders of different courts are challenged in other courts. Expert lawyers are known to find loophole in everything and get their own meaning. (That is the reason there are so long pending cases in courts).So, then what is the solution. I guess none. Is it not prudent to ask the authority who set the question paper or printed the instructions to ask what it meant. Is it not prudent to check if the clarification post exam was given to favour someone and some group of people in particular. If the clarification given does not favour anyone or any group of students in particular, why should the opinion of the instructor itself not be accepted.

The instructions manual clearly states that the answer to 'each question' in section 2 is a 'NUMERICAL VALUE' and correct numerical value is clearly described (in brackets) as 'decimal notation, truncated/ rounded-off to the second decimal place'. Nowhere does it mention to treat integers/ whole numbers and real numbers differently.

IIT Kanpur has taken a defensive approach and shall produce before the Honorable Court, textbook of class 8th (as per news sources). I suggest them to turn to class 11th physics part 1 textbook, page number 28 (which is in accordance with JEE Advanced Syllabus), to clarify their doubt regarding difference between 11, 11.0 and 11.00.

Students do not know the back end of your examination program, asking them to give answers in numerical value up to two decimal places and then giving such baseless clarifications to defend your stand is not what a reputed organization like yours should resort to.

What prof Sanghi says seems only defending a wrong stand of IIT KANPUR...You are conducting one of the most prestigious examination of the country, online and expecting the candidates to apply the logic over and above the instructions written that say categorically that all numerical values(this include integers and real numbers both) must be written in decimal notation...How would a candidate know about the computer program that you have devised for evaluation.. obviously the candidate would follow the instructions to avoid securing zero(0) mark as you have written that award of 0 mark for all other cases..

I propose a refrendure be held among top 100 or top 500 rank holders... what do they say.. I am sure toppers would have followed the instructions.. as we would go down the merit the density of those who haven't followed would increase..

Prof Sanghi don't try to emotionalise the matter by saying that some candidates are being penalised by court decision.. rather the truth is other way round you are penalising the students who have followed the clear and categorical instructions.. those who have not, have made a mistake, not applied any logic..

Nor there was a scope in the examination hall to apply such logic..which are now being engineered, fabricated and manipulated to save IIT and cover their mistake..

Dear sir..

You have very reasonably and validly put your points..Yet I would like to add here that the instructions say "enter the correct numerical value (in decimal notation......). Now, here is it not clear that whether an integer or a real number both are to be answered in decimal notation. Again, how to write '4' which is an integer in the decimal notation..?? Obviously, '4.00'...!! No other way...That too you go further beyond in your instructions to say ..... Zero Marks : 0 in all other cases..

How pity it is for Prof. Sanghi to justify now ..

Around sixty years back I read the story of Casabianca and you also might have read it as a child. Virtue of "following instructions" is admirable in a child as it could save a lot of trouble to parents. In the situation given in the story, it proved detrimental and he perished on a burning ship. As a perpetual student of Mathematics, for me it is more important to adhere to the mathematical principles/conventions rather than become a Casabianca by following JEE instructions. The Hindu did not publish one of my comments. Summary is a. If the answer is an integer, why should it be shown in decimal representation at all? b. If the answer is, say, infinity (let me use ~ in the place of its original notation ), will any mathematics student ever write as ~.00?

Paper setter had made a mistake and IITK clarified. Madras HC judge had taken up the case to become populistic and grab headlines and clearly tried to upset the process and put the students and parents in a situation. Judge did not realize that there is no case for Law here. It is a subject related erroneous instructions and IITs are good enough to realise soon enough to contain the damage even though they are stupid enough to make blunders. If you take a look at the HC and SC recent judgements, it is easy to understand that judiciary has gone astray.

I do not remember the exact year (1973 or 1974), IIT/K had the responsibility of conducting JEE. In those days, only 5 IITs used to conduct JEE by rotation. One of my seniors was given the full responsibility of computerising the entire process as IITK had the suitable mainframe facilities at that time. In order to maintain the confidentiality, he was asked to do it alone but he insisted that I should assist him and JEE team promptly agreed. We two together completed the process working for few months, mostly during the night since mainframe was relatively less loaded during the night. I still remember what a huge task it was, processing about 50,000 or so applications. Remember we had only IBM punched cards for data input during that era.

