Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1781 (JHR)

Rakesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2017-10-11

AMITAV K.GUPTA, D.N.PATEL

body2017
JUDGMENT : D.N. PATEL, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner (appellant herein), whose writ petition bearing W.P(C) No. 1116 of 2017, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 19.09.2017 and hence, the original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Factual Matrix : * The respondent-Jharkhand Public Service Commission has issued an advertisement for the 6th Combined Civil Services Competitive Examination in the month of October, 2016. This advertisement was for inviting application for the Class-II posts (civil services) in the State of Jharkhand. * Preliminary Examination was conducted on 18.12.2016 in which there were two papers-General Studies-land General Studies-II, and each paper is having 100 questions, and marks are 200 for each paper. Thus, for General Studies-I and General Studies-II papers total marks are 400. * Total vacancies published was 326 and 15 times more are the candidates to be selected from the result of the preliminary examination for allowing them to appear in the main examination, and thus, from the result of the preliminary examination, first 4890 candidates will be allowed to appear in the main examination (326 x 15 = 4890). * The question papers are being set by the experts of the subject and normally 3 or 4 sets are being drafted by the experts, out of which one set will be selected and still there is several process for screening the questions etc., but, the facts remain that this preliminary examination is of the questions like multiple choice questions (popularly known as M.C. Qs). * The key answers are being prepared by the paper setters and after the examination is conducted the said key answers are being published. In the facts of the present case, also the key answers/model answers were published in the 3rd week of December, 2016 (Annexure-3). * These key answers/model answers are being published with laudable object that if there is any objection the same can be filed by the candidates either by registered post A/D or speed post or by hand delivery. The suggestions and objections are to be considered so that model answers may be finalized, as accurate as-possible. * All the objections and suggestions are placed before the Subject Expert Committee (SEC). The suggestions and objections are to be considered so that model answers may be finalized, as accurate as-possible. * All the objections and suggestions are placed before the Subject Expert Committee (SEC). * The said Expert Committee has carefully gone through the objections and suggestions received and in the facts of the present case, last date of giving objections and suggestions was 3rd January, 2017. * These objections and suggestions were carefully considered by the Subject Expert Committee and they have given a report. * This report was ordered to be presented by the learned Single Judge, in the writ petition during the pendency of the writ petition. * On the basis of the report given by the Subject Expert Committee, revised model answers/key answers were published in the 2nd week of January, 2017 (Annexure-5). * On the basis of the revised model answers/key answers, the result was published by the Jharkhand State Public Service Commission on 25.02.2017. Thereafter, some orders were passed by the learned Single judge and on 11.08.2017 again result was published for few candidates for whom the direction was given. The main examination is going to be commenced on 07.11.2017. * This appellant was aggrieved by the model answers/key answers published by the Jharkhand State Public Service Commission, and hence, writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 1116 of 2017 was preferred objecting the key answers, especially for question Nos. 14, 64 and 94 of General Studies-I paper, and question Nos. 16, 21 and 92 of Code D of General Studies- II paper. As the writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 19.09.2017, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. The arguments canvassed by the counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) : I. Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there are total 06 questions in which the key answers are wrong, and hence, 12 marks may be added in the result of this appellant. II. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that if the key answers are patently wrong, this Court has all the powers, jurisdiction and authority to interfere with the result published by the Jharkhand State Public Service Commission. III. II. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that if the key answers are patently wrong, this Court has all the powers, jurisdiction and authority to interfere with the result published by the Jharkhand State Public Service Commission. III. Counsel appearing for the appellant has taken this Court to all the aforesaid questions and the correct answers and the wrongly given answers in the model answers/key answers published by the Jharkhand State Public Service Commission. IV. We have perused those answers. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that lastly selected candidate in general category has secured 103 marks and this appellant has been given 99 marks; this is the position of the papers of the General Studies-land General Studies-II both, and if 12 marks are being added, this appellant may fall within the first permissible candidates for the main examination. