Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 958 (ALL)

YASHENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2011-04-15

S.K.SINGH, SABHAJEET YADAV

body2011
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Sharad Mandhyan, learned Advocate assisted by Sri Kamleshwar Singh, who appeared for the petitioner and Sri P. S. Baghel, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Gautam Baghel, learned Advocate who appeared for the Public Service Commission. 2. By means of this writ petition petitioner has prayed for quashing the result of Combind State/Upper Subordinate Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2009 dated 13.9.2010 declared by the respondent No. 2. 3. There is further prayer for the direction to the respondent No. 2 to re-evaluate the answer booklet of the petitioner on the basis of the correct answers and modify the marks awarded. 4. When the writ petition was entertained on 19.11.2010 no interim stay/protection was given to the petitioner and thus petitioner did not appear in the main examination. 5. Pleadings are complete and thus both sides requested for a decision upon which the matter was heard. 6. Petitioner appeared in the Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services Examination, 2009 pursuant to a call letter issued to him but he could not succeed in the preliminary examination and thus he was not called for main examination upon which this writ petition. 7. The averment in the entire writ petition and to the same tune the argument so advanced is that some of the answers of the questions as were published on the website in respect to two subjects i.e. History and General Studies in which petitioner appeared were incorrect and, therefore, petitioner suffered. 8. It is further submitted that in respect to the answers so published on the website petitioner filed representation but they were not properly taken care and the respondents have not taken any steps to modify or correct the wrong answers inspite of the fact that they were pointed out and thus petitioner being entitled to get more marks than he received is entitled to get a direction from this Court. 9. In support of the aforesaid submission certain material from books and other literatures were filed and during the course of argument it was tried to be demonstrated that submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding factual aspect as complained is correct. 10. 9. In support of the aforesaid submission certain material from books and other literatures were filed and during the course of argument it was tried to be demonstrated that submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding factual aspect as complained is correct. 10. In response to the aforesaid submission Sri Baghel submits that after publishing the answers on the website representations from other candidates including the petitioner were received upon which a team of highly qualified persons was constituted and after taking care of each and every objections necessary directions were given. The answer sheets were evaluated in the light of the modified/correct answers. 11. As a fact also Sri Baghel made the submissions that the complaint about the incorrect answers may be correct in respect to one or two questions and in fact that was rectified. In respect to all the questions and answers as stated in the writ petition, petitioner has not been able to demonstrate this as a fact. It is then submitted that petitioner’s submission is not to be accepted over and above examined by the team of experts who considered the objections. 12. During the course of arguments Sri Baghel, learned Sr. Advocate placed the analysis and decisions taken by the Expert Committee in respect to question/answers in the light of the representations so received on both subjects i.e. History and General Studies. 13. On a perusal of the record/charts so placed it is clear that some of the answers were deleted, some of the answers were corrected according to the objections and it is on the basis of amended/corrected answers the answer sheets were evaluated. 14. It is further submitted that it has been repeatedly said by the Apex Court and by this Court that when the Commission assessed and examined the correctness of the questions/answers and a decision has been taken then it cannot be complained and at the instance of one petitioner cross check of the answers by the High Court etc. is not permissible. 15. Before we refer to the decisions on the point, averments on the factual issues as are contended in the counter-affidavit filed by the Commission will be useful to be referred here. 16. is not permissible. 15. Before we refer to the decisions on the point, averments on the factual issues as are contended in the counter-affidavit filed by the Commission will be useful to be referred here. 16. The answer keys of General Studies were displayed on the notice board from 16.6.2010 to 21.6.2010 and in all 98 representations were received till the last date of submitting objections about answers of 45 questions. 17. Similarly the answers keys of Indian History was displayed by the Commission from 16.7.2010 to 21.7.2010 and in all 156 representations were received in relation to 127 questions. 18. A workshop was organised on 20.7.2010 and 18.9.2010 in respect to subject General Studies and Indian History subject respectively. 