My whole point is that Courts should stay away from situations where it clearly lacks knowledge and focus on pending cases that run into millions and unresolved for several decades. Let the academia resolve issues like the current one. For instance, if another student goes to HC of his state other than TN, I am sure he will get a different judgement. What should JEE team do? It has no option but going to SC. In the total process, what exactly are we achieving? Have you seen these things happening in Princeton, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Oxford or Cambridge? No wonder that our Institutions do not figure in a respectable slab in any world Rankings. I always wonder whether we have any decent academic institutions in India other than TIFR, IISc and ISI. My personal answer which is bound to upset very many is a clear NO.

What about 7.001 as 7.00 they didn't tell 7 as 7.00.You thought only that 7 is rounded off as 7.00 but it can be rounded off figure of 7.001??

Sir though 6.997 is more accurate than 7.00 in general but according to the instructions the answer must be rounded off to 2 decimal places thus 6.997 is totally wrong with respect to the examination and the candidates must know this as rounding off is a topic in jee(physics) syllabus thus writing 6.997 as 7.00 is the only correct answer.

P.S. Also 7 if rounded off to 2 decimal places is 7.00 you may check on java or the web or on the link- https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/math/roundingnumbers.php?x=7&round=2&action=solve

In Indian scenaio, to the best of my knowledge, generally an University (in present case IIT) asks few people to set a particular paper, each independantly. These 'few people', technically do not know which others are doing the same job as they are not supposed to discuss with anyone. If they have a child/close relative who is going to appear for that paper, they recuse upfront as a part of professional ethics. Some other senior decides which Q. paper will be used for the actual test. Generally they use remaining papers as a standby, for instance paper leak (a regular phenomenon in India), paper has to be scrapped for some other reason, answer bundles get stolen en route and so on. Other than the printer in the printing press, geneally Q. Paper and Answer templates are not re-checked by any second person.

To avoid these issues, a team of people, let us say 3 (not 3.00), should collectively set & check Q. Paper and A. Templates thouroughly. Then only margin of error can be brought down to 0.00 if not Zero.

Students must learn where to use decimal point and where not to use. If they do not understand such simple mathematical principles, they should try other lucrative options like Law and become a SC Judge or better still, enter Politics and become a Cabinet Minister.

Sir can you appeal in the court from the side of those students who have written answer as 2.They worked hard during the whole year and perform well.They should not be penalized.The students are not able to go in court.Can you represent them in Court.You are the only hope of students.

Pardon my ignorance. I never knew that there are 7.00 days in a week not just 7.

This teenage student does't have 32.00 teeth while the judge is having exactly 32.00 and both together have 0.00 brains!

Let wait for the judgment

In 1950's the concepts like cardinal numbers, ordinal numbers were not taught in early schools. If I recall correctly, CBSE introduced these concepts in early 1980's itself (perhaps even earlier?) in 3rd standard or so and went on to gardually introduce extended family of numbers like fractions and their decimal representations, rational and irrational numbers and real numbers, complex numbers and so on. Going by the comments of students and parents alike in this blog as well as in national news papers on the same subject, I am simply aghast with poor level of understanding of many people in general and IIT faculty members who set the papers in particular (not to mention Judges) in respect of their lack of basic understanding. I can understand if some parents do not not have adequate exposure to concepts. There is no excuse if current crop of students are not aware. This simply implies that most of these people do not even have cursory knowledge expected of a good elementary school student. I am not saying that they are dumb, simply saying that their energies are channelised to acquire encyclopedic knowledge of use (should I say misuse or abuse?) of Smart phones, Video Games, illegal driving, drugs and so on. With poor quality of Raw Materials (Students) and poor processing facilities (Faculty), you can only only produce Factory Rejects worthy of selling as Seconds. No wonder 90% of freshly minted Indian Students coming from these hollowed portals are "unemployable" going by Govt. sources alone. I won't be surprised if most of India becomes like J&K in less than a decade from now.

Creating too many IITs (actually renaming existing colleges as IITs in some cases) and increasing intake by several folds based on popular demands to appease votebank is causing the fall in standards of students as well as faculty. Here I am not venturing into the effects of reservations. IITs lost creme de la creme status long ago. There are thousands of Engineering colleges and hundreds of Business schools in India where as country does not have necessary infrastructure to absorb those numbers. No wonder PhDs and MBAs apply for Ration Shop Asst and police constable jobs that ae meant for Xth Pass candidates.

