Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1889 (RAJ)

Shiv Dayal v. State of Rajasthan

2005-07-25

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-By these petitions for writ a direction is sought by the petitioners to re-evaluate the answer sheets and also to prepare fresh merit list pertaining to Primary Teacher Examination 2004 conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”). 2. Facts in brief are that the Commission under an advertisement dated 02.06.2004 invited applications from eligible desirous persons to appear in Primary Teacher Examination 2004 under Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 for the purpose of appointment as Primary Teachers. By advertisement referred above the examination of 2004 was conducted against the existing vacancies in various districts of the State of Rajasthan. The examination was conducted on 12.09.2004. The result of the same was declared on 06.01.2005 on the same day the answer key was also published by the Commission. The question paper in the examination of 2004 was containing 100 questions, each carrying two marks. 3. The allegation of the petitioners is that out of 100 questions asked 11 questions were either having more than one correct answer or the answer accepted as correct by the Commission is wrong. It is also alleged by the petitioners that some of the questions asked are vague being not framed properly. The petitioners to support their contention placed on record some books and articles authored by said to be prominent experts of the subject concerned. 4. This Court by order dated 02.03.2005 directed the Commission to get answers of the questions pointed out by the petitioners checked by a competent committee. In pursuance of the directions given by this Court a committee was constituted by the Commission and the same submitted its report on 05.03.2005. The Committee in its report gave a finding that the answers given in key published by the Commission are only correct answers and no question asked in the examination is carrying two meanings and the questions asked were properly framed. The petitioners after receiving copy of the report submitted by the committee filed their objections to the findings given. 5. This Court by order dated 12.05.2005 directed the respondent Commission to reconstitute a committee to examine the questions in dispute in accordance with the order dated 02.03.2005, being dissatisfied with the manner in which the committee gave its finding under the report dated 05.03.2005. 5. This Court by order dated 12.05.2005 directed the respondent Commission to reconstitute a committee to examine the questions in dispute in accordance with the order dated 02.03.2005, being dissatisfied with the manner in which the committee gave its finding under the report dated 05.03.2005. This Court held that the committee by submitting the report dated 05.03.2005 observed empty formality with view to comply with the directions given by the Court. The Court also held that the finding given by the expert committee was lacking support by reasons. 6. The Commission in pursuance of the order dated 12.05.2005 reconstituted a committee consisting of seven persons. The Committee met on 31.05.2005, 01.06.2005, 02.06.2005 and 30.06.2005 to consider the question referred to it in pursuance of the orders dated 02.03.2005 and 12.05.2005. A report of the committee is placed on record by the Commission. From perusal of the report it appears that the committee considered each and every questions referred to it by the Court. The Committee considered every question thoroughly and on getting support of various books of the subject concerned including the books approved by the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer held that the answers given in the key are correct, the questions are framed properly and are not vague. The report of the committee submitted by the Counsel for the Commission is quite bulky and is running in 393 pages. Copy of the report has been placed on record for being examined by the Court and the copy of the same is not supplied to the Counsel for the petitioners. 7. An application is preferred by the Counsel for the petitioners to supply them a copy of the report. It is contended by the Counsel for the petitioners that they are having a right to know as to what are findings given by the expert committee and in what manner the committee dealt with the issues referred to it by the Court. The Counsel for the petitioners while claiming right to have a copy of the report relied upon a Judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, reported in 1981 (Supp) SCC 87. The Counsel for the petitioners while claiming right to have a copy of the report relied upon a Judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, reported in 1981 (Supp) SCC 87. It is contended by the Counsel for the petitioners that approach of the Court must be too attenuate the area of secrecy as much as possible consistently with requirement of public interest bearing in mind all the time that disclosure also serves an important aspect of public interest. 8. I do not find any merit in the application. The Judgment cited is having no relevance in present set of facts. In the case of S.P. Gupta (Supra), Honble Supreme Court was dealing with a matter where a privilege was claimed by the Union of India with regard to correspondence taken place pertaining to the issue in question. It is true that in functioning of the State transparency is essential and disclosure of information in normal course is in public interest. However, present one is not a case where some information with regard to working of the Government is sought but it is a report of expert committee which was sought by the Court for its own satisfaction with regard to verify correctness of the answers of the questions asked by the Commission and also the nature of formation of the question asked by the Commission.. The Court sought assistance to adjudicate the controversy from the expert committee and, therefore, the expert committee submitted its report to the Court. The Court thoroughly considered the same and received sufficient assistance in it. It is further relevant to note that this Court on basis of the report submitted by the expert committee is neither going to held the answers given by the Commission under the key as correct nor is going to declare those answers wrong. In view of it I do not find any necessity in present circumstances to supply copy of inquiry report to the petitioners. The application, therefore, is rejected. 9. In view of it I do not find any necessity in present circumstances to supply copy of inquiry report to the petitioners. The application, therefore, is rejected. 9. The first contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is competent enough to examine the correctness of the questions and answers at its own without seeking assistance of the expert committee and it is further within the competence of the Court even to examine the recommendations made by the expert committee. To substantiate the contention Counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance upon a Division Bench Judgment of Kerala High Court reported in AIR 1994 Kerala 308, Law Society of India vs. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Ors., In the case of Law Society of India (Supra), Honble Division Bench of Kerala High Court while dealing with a public interest litigation with regard to continuance of operation by Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. a 10,000/-tonns Ammonia Storage Tank in Willingdon Island Port area held as under:- “185. We have to be informed of the norm that on an examination by the Court the materials placed before the Court whether they are by the scientists or by the experts, if the Court finds that the conclusions reached by the experts are unsatisfactory, the Court is not bound to accept the reports saying with folded hands that after all the report is that of a committee of experts and the Court has no expertise on the matter enquired into by the experts. In this case, viz. 1988 (2) SCC 115 : AIR 1988 SC 952 , it is very pertinently said that the High Court did not find any defect disclosed in the material which has been placed before the Court in the manner of testing. Certainly it indicates that if the Court is not satisfied with the manner of examination or investigation, the Court is not bound to act on the experts opinion. We do not think that we are bound to follow blindly the opinion of the experts. In this context, we may say that Counsel for the first respondent has attacked the report of the expert-Dr. We do not think that we are bound to follow blindly the opinion of the experts. In this context, we may say that Counsel for the first respondent has attacked the report of the expert-Dr. Campbell-a Commission appointed by this Court and wanted us not to rely on the report of the Commissioner, though he submitted in regard to the reports of the other experts, viz., M/s. Cremer and Warner, T.U.V. I.I.T. that the reports are the opinion of experts and that we should accept it without reservation. We cannot fully agree with the submissions made by Counsel for the first respondents. 186. It has to be borne in mind when assessing the opinion of experts that “clearly it is not the province of the expert to act as Judge or Jury”. All questions calling for the opinion of the experts are questions on which the ultimate decision has to be made by the Judge. Expert opinion gets its weight and authority when the expert puts before the Court all the materials which induce him to come to the conclusions so that the Court although not an expert, may form its own opinion on those materials. (Vide Ajitrai vs. Vasumati) Titli vs. Jones, 1934 AllER 273. Opinions must be supported by reasons and it is the reason and not blank finding that is important.” 10. I am having no doubt about correctness of the law laid down by Honble Division Bench of Kerala High Court in the case of Law Society of India (Supra). In fact this Court by order dated 12.05.2005 directed the Commission to reconstitute the expert committee and to submit a detailed report with regard to issues referred, being dissatisfied with the conclusions reached by the experts and the manner adopted by the experts while deciding the issue referred. However, I am totally satisfied with the procedure adopted by the committee constituted in pursuance of order dated 12.05.2005 and also with the findings given by the committee. This Court is aware of the fact that the Court is not bound to accept the report submitted by the committee of experts but at the same time I do not find any reason to ignore the findings given by the competent committee constituted under the orders of this Court, the committee which acted with all diligence and with objectivity. 11. 11. It is contended by the Counsel for the petitioners and stressed with all vehemence that correctness of each and every question must be looked into by this Court and finding must be given with regard to correctness of the answers by comparing the material supplied by the parties to the proceedings. The Counsel for the petitioners emphasised that this Court has ample power to do so and the Court must enter into the exercise to examine genuineness of the answers of questions in issue. 12. It is emphasised by the Counsel for the petitioner that Honble Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur University & Ors. vs. Samir Gupta and Ors., reported in AIR 1983 SC 1230 , after examining correctness of answers prescribed by the university conducting Pre medical Test Examination declared the answers wrong which were treated as correct answers by examining body. The Counsel for the petitioners with all vehemence urged that by publishing the key an opportunity has been given by the Commission for closure look at the system of examination which they conducted and the same requires close scrutiny by this Court. 13. It is true that in the case of Kanpur University (Supra), Honble Supreme Court examined correctness of answers treated as correct by examining body, but at the same time in the same case Honble Supreme Court held as under:- “16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University, contended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of a key answer, unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of retionalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The contention of the University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged text-books, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those text- books leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect. 17. The contention of the University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged text-books, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those text- books leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect. 17. Students who have passed their Intermediate Board Examination are eligible to appear for the entrance Test for admission to the Medical Colleges in U.P. Certain books are prescribed for the Intermediate Board Examination and such knowledge of the subjects as the students have is derived from what is contained in those text-books. Those text-books support the case of the students fully. If this were a case of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong.” 14. Honble Apex Court in quite unambiguous terms held that in normal course the key answers should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong i.e., to say it must be such as no reasonable body of man well versed in particular subject would regard those answers as correct. Meaning thereby, that there should be no doubt about incorrectness of the answers treated as correct by examining body. The answers treated as correct by examining body should be so answered that no reasonable body of man well versed in particular subject would regard them as correct. It is not the position in present case. 15. I have examined the entire material available on record including the reference books cited by the Counsel for the petitioners and the material placed on record by the respondents including the report of the expert committee supported by various reference books. I found that in various books the answers treated correct by the Commission are represented as correct version. 16. I have examined the entire material available on record including the reference books cited by the Counsel for the petitioners and the material placed on record by the respondents including the report of the expert committee supported by various reference books. I found that in various books the answers treated correct by the Commission are represented as correct version. 16. Honble Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur University (Supra), held that in the event of a case of doubt the Court is required to unquestionably prefer the key answer; but if the matter is beyond realm of doubt it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving answers which according to the key answer i.e., to say with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong. 17. As stated above and in the preceding paras the answers treated as correct by the Commission are referred as correct answers in various reference books authored by expert of the subjects, therefore, it cannot be said that the answers suggested by the petitioners are the only correct answers and the answers accepted by the Commission as correct answers are undoubtedly wrong answers. In this situation in view of law laid down by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur University (Supra), I must accept the answers given in the key as correct answers. 18. In view of whatever stated above I am of the considered opinion that the petition for writ are devoid of merit and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the writ petitions stand dismissed. 19. No order as to costs.