19. Committee thoroughly considered and modified the answers of questions, deleted the answers of some of questions and accordingly all the candidates including the petitioner, in the light of modified answers were awarded marks and, therefore, petitioner did not suffer any prejudice. The averment as is contained in paras 10, 14 and 15 of the counter-affidavit can be quoted here : “10. That the Expert Committee examined in detail all the representations and considered the objection submitted by the candidates. The subject expert committee after thorough consideration modified the answers of few questions options there to were already there in the given options, and recommended for deletion of two questions. On the basis of modified answer key the evaluation of answer sheet of all the candidates including the petitioner had been done and marks have been awarded accordingly. 14. That the Subject Expert Committee examined in detail all the representations and considered the objections submitted by the candidates. The subject expert committee after thorough consideration modified the answer of few questions, options, there to were already there in the given options. 15. That on the basis of modified answer key the evaluation of answer sheet of all the candidates including the petitioner had been done and marks have been awarded accordingly. The evaluation of the answer sheets was made after the expert committee had modified the question answers and, therefore, the petitioner did not suffer from any prejudice. The petitioner could not find place in the merit list of the successful candidates for the main examination as he did not figure within the number of candidates qualified.” 20. The evaluation of the answer sheets was made after the expert committee had modified the question answers and, therefore, the petitioner did not suffer from any prejudice. The petitioner could not find place in the merit list of the successful candidates for the main examination as he did not figure within the number of candidates qualified.” 20. In the similar set of facts in the writ petition No. 9685 of 2007 this Court observed as below : “We do not doubt the bona fides of the Commission in appointing the committee of experts and nor do we have any reason to doubt the correctness of the decision taken by the expert committee constituted by the Commission.” 21. In writ petition No. 46512 of 2008, this Court made the following observation : “The evaluation of the answer books was done after the expert committee had submitted its report. The Commission has acted bona fide in relying upon the opinion of the experts because the matter as to whether the answer is correct or not is best decided by experts in view of the sequence in which the evaluation of answer books was made, i.e., after the report of the expert committee, the apprehension of the petitioner that prejudice has been caused is unfounded. There is no merit in this petition. Dismissed.” 22. In writ petition No. 2669 (MB) of 2007, this Court made the following observation : “The experts have given their opinion. The issue was considered by the Commission, who relied upon the definition of “Mahsul” given by Historian Sri Irfan Habeeb and Cl L.H. Qureshi, who relied upon Ain-e-Akbari. The Court, therefore, would not interrupt its own meaning tot he word “Mahsul”. It is for the experts to find the correct answer and to desolve on the issue...” 23. Apex Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and another, (2010) 6 SCC 759 in para 20 has made the following observation : “In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for Respondent 1 only. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for Respondent 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like Physics Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court. “ 24. In view of the aforesaid, discussion it is clear that petitioner has not been able to demonstrate correctness of his objections in respect to questions and answers. 25. Otherwise also every candidate according to his own assessment places a claim of award of higher marks than given by the examiner and thus if in such kind of examinations conducted by the Public Service Commission or the institutions like this routine complaint is received then it will be very difficult to give final shape to the process. 26. In the light of the facts which have been found as a fact there remains no doubt that if Public Service Commission has taken all the care and in the light of whatever objections/representations which are received in respect to particular questions-answers they were rechecked by a high expert committee consisting of the persons who were not part of setting the questions-answers initially, any kind of interference will neither be proper nor will be in the fitness of things. 27. In the light of the aforesaid premises we are of the view that petitioner has not been able to make out a case either on the facts or otherwise for accepting any fault in the exercise so undertaken by the Commission. 28. It is not a case where any lack of good faith or any motive is to be attributed to the respondents. 29. The exercise has been found to be fairly transparent, taking full care to Rule out the error and thus the petitioner is not entitled to get any direction, as prayed in the writ petition. 30. For the reasons given above, writ petition fails and thus the same is dismissed. —————