Hundreds of worthless Journals are being published day in day out in India itself. No wonder Pay and instantly Publish Journals from Gorakhpur area are flourishing thanks to loose norms of UGC.

On the whole there is an urgent need to thouroghly overhaul almost every system in the country since nothing seems to be working.

@Sunil Meena, No. I don't have resources, and in any case, courts will not allow me to join the current petition as I am not an interested party in the sense of a candidate myself.

There are 2 situations in the paper:

1.Answers with Integers as outcome like 4,10,15

2.Answers with Rational Numbers 5.55, 1.22 , 1.50

The answers for first is fine if it is 4 or 4.0 or 4.00 , however answer with rational numbers have to perfectly rounded to last 2 digits for such situations IIT's have provided an range (5.55-5.60) post clarifications after exam. I think this where students could have spent time to rounding off to last 2 digits.

In all comments we are focusing on adding .00 to integers and rest of questions are not under discussion.

IIT could have requested Gov of India faster resolution of cases in high courts before start of counselling to avoid heartburn for so many students as of today.

This should be part of process like Maharastra CET where few days are reserved for grievances in schedule before counselling starts for admission

My request is to consider this as suggestion to avoid such situations in future ie start counselling after any court cases are filed are resolved thro' special courts if needed.

It's logical to think that 11, 11.0,11.00 are same, but the story is much-much deeper and ***affecting 48 questions amounting 144/360 marks.***

E.g. **for Q. 11 of chemistry, correct answer was** **495.00.** But IIT-K clarified next day that all answers: ***490,491,492,493,494,495,496,497,498,499 & 500 are correct.***

**But after court verdict only and only 495.00 will be marked as correct.**

Sir, what is the possibility of separating out the counselling of 77 non-IITs (NITs, IIITs, GFTIs) from this imbroglio and let other students live in peace?

I agree that there are students who might opt for dual reporting,identify those students from JoSAA database, set a quota aside for them, and let the non IITian student continue with their counselling. If I am not wrong, not more than 6%, sorry 6.00%, no, let me stick to 6% seats might be affected.

A single person has created more stress among would be technocrats (~1.32 lacs students enrolled in JoSAA counselling) after the exam than before the exam. Rounded off to two decimal point give 0% or 0.00%.

Aryabhatta please help.

@ Dheeraj Sanghi......Coming to the merit, I agree that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the game is over. The instructions were very clear with examples, especially for 7 as 7.00. So candidates those who meticulously read and gave time type the 2 decimal places cannot be placed at a disadvantageous position by candidates who were not so careful.

Please re-refer 2nd instruction of Section 2 of each section in both the papers where IIT-K has defined "Correct Numerical Value" and 3rd instruction indicated marking system.

I request you to inform why did IIT-K require to publish instruction/clarification on next day of examination and that is with a range and with examples. One of the examples said if an answer is an integer 11 thenafter all answers entered in the range 10.99 to 11.01 will be considered correct.!!!???

Well, according the the rules of significant figures in the NCERT textbook, definite values that are determined with certainty have infinite significant figures. That is, for example, if I am certain there are two eggs in a basket, then the answer to 'How many eggs are in the basket' should be 2.0000...infinite times. Then, if I apply the instructions and round it off to the second decimal place, the correct answer should be 2.00.

As to why such 'certain' values have infinite significant figures, I am not very sure but I am following the prescribed NCERT syllabus.

I entirely agree. The fact that an integer determined with certainty has infinite significant figures is a point mentioned in the NCERT textbook, strengthens your point. And yes, according to the instructions, there can only be one correct value as the answer, which will be awarded marks. The range of answers specified post examination is also against what is implied by the original instructions, which is not being taken up in court.

The IIT's shouldn't amend their own rules just to keep the majority happy.

So when can we expect Round 3, oops Round 3.00, to commence. Regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of the case, is there any consideration for the inconvenience and anxiety caused, the dilemma of waiving admissions into other worthy institutions (like BITS and IIIT-Hyderabad in my case) without any certainty in JOSAA counselling, etc.? Even if there was a disadvantage caused to those who 'followed instructions' by writing 2 decimal places, it was less than the disadvantage caused to those who followed instructions by reporting 3 hours in advance at the Test Centre only to see others being allowed who came only 10 minutes before. Life is not a level playing field, and authorities can only do so much to provide simulated equal opportunity. I find this a dangerous precedent and one that can lead to a litiguous society that will make everyone afraid to take any decisions without legal counsel. Need sane voices to speak loudly.