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that if this Court is admitting this Letters Patent Appeal, subject to the result of this Letters Patent Appeal this appellant may be permitted to appear in the main examination which is going to be commenced on 07.11.2017. V. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the representation was made by this appellant for giving suggestions and objections against the model answers/key answers published in the 3rd week of December, 2016, but the same was not considered. VI. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that assuming, without admitting, that never any objection was raised by this appellant. then also if patently wrong answers have been published in the model answers/key answers, this Court has all the powers, jurisdiction and authority to interfere with the result published by the Jharkhand State Public Service Commission. There are few other candidates, who have raised same objection and they have got receipt of the objections and suggestions by them. Thus, Jharkhand State Public Service Commission was aware about the same and also the objections raised by the similarly situated candidates. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ application preferred by this appellant. Even if nobody has taken objection then also it is the duty of the Jharkhand State Public Service Commission to give correct answer in the model answers/key answers. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ application preferred by this appellant. Even if nobody has taken objection then also it is the duty of the Jharkhand State Public Service Commission to give correct answer in the model answers/key answers. The Jharkhand State Public Service Commission cannot say that sun rises from the West even if nobody has raised any objection, and hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 1116 of 2017 dated 19.09.2017, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the respondents : 1. Counsel appearing for the respondents-Jharkhand State Public Service Commission has submitted that preliminary examination was conducted on 18.12.2016 with General Studies-I and General Studies-II papers, each having total 200 marks and each having 100 questions. Thus, total marks for both the papers are 400 and total questions are 200. II. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that all possible care has been taken by the Jharkhand State Public Service Commission in drafting the papers. Subject Experts are drafting the papers. They are more than one. Out of 04 or 05 sets of question papers, one is being selected. III. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that after the examination is over, key answers/model answers are being published inviting objections and suggestions about the correctness of these key answers/model answers. IV. This procedure was completed by publishing the key answers/model answers in the 3rd week of December, 2016, inviting objections and suggestions latest by 3rd January, 2017. Several suggestions were received and all the suggestions were handed over to the Subject Expert Committee. V. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the said Committee is discussing those suggestions and objections and after due deliberation they are giving report. On the basis of the report, if there is any need of correction in the model answers/key answers, the same is being again published. In the facts of the present case, after receiving the report from the Subject Expert Committee the revised model answers/key answers were published in the 2nd week of January, 2017 (Annexure-5). VI. On the basis of the report, if there is any need of correction in the model answers/key answers, the same is being again published. In the facts of the present case, after receiving the report from the Subject Expert Committee the revised model answers/key answers were published in the 2nd week of January, 2017 (Annexure-5). VI. On the basis of the aforesaid revised model answers/key answers, result of the preliminary examination was published on 25.02.2017 and looking to the total number of vacancies, 15 times more candidates are being allowed to appear in the main examination. In the facts of the present case, vacancy published is 326, and hence, 15 times more candidates will be 4890. First 4890 candidates from the result of the preliminary examination are permitted to appear in the main examination which is going to be conducted on 07.11.2017. VII. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents-Jharkhand State Public Service Commission that this appellant has never raised any objection when key answers/model answers were firstly published in the 3rd week of December, 2016. Even otherwise also, the suggestions and objections have already been properly discussed and deliberated by the Subject Expert Committee and on the basis of the report given by the said Subject Expert Committee, revised model answers/key answers were published, and hence, this, Court may not interfere with the model answers/key answers which is based by the report given by the Subject Expert Committee. This Court will be extremely slow in exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because this Court is not sitting in appeal against the report given by the Subject Expert Committee. VIII. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that lastly selected candidate in general category has secured 206 marks in total in both papers, whereas this appellant has secured 198 marks. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 1116 of 2017 vide judgment and order dated 19.09.2017, and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. Reasons : 5. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 1116 of 2017 vide judgment and order dated 19.09.2017, and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. Reasons : 5. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this letters patent appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons :- I. The respondent-Jharkhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as JPSC, for the sake of brevity) has published advertisement No. 23/16 in the month of October, 2016 for 6th Combined Civil Services Competitive Examination for the Class-II posts (civil services). II. There are more than one filters for the candidates for the selection of the candidates. First filter is preliminary examination which is consisting of General Studies-land General Studies-II papers and each paper is of 200 marks and of 100 questions. Thus, total there will be 400 marks examination and the total questions will be 200. III. JPSC has assigned task of drafting of the papers of more than one paper setters and out of 04 or 05 sets of question papers, one is being selected. IV. The preliminary examination was conducted on 18.12.2016. After the examination is conducted, JPSC has published model answers/key answers in 3rd week of December, 2016 (Annexure-3 to this memo of letters patent appeal). V. Purpose of publishing the model answers/key answers is, to give an opportunity, to the candidates, to give their objections and suggestions about the correctness of the model answers/key answers. Those objections and suggestions were to be given to the JPSC by 3rd January, 2017 either by registered post A/D or by speed post or by hand delivery. Several objections were received by JPSC. VI. It further appears from the facts of the case that those objections and suggestions are to be scrutinized by the Subject Expert Committee (SEC). The Subject Expert Committee used to discuss and have deliberation upon the suggestions given by the candidates and thereafter they are arriving at their subjective satisfaction which is being reduced in writing also. Thus, the written report is being given by Subject Expert Committee. VII. This report was called for by this Court during the pendency of the hearing of the writ application. VIII. Thus, the written report is being given by Subject Expert Committee. VII. This report was called for by this Court during the pendency of the hearing of the writ application. VIII. On the basis of the report given by the Subject Expert Committee, revised model answers/key answers are to be published by JPSC, if any correction is required. In the facts of the present case, revised model answers/key answers were published in the 2nd week of January, 2017 (Annexure-5). IX. On the basis of the revised model answers/key answers result of the preliminary examination was published on 25.02.2017 and one more result was published on 11.08.2017 because now-a-days whenever JPSC is taking examination, it has become the fashion to approach this Court by few failed or frustrated candidates, either quickly or belatedly and looking to the facts of this case, sometimes Directions are also being given by the Court, therefore, there was need to publish the second result, with which we are not much concerned because so far as present appellant is concerned, we are concerned with the result published on 25.02.2017. X. Much has been argued by the counsel for the appellant that answers of question Nos. 14, 64, 94 of Code D of paper General Studies-I were wrong and similarly, answers of question Nos. 16, 21, 92 of Code D of General Studies-II paper were wrong, and hence, 12 marks may be added to the marks given to this appellant. We are not accepting this type of argument mainly for the reasons that JPSC has not decided the key answers/model answers, but they have placed reliance upon the report given by the Subject Expert Committee. XI. As stated here-in-above, all possible care has been taken by JPSC to have correct answers in the model answers/key answers published by JPSC. It ought to be kept in mind that there cannot be any authority which is error-proof authority. What is to be seen by' this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is, whether there was any negligent approach on the part of JPSC or examination conducting body. Every small error, of Public Service Commission or examination conducting body, cannot be en-cashed by the candidates. What is to be seen by' this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is, whether there was any negligent approach on the part of JPSC or examination conducting body. Every small error, of Public Service Commission or examination conducting body, cannot be en-cashed by the candidates. Those who are appearing in such type of competitive examinations, ought to keep in mind that objection cannot be raised about correctness of answers, if the key answers/model answers, are prepared on the basis of report given by, the Subject Expert Committee. It may appear to the candidate that one or two answers are wrong, but, that does not mean that this Court should interfere Such type of danger, is inbuilt, for those, who are. appearing in competitive examinations. If the Court starts, interfering with, the key answers/model answers, published by JPSC or the examination taking body, especially, when such key answers/model answers are based upon the report given by the Subject Expert Committee, perhaps. no result can be finalized. Interference by the Court shall be extremely slow and almost it will be nil. Though this Court has powers to interfere with, the results of JPSC under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, such powers are to be exercised, sparingly or rarely, otherwise there will be no end of such type of challenges and every now and then, the results are to be revised/modified and perhaps no final examination can be conducted, wherever main examinations are to be conducted after preliminary examination and when no main examination is to be conducted, perhaps no result can be finalized for much longer time It is also to be kept in mind by the Court that whenever such type of petitions are being preferred challenging the results of prelim examinations, it should be decided promptly and quickly, otherwise there will be much delay in finalization of result of the examination which has very cascading effect, later on, upon Main Exam and final result and hence, also the pace of interference must be the slowest. XII. In the facts of the present case, all care and cautions has been taken by JPSC. Initially, the papers were drafted by experts, thereafter one set is being selected Examination was conducted and key answers/model answers were published. inviting objections and suggestions. XII. In the facts of the present case, all care and cautions has been taken by JPSC. Initially, the papers were drafted by experts, thereafter one set is being selected Examination was conducted and key answers/model answers were published. inviting objections and suggestions. These objections and suggestions even if it is not given by the appellant, but. as the similarly situated other candidates have raised these objections and suggestions, all were placed before the Subject Expert Committee. This Committee has discussed and deliberated upon, the suggestions and objections. On the basis of this deliberation and discussion by the Members of the Subject Expert Committee, final conclusion has been arrived at, which is based upon, their subjective satisfaction. This subjective satisfaction is reduced in writing by the way of report, of the Subject Expert Committee. XIII. Thus, all care has been taken by JPSC because revised key answers/model answers were- based upon the report of the Subject Expert Committee published in 2nd week of January, 2017 (Annexure-5 to this memo of the letters patent appeal). We are not sitting in appeal against, a report given by Subject Expert Committee. The Court will be extremely slow in interfering, subjective satisfaction arrived at by Subject Expert Committee. XIV. The result was published on 25.02.2017 on the basis of the revised model answers/key answers. No error has been committed by JPSC in publishing the result on 25.02.2017, looking to all care and cautions, taken by JPSC, as stated here-in-above. XV. Much has been argued by the counsel for the appellant about the questions, correct answers and wrong answers given in the model answers/key answers published by JPSC. Some are about who is the first lady Governor of Afghanistan, the most orthodox Sufi order was, 'Rijgarh' in Munda tradition is related to which place, the Mukhyamantri Ladli Laxmi Yojana was launched in which year in the State of Jharkhand, who is the author of 'Gayab Hota Hua Desh', and the question that which district is the largest producer of lac in Jharkhand. As per the appellant, the answers given in the model answers/key answers are wrong. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that all options are also wrong in few of the questions. As per the appellant, the answers given in the model answers/key answers are wrong. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that all options are also wrong in few of the questions. We are not inclined to accept this argument mainly for the reasons that few answers are highly debatable also, like which district in the State of Jharkhand, is the largest producer of lac. Some answers are given by the appellant by referring wikipedia. Answers given in wikipedia is not a conclusive one. Anybody can upload any answer. We are not sitting in appeal against the model answers/key answers which are published by JPSC in the 2nd week of January, 2017 (Annexure-5 to this memo of this letters patent appeal), which is based upon the report given by the Subject Expert Committee. XVI. It ought to be kept in mind that whenever such type of examination is being conducted by Public Service Commission, now-a-days objections are being raised in the Court and discussions are going on in the Court about the correctness and genuinity of the answers and a lot of time of the Court are being wasted. This case is no exception of such type of tendency of the candidates. Looking to the questions and answers of the General Studies-I and General Studies-II papers, we are clearly of the opinion that few are debatable answers, but, that does not mean that Court should interfere while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even if JPSC is wrong in one or two answers, we are not inclined to interfere, with the result published by JPSC because :- (a) there is no negligence on the part of JPSC ; (b) the question papers are being drafted by the Subject Experts; (c) out of 04 or 05 question sets, only one set is being selected and is given to the candidates as a question paper; (d) before the result is being published, model answers/key answers are being published, inviting objections and suggestions. This transparency is being appreciated by this Court. This provides ample opportunity to the candidates to raise their objections and give their suggestions; (e) these suggestions are given to the Subject Expert Committee and they are not being handled by JPSC itself. This transparency is being appreciated by this Court. This provides ample opportunity to the candidates to raise their objections and give their suggestions; (e) these suggestions are given to the Subject Expert Committee and they are not being handled by JPSC itself. A separate neutral Committee is deliberatively, scrutinizing and discussing the suggestions and objections; (f) the Subject Expert Committee has arrived at subjective satisfaction and on the basis of their subjective satisfaction, a report is being given by the Subject Expert Committee. On the basis of the report given by the Subject Expert Committee, revised model answers/key answers are being published. In the facts of the present case, the result was published by JPSC in the 2nd week of January, 2017 (Annexure-5); (g) On the basis of the aforesaid revised model answers/key answers, results was published in February, 2017. XVII. Thus JPSC has taken all precautions and has shown all transparency, right from the drafting of question papers till publication of the revised results. Even if Subject Expert Committee, which has given its report, appears, wrong for one or two or few answers, of the questions, we will not interfere with this type of genuine error committed by the Subject Expert Committee. As stated above, in the facts of the present case, few answers, as per the appellant, which are given by revised model answers/key answers, are debatably wrong, we are not going to decide that in which district, there is highest production of lac in the State of Jharkhand while exercising our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No data can be collected by this Court, nor analyzed by this Court. The Subject Expert Committee is the final authority. At some point of time, there is bound to be finality to be attached to the result. The Subject Expert Committee has given its report in writing, which is not to be re-evaluated or re-visited by this Court. We see no reason, to sit in appeal, on the report given by the Subject Expert Committee nor we want to sit in appeal against the revised model answers/key answers published by JPSC, especially for the answers published by JPSC for preliminary examination for 6th Combined Civil Services Competitive Examination. XVIII. We see no reason, to sit in appeal, on the report given by the Subject Expert Committee nor we want to sit in appeal against the revised model answers/key answers published by JPSC, especially for the answers published by JPSC for preliminary examination for 6th Combined Civil Services Competitive Examination. XVIII. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Gupta (Dr.) v. Arun Kumar Gupta (Dr.), reported in (1979) 2 SCC 339 , in para 7, as under:- . "7. Before the rival comments are probed and analysed, it would be necessary to keep in view the twilight zone of Court's interference in appointment to posts requiring technical experience made consequent upon selection by Public Service Commission, aided by experts in the field, within the framework of Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and approved by the Government of India on June 5.1971. When selection is made by the Commission aided and advised by experts having technical experience and high academic qualifications in the specialist field, probing teaching research experience in technical subjects, the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless there are allegations of mala fides against them. It would normally be prudent and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally can be Undoubtedly, even such a body if it were to contravene rules and regulations binding upon it in making the selection and recommending the selectees for appointment, the Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction to enforce rule of law, may interfere in a writ petition under Article 226. Even then the Court, while enforcing the rule of law, should give due weight to the opinions expressed by the experts and also show due regard to its recommendations on which the State Government acted. If the recommendations made by the body of experts, keeping in view the relevant rules and regulations, manifest due consideration of all the relevant factors, the Court should be very slow to interfere with such recommendations (see, University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao). If the recommendations made by the body of experts, keeping in view the relevant rules and regulations, manifest due consideration of all the relevant factors, the Court should be very slow to interfere with such recommendations (see, University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao). In a more comparable situation in State of Bihar v. Dr Asis Kumar Mukherjee, this Court observed as under : (SCC p.611; para 21) "Shri Jagdish Swaroop rightly stressed that once the right to appoint belonged to Government the Court could not usurp it merely because it would have chosen a different person as better qualified or given a finer gloss or different construction to the regulation on the score of a set formula that relevant circumstances had been excluded, irrelevant factors had influenced and such like grounds familiarly invented by parties to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. True, no speaking order need be made while appointing a Government servant. Speaking in plaintitudinous terms