Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 340 (MP)

Mayank Bharadwaj v. State of M. P.

2012-03-22

SUJOY PAUL

body2012
JUDGMENT : This judgment shall govern the disposal of W.P.No. 7434/11, W.P.No. 7403/11, W.PNo. 7547/11, W.P.No. 7622/11, W.P.No. 7435/11, W.RNo. 7548/11, W.P.No. 2465/11 and W.P.No.1064/12. Since, in all these matters common question of facts and law are involved, with the consent of parties, matters were analogously heard and decided by this common order. Facts are taken from W.P.No. 7434/11 (Mayank Bharadwaj Vs. State of M.P. and another). 2. The petitioner preferred his candidature for the post of Assistant District Prosecution Officer (for short, ADPO). The selection was conducted by respondent No.2-Public Service Commission (for short, PSC)- As per schedule of examination, two papers were set up and petitioner got 'set- A' for both the question papers. The petitioner attempted the said papers efficiently and had full hope of getting finally selected, However, petitioner's name did not figure in the list of selected candidates. 3. The only ground advanced in these petitions is that various answers to the question papers were incorrect, which resulted into grant of lers marks to the petitioners. The answers to the question numbers 13, 20, 67, 76, 99, 116 and 127 in set A of first paper are allegedly defective as the answers were set wrongly. It is further alleged by the petitioners that question Nos. 5, 28, 133 in set A of second paper are defective. The petitioners have filed the copies of certain pages of a text book along with petition to demonstrate that the answer chosen by the PSC was incorrect. 4. In nutshell, the case of the petitioners is that as per the relevant portion of text-book filed by them in the petition, the answer given by them was correct and model answer with regard to relevant question prepared by PSC was incorrect. 5. Per Contra, Shri R.D. Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Prakhar Goyal submits that petitioner earlier filed W.P.No. 5001/1 1 wherein, a prayer was made to declare them as eligible and selected candidates, which was not granted by this Court and, therefore, this petition is barred as per Section 11 Explanation-V of CPC. In other words, it is stated that if relief prayed for is not granted, it is deemed to be rejected by the Court. In respect thereof AIR 1996 SC 1092 has been relied upon. The reliance is also placed on 2003 (4) MPLJ 532 [Govind Vakil Vs. J.N.K.W.] para 8. In other words, it is stated that if relief prayed for is not granted, it is deemed to be rejected by the Court. In respect thereof AIR 1996 SC 1092 has been relied upon. The reliance is also placed on 2003 (4) MPLJ 532 [Govind Vakil Vs. J.N.K.W.] para 8. This objection has not been raised by the PSC in its reply nor it was argued at the time of advancing oral submissions before this Court. However, this contention is raised in the written submissions filed by the PSC. This is impermissible in the light of (2010) 11 SCC 433 (Avinash Gaikwad and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others). Thus, this contention is rejected. 6. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the question papers and model answers were examined by subject experts. The said experts have thoroughly examined the questions and model answers and opined that the said answers are based on authentic and reliable text-books and are based on the judgment of Supreme Court. The said opinion was given by former judges of this Court. It is stated that the said exercise by the expert body is in accordance with law. This Court cannot substitute itself as an appellate authority to examine the correctness of the opinion of the said expert body, more so, when constitution competence and expertise of the said experts are not called in question. It is further stated that scope of judicial review by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The questions involved in this matter are no more res-integra. On the basis of various judgments on this question, this Court has recently decided a batch of petitions i.e W.P.No. 7169/11 [Alok Gupta Vs. M.P. Professional Examination Board and others] and other connected matters on 02/12/2011. In the present case, the petitioners have placed reliance on certain textbooks to submit that their interpretation and answer/option thereto are correct and interpretation and options given by the PSC to those questions are incorrect. On the contrary, the stand of the PSC is that their answers in model answer are based on reliable books written by renowned authors, which was duly examined by expert body, which gave its stamp of approval to the said answers. On the contrary, the stand of the PSC is that their answers in model answer are based on reliable books written by renowned authors, which was duly examined by expert body, which gave its stamp of approval to the said answers. Thus, the pivotal question is whether the answers given by the PSC are proved to be wrong? Before dealing with the aforesaid question, it would be profitable to examine the legal position on the subject. In AIR 1983 SC 123 [Kanpur University Vs. Samir Gupta], the Apex Court held 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 reason or by a process of rationalization. The Court further observed that the key answer 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 it as correct. 9. Thus, judgment of Kanpur University was considered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anjali Saxena reported in AIR 199MP 253, para 6 of the judgment reads as under:- 6. What happens when the correctness of this key answer is questioned? The matter came for consideration by the Supreme Court in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta. AIR 1983 SC 123 0. It was held 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 rationalization. The Court further observed that the key answer 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 it as correct. In case of doubt, the key answer has to be preferred. When the key answer is shown to be incorrect beyond the realm of doubt that it should be rejected, in that event alone, the examinee cannot be penalized for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer. This decision was followed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad, High Court in the case of Pankaj Bhalla v. Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, 198All LJ 80.1. This decision was followed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad, High Court in the case of Pankaj Bhalla v. Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, 198All LJ 80.1. Another Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), in Krishna Kumar Roy v. State of U.P., Writ Petn. No. 3108 of 1980, decided on 17-12-1980(reported in AIR 1081 AH 287), held that the Court should not lightly interfere with the opinion expressed by academic experts but may interfere only where the expert takes a view which no reasonable person could possibly take. The correctness or otherwise of the key answer, therefore, be based upon the touch stone of the decision in Samir Gupta's case (supra). (Emphasis supplied) In Para 11 of Anajli Saxena as under:- 11. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that none of the petitioners in the two petitions could demonstrate that the key answers to the questions, referred to by them in their respective petition and as referred to above, are incorrect, i.e., they are such that no reasonable body well-versed in a particular subject, would regard it as correct. It may be that the answers ticked as correct by them may not be wholly wrong or may even be closely correct to the key answer, but then, as we have pointed out above, unless the key answer is demonstrated to be 'wrong', the key answer should be accepted as the correct answer.The same view is taken by another Division Bench of this Court in Vivek Jain Vs. Professional Examination Board reported in AIR 1994 MP 164 . The relevant portion of the same reads as under:- 13. The question is, whether any question admitting of two or more correct answers, out of four possible answers, deserves to be cancelled ? The Board has power to cancel such a question. If the Board has erred in not doing so, should the Court not cancel such a question? The underlying idea behind the objective test is that a candidate marking one of the four possible answers to a question is not required to describe or give reasons to support his decision. When out of four possible alternatives only one possible alternative is correct, there is always an element of chance that the candidate may just by fluke or, accident mark the correct alternative. To control this evil, negative marking is done. When out of four possible alternatives only one possible alternative is correct, there is always an element of chance that the candidate may just by fluke or, accident mark the correct alternative. To control this evil, negative marking is done. But that way also one mark, i.e. 1/3rd of the full value of the question, if carrying three marks, is deducted. If a question admits of two or more correct answers out of four possible alternatives, the possibility of the candidate having marked the correct answer by accident increases in direct proportionate to the number of correct answers. With respect to such a question, the candidate may have marked the correct answer by chance or accident and yet may assert in Court that he purposely and knowingly marked the correct answer. There is no means of checking such a claim. The privilege of marking is given only to candidates appearing in objective tests. By the way, we the Judges do not have such a privilege to indicate our decision to matters coming before us by marking one of the two or three possible options open to us. We have to give reasons in support of our answer. This is not to decry the system of objective test, which is extensively being used in competitive examinations. In the conventional descriptive test, a candidate is required to describe his answers. That leaves no room for doubt as to how far the answers given are correct. But the demerit of the descriptive test is that only a few questions can be asked. It was not uncommon in our days of student hood that some students used to prepare only a few expected questions and would come out successfully in the exams. Students with poor or half knowledge of the subject coming out successfully in descriptive type of examinations was, and is, not an uncommon feature. As against this, the objective tests cover a wide area of the subject and the knowledge of the candidate is extensively tested. The system of objective test is no longer a new fangled concept and has taken, quite rightly, deep roots. 10. The Karnata High Court in Dr. Praveen Kumar I. Kusubi Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health [2004 (3) Kar LJ 218 has held as under:- 14. The system of objective test is no longer a new fangled concept and has taken, quite rightly, deep roots. 10. The Karnata High Court in Dr. Praveen Kumar I. Kusubi Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health [2004 (3) Kar LJ 218 has held as under:- 14. As is clear from the statement of objections filed by the University, when representations were made challenging the key answers, they would be reviewed by the subject experts representing different branches of medicine and same has to be approved by the P.G. Entrance Test committee. The experts would take care and refer to the relevant textbooks and reference books before suggesting any change in the key answers. It is only on the basis of the modified key answers, this scanned data is computed and the results are declared, so that all students who have taken the examination are treated equally and given the benefit of those modified answers, including to even the students who have not challenged the said key answers. Therefore, there is absolutely no discrimination in awarding the marks to all the students who have taken the examination on the basis of the modified key answers. 15. In the aforesaid judgment referred to by the learned Counsels for the petitioners, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where there was no provision for challenging the answers though the scheme of the said examination provided for publication of the correct answers after the examination. Therefore, in view of the undisputed fact that there was no provision for challenging the key answers in the scheme of examination and when the expert of the University himself opined that some of the key answers were wrong coupled with the fact that sufficient material was placed by the students before the High Court to demonstrate that the said key answers were wrong coupled with the fact that most of the disputes are in respect of translation of English version of Science to Hindi, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court, none of those factors are present in the present case. As such, those judgments have no application to the facts of this case. 16. In the aforesaid judgment, it was also held that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong. As such, those judgments have no application to the facts of this case. 16. In the aforesaid judgment, it was also held that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong. It