Sir,

I agree with you completely.

I too gave the paper this year and entered the answer as 7 instead of 7.00 for cases like the one where you are asked to find the number of compounds satisfying a given property.

What I find extraordinary is that

according to the logic of the petitioner the number of compounds, which is a whole number and thus has an infinite (undefined) number of significant figures and effectively no decimal part can somehow be rounded to give a two decimal whole number.IT IS CLEAR TO THE MEANEST INTELLECT THAT THE INSTRUCTION APPLIED TO THE CASES WHERE THE ANSWER WAS CALCULATED AS A FRACTIONAL(FLOATING-POINT) NUMBER.

ESPECIALLY, IN VIEW OF THE FACT OF THE INTEGER TYPE QUESTIONS IN PREVIOUS YEARS QUESTION PAPERS, IT IS ONLY NATURAL TO WRITE THE ANSWER AS AN INTEGER WHEREEVER APPLICABLE,EVEN WHEN A CANDIDATE HAS COMPLETELY AND CAREFULLY READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE INSTRUCTIONS.

THIS IS MORE SO SINCE THE EXAM IS ONE FOCUSED ONLOGICAL PROBLEM-SOLVING SKILLS AND NOT ON MINDLESS FOLLOWING OF SOME INSTRUCTIUONS.I think that girl is very right in saying that she has followed all the instruction carefully so why not she should be given preference. If others did not read/followed instructions, its their fault. There is right to justice for everyone in our constitution. If any change had to made in these instructions than that should have been during exam and not on the next day.If instructions are not important that what is the use of writing these instructions in exam paper. I think that girl has a strong point.

Now the case is before a two judge bench, let us hope the case would be taken up as Urgent one and issue an appropriate order as early as possible.

I completely agree with you sir. When I read the instructions I interpreted that the instructions are there so that we know where to stop our calculation when it is going on and on after decimal and what else one could think when there are no options and we have to enter the numerical value. We obviously needed some limit for our calculations.

While solving questions if I am getting answer in decimal then definitely I had to recall the instructions and apply it , but when I am getting exactly 2 then why will I think about rounding off at all, it doesn't come to the mind because it doesn't make sense.

And it doesn't take any time in adding '.00' to your answer except for maybe a fraction of second because there is no extra calculation required.

So the case doesn't make sense at all.

The case is baseless because clarification doesn't mean changing original instructions, it only means to solve the ambiguous situation where students who had interpreted it in my way feared to have their correct answers getting wrong only because of their natural interpretation.

My Two cents message - There is no significance for decimal number precision or round off in a exam like IIT. Roundoffs and decimal number precision comes much latter after the correct answer is arrived at (by way of intelligent assumption and smart approximations). IIT JEE tests how candidates use sound scientific principles to arrive at the solution quickly. Constraining and applying brakes on the flow with with trivialities like rounding off precision only dilutes the rigour. It makes a mockery of the intent / spirit of the JEE we all know over the years.

Please use the Microsoft Excel function =TRUNC(11.001,2) until TRUNC(11.009,2) and and see if Microsoft returns the 2 decimals under general format condition.

Similarly =ROUND(2.004,2), See what result it shows.

Will the authorities ask Microsoft Excel to redo the function to show 11.00 because 2 decimals are indicated in the function rule and override the General format condition?

What a logic it is to say 2 should be written as 2.00?

@Prof Sanghi would you pls go through the instructions given to the candidates once again, for God's sake... it clearly stated that all numerical values (please note all numerical values include integers az well) should be expressed in decimal notation..What does that mean..Sir let the good sense prevail... the judgement is not inconsistent with Mathematics rather instructions were..

Now accepting the mistake and going by the instructions will not lower the stature of IITs.. as you all are fearing for... accept the truth that paper setter or JAB have committed a mistake in drafting the instructions.. but overlooking your own categorical instructions will be a big injustice to those who have followed your instructions..

This is not the way of justice, this is rather differentiating same answer without thinking little bit of reason and consequenses.

1. A numerical value can be expressed in integer notation or decimal notation.

2. Meaning of the phrase "....enter the correct numerical value ( in decimal notation, truncated.." is DIFFERENT from that of "....enter the correct numerical value in decimal notation, (truncated..". Please see the starting point of the left bracket "(". The first phrase talks about a numerical value in decimal notation only.

3. If one reads the Section 2 instructions carefully: the numerical value in controversy is TOTALLY SILENT about the integer notation.

4. Therefore, a candidate has freedom to write the integer notation as 7 instead of 7.0 or 7.00.

5. The answers 7.00 or 7.0 instead of 7 should be considered as WRONG and penalised accordingly.

I feel like I speak the vox populi when I ask: Where do you guys get the info from? About the HC Orders and stuff. I tried to search on the records website, to no avail. Also, if you're reading this, Prof. Sanghi, could you please tell me how long this process could take? How many days of setback to the rest of JoSAA's processes (the admission of students into NITs, and other colleges) will this case cause? As someone who wasn't fortunate enough to get into IIT, I find it sad that I can't even start my classes until a mess that would affect the IIT ranklists gets cleared up.

Also, now that you've read this much, I think I should explain why it was that I wrote the extra decimal points on all my answers... Usually I wouldn't, but the example of 7.00, coupled with the fear of reaching out on logic and failing in the most important exam I had ever written, I found it easier to err on the side of caution.

I remembered one time I wrote code on TurboC++. I assigned an integer value for a double datatype variable. I got an error, and lost marks. From then on, I asked people what I should do if something like this popped up in the Advanced. My teacher said, and direct quote here,"Pray".

Thanks for reading this far. Any information about the new schedule would be much appreciated.

Feyaz Baker.

do you know what is an integer?

That's poor thinking. I hope you don't think that air 1 is the best. Take 10 jee advanced(same year) and you will get different air 1 every time. And uf it was a trap led by the creators of the paper why aren't they acknowledging it?

Examples given in the instructions are not expected to be the complete set of possible answers. Even if 7.00 was given and 7.0 or 7 are not given doesn't imply they can't be answer till they are logically not incorrect.

Dear Sir,

I completely agree with you, infact I was able to give a sigh of relief after reading your blog because I too am one of those who wrote 7 inlo when the answer was coming as 7 instead if adding the two zero's after the decimal.

I don't know if you have already dine this or not, but if you haven't, then could just please contact the legal counsel in this case and ask them to put your points from above in fromf of the judge as I'm sure, being such a respected professor at IIT Kanpur, you'll definitely be able to contact them.

Thabk you!

For each question, enter the correct numerical value (in decimal notation, truncated/rounded off to the second decimal place; e.g. 6.25, 7.00, -0.33, -.30, 30.27, -127.30)

As we can clearly see that instruction is mentioning numerical value to be "in decimal notation" then if required (as "," here means, since we can't truncate integers) it should be truncated or rounded off to bring it up to 2 decimal places. Therefore the on who has written 2.00 is correct as per instructions.

Also if any integer need not to be written in decimal notation why there is a concept in jee syllabus of significant figures, according to which we must write 2.5× 2= 5.0 which plays a great role in rounding off values in physics and chemistry. Morever, if here we are putting 5 as 5.0 as significant figure demands we should keep 2 as 2.00 as the question paper instructions demand.

Dear, I think u must revise the instructions mentioning "For each question, enter the correct numerical value (in decimal notation, ..". Truncation is discussed after mentioning that every numerical value answered has to be in decimal notation. And hope you will believe that every integer too is a numerical value thus 2.00 is correct over 2 if exam's instructions are considered.

And if even than u don't consider it kindly answer 2.5×2 using concept of significant figures hope u answer will be 5.0 not 5.

Keeping aside all this discussion about Jee advanced paper, can someone tell me how the rank in Jee main and advanced should be given. If you check your provisional allotment letter/ document verification letter , your rank is having .00(eg. 906.00) What do you all have to say to that.

Since this is a point of ambiguity, no change should be made to current ranking, this is only way to give justice to both parties

A division bench stays the order of the single judge. Counselling may soon start.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/jee-advanced-2018-madras-hc-stays-order-to-redo-rank-list/articleshow/64928465.cms

@Unknown, the ranks are initially integers but sometimes due to court cases or otherwise, a person is to be placed somewhere in between. If there is a massive reordering of ranks, then of course, it is easier to just announce a fresh ranking, but if there is one student whose rank needs to be changed, then the student is given a rank between two integers. This mostly happened with JEE Mains and not with JEE Advanced at the time when 40% weight of 12th class was there. Many students would get their board marks revised and their rank will change. Keeping this in mind, CBSE gave ranks in decimal places.

Sir, when is the next hearing of the two judge bench?

Post a Comment