Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1817 (RAJ)

Deepak Saharan v. State of Rajasthan

2015-10-27

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2015
Hon'ble VYAS, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for following reliefs: “(a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed. (b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to correct the answer key (Annex.5) and thereafter, re-evaluate the answer-sheet of petitioner and accordingly, 5.3956 marks i.e., 4.3956 marks for the correct answer and 10 mark wrongly deducted by them on account of negative marking for the disputed question. (c) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities may further kindly be directed to revise the merit list, and accordingly, consider the candidature of the petitioner and provide appointment to him on the post of Agriculture Supervisor, if secures merit, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 29.5.2013 (Annx.1) (d) Any other appropriate order, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (e) Cost of the writ petition may please be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 3. It emerges from the arguments of both the parties that after conducting examination for the post of Agriculture Supervisor, key of the question booklets was uploaded on the University Website on 3.3.2015 and objections were invited from the candidates by 9.3.2015. In pursuance of that all the objections received from the candidates alongwith proof were analyzed critically and opinion of the second expert was taken upon the answers of the questions for which objections were raised. As per opinion of second expert, the committee was constituted to review the answers of the questions. The said committee made recommendations in which 7 questions were deleted, thereafter revised key was uploaded on the University website on 6.4.2015 and again objections were invited upon key from the candidates within 3 days. 4. When objections were received, the same were placed before the expert committee constituted for the said purpose and as per recommendations of the committee, two more questions were deleted. Thus, in all 9 questions were deleted from the question booklet including the question for which this writ petition has been filed and the marks of 9 deleted questions were evenly distributed amongst remaining 91 questions. 5. Thus, in all 9 questions were deleted from the question booklet including the question for which this writ petition has been filed and the marks of 9 deleted questions were evenly distributed amongst remaining 91 questions. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the question for which the objection was raised by the petitioner was not deleted and committee give its opinion that the answer given in the key is correct but that opinion of the committee is wrong, therefore, the answer of the question for which objection was raised by the petitioner is also required to be deleted or the answer which is given by the petitioner may be accepted. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the opinion that while exercising powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit as an appellate authority to assess the opinion made by the expert committee. There must be some end for taking final decision for appointment in this case, the objections raised by the petitioner were thoroughly considered by the expert committee and as per opinion of the expert committee, the final result has been declared, therefore, it is not proper to interfere in this writ petition so as to reassess the opinion given by the expert committee for the questions, for which objections were raised. 7. The Division Bench of this Court in DBSAW No.345/2013 : Umesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs. Sudharshan Gaur & Ors decided on 11.4.2014 = 2016(3) RLW 2090 gave the following verdict, which reads as under: “The views expressed by the expert committee in the case in hand vis-a-vis the disputed questions/answer key, as has been dilated hereinabove, in our estimate, ought to be accorded due paramountcy. No allegation of bias or mala fide or extraneous consideration for collateral objectives has been levelled, and rightly. In the overall factual background and the noted litigational events encompassing the same recruitment process with strikingly common orientations, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the impeachment of the writ petitioners of the results declared on 18.11.2012 and the final answer key published on 19.11.2012, does not merit acceptance. It thus fails. In the face of the determination made hereinabove and the overwhelming singular factual backdrop, as evidenced by Praveen Singh & Ors. It thus fails. In the face of the determination made hereinabove and the overwhelming singular factual backdrop, as evidenced by Praveen Singh & Ors. (supra), we are of the view that the debate on the manner of distribution of marks does not merit further scrutiny and that too, at the instance of the present writ-petitioners. Our attention as well has not been drawn to any enjoinment in the Rules or a conscious decision of the Commission in this regard. In the wake of the above, we are thus, of the firm opinion that the impeachment of the selection process on the counts, as canvassed in the present proceedings, ought to fail. Ordered accordingly. The appeals are thus, allowed. The impugned judgment and order is thus set aside. Having regard to the sanctity of the orders already passed signifying finality of the results declared on 18.11.2012 and the answer key published on 19.11.2012, the respondent-Commission would forthwith take necessary steps to bring the since procrastinated process to an immediate end, in the interest of public service. A copy of this judgment be placed in all the files.” 8. Similarly, the full bench of this court in the case of Lalit Mohan Sharma & Ors. vs. RPSC & Ors gave the following verdict in paras nos. 19 to 24, which reads as under:- “19. It has specifically been averred in the written statement that out of disputed questions no question had an incorrect answer or contrary to the correct answer given in the standard books as mentioned by the petitioners/other candidates. 20. In the context of impressive array of facts, as fully detailed above, we are not inclined to accept the contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the key-answers provided by the respondent-Commission for evaluating the answer-sheets of the petitioners were wrong or that despite there being a report by the Expert Committee the Court must take in hand the exercise of finding out as to whether the keyanswers are correct or wrong. There is no need to go into the plea raised by the petitioners for examining the disputed questions and the authenticity of the key-answers provided by the respondent Commission in view of the report of the Expert Committee constituted for the propose. There is no need to go into the plea raised by the petitioners for examining the disputed questions and the authenticity of the key-answers provided by the respondent Commission in view of the report of the Expert Committee constituted for the propose. Surely, the Court is not an expert in the field of education and the various subjects for which the question paper written statement settled. Expert Committee constituted for the purpose has given its report based upon recognized text books authored by persons of repute in the field. There is no allegation, whatsoever that the members constituting the Committee did not know or had no specialization in the concerned subjects nor is there any allegation of bias against them. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no occasion at all arises for the Court to further probe the matter. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners needs thus no further comments. Suffice is it, however, to motion that while urging that the key-answers provided by the respondent Commission are wrong, all that is being urged is that in some of the recognized test book or books of repute, different answers of the concerned questions have been provided. Assuming what has been urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to be correct, it would neither be permissible nor just and proper to interfere and other re-evaluation of the answer sheets. 21. In all fairness, we must mention that the learned counsel representing petitioners in support of their contention that where it is proved that the answers given by the student is correct and the key-answers is incorrect, the students are entitled to relief asked for, have relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanpur University vs. State of U.P., AIR 1983 SC 1230 : Madhumohan vs. State of Kerala, 2000(5) SLR 1999 (8) SLR 100 and some other judicial precedents. It is no doubt true that examinees are entitled to have their answer-sheets properly and correctly evaluated and arbitrary and capricious acts of the examiners are not immune from interference by the High Court u/Art. 227 of the Constitution of India but the law laid down by the Supreme Court, on facts of this case, is not at all applicable. 22. We may also mention that per contra, Mr. 22. We may also mention that per contra, Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned counsel representing the Commission has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Subhash Chandra Verma & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 1995 Suppl. (1) SCC 325 and the same very judgment relied upon by the petitioners, in AIR 1983 SC 1230 . 23. In Subhash Chandra Verma & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & ors. (supra) it was held that where examination was of objective type and the keyanswers had been settled by the paper setter, evaluation of answer sheets by the staff of the Public Service Commission, even though they had no knowledge of the subject, would be valid. Reliance placed by the learned counsel on Kanpur University vs. Samir Gupta, AIR 1983 SC 1230 is on the basis of following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- “It is true 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. 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.? 24. In view of the discussion made above, finding no merit in this petition, we dismiss the same. We however leave the parties to bear their own costs." 9. In view of the above, there is no merit in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner to interfere in the opinion of expert committee. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.