should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, i.e., it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. If there is a case of doubt, he would have unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalize 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. In a system of multiple choice objective type test, care must be taken to see that questions having an ambiguous import are not set in the papers. That kind of system of examination involves merely the tick marking of the correct answer. It leaves no scope for reasoning or argument. The answer is 'yes' or 'no'. That is why the questions have to be clear and unequivocal. Lastly, if the attention of the University is drawn to any defect in a key answer or any ambiguity in a question set in the examination, prompt and timely decision must be taken by the University to declare that the suspect question will be excluded from the paper and no marks assigned to it. In para 20, the Karnataka High Court held as under:- 20. As long as the procedure adopted in evaluation of these answer scripts are not arbitrary, reasonable, consistent, then the system cannot be found fault with. As long as all the students who took the examination are treated equally, then they cannot have any grievance whatsoever. It is settled law that in academic matter, the University's word is the last word. Court neither has the necessary expertise nor infrastructure to go into the correctness of such decision. This Court cannot sit in judgment over those findings and examine the material on record and arrive at its own conclusion as a Court of appeal. It is settled law that in academic matter, the University's word is the last word. Court neither has the necessary expertise nor infrastructure to go into the correctness of such decision. This Court cannot sit in judgment over those findings and examine the material on record and arrive at its own conclusion as a Court of appeal. It is also not possible in such circumstances to go on appointing the committees after committees to go into the correctness of the decision of the committee. There won't be any end to this exercise. Therefore a key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong. It should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men wellversed in the particular subject would regard as correct. If it is a case of doubt, unquestionably key answer is to be preferred. Only if it is beyond the realm of doubt, possibly judicial review is permissible. In a recent judgment reported in 201(6) SCC 759, the Apex Court held as under:- 20. 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. 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.(Emphasis added) 11. On the basis of these judgments, following principles can be culled out:- (1) the key answer is correct unless proved to be wrong. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court.(Emphasis added) 11. On the basis of these judgments, following principles can be culled out:- (1) the key answer is correct unless proved to be wrong. (2) judicial review cannot be on the basis of inferential process or process of rationalization (3) key answer must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong (4) answer must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. (5) the Court should not lightly interfere with the opinion expressed by the academic experts, (6) when there is no discrimination in awarding the marks and effective of alleged wrong answer is equally on all the candidates, no interference is warranted, (7) writ Court cannot sit in judgment over those findings and examine the material on record to arrive at its own conclusion as a Court of appeal. 12. Law is clear that if there is 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 the petitioners only, thus, no interference is required. Now on the basis of these principles, the case of the petitioners need to be examined. 13. The arguments advanced by the petitioners is of a nature, which leads to examine the question/answer by adopting inferential process or rationalization, this is clearly impermissible as per judgment in Kanpur University (supra). This is a matter of common knowledge that there are sizable number of guides/text books available in the market on each subject. The answers of questions may vary from one book to another book. Many a times, the legal question is based on interpretation of a provision of statute/ constitution. The answer based on such interpretation may vary from author to author and from book to book. Merely because, it is demonstrated that in one text-book answer is matching with the answer given by the petitioner does not lead to inevitable conclusion that question/answer of PSC was totally wrong. The question papers and answers were examined by the experts appointed by the PSC, which includes a former judge of this Court. The effect of alleged defect of question/answers is uniform on all the candidates. Thus, as per the Mukesh's case (supra), no interference is warranted. The question papers and answers were examined by the experts appointed by the PSC, which includes a former judge of this Court. The effect of alleged defect of question/answers is uniform on all the candidates. Thus, as per the Mukesh's case (supra), no interference is warranted. The petitioners have not chosen to challenge the competence of the experts. 14. In the light of aforesaid analysis, I have no hesitation to hold that no fault can be found in the action of PSC. The effect of alleged defect is same for all the candidates and it is not confined to the petitioners only. For this reason also, no interference is warranted. 15. However, before parting with the matter, this Court would like to observe that in future the P.S.C. should act and conduct itself more professionally. Mistakes of such kind generates unnecessary litigation and heart burning amongst candidates and loss of faith in the P.S.C.. In an objective type test, multiple choice is given to the candidates, it is necessary in such cases to take extreme care to see that questions are not ambiguous. This kind of examination system merely involves the provision of marking a tick () to the correct answer. There is no room for any reasoning or argument. The answer of candidate is 'yes' or 'no'. In that situation, the question has to be clear and unequivocal. It is also necessary to cure the defect in question papers or key answers promptly or timely so that candidates are not put to jeopardy and inconvenience. Therefore, all care should be taken in future so that such mistakes do not occur. 16. In the result, petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. Parties will bear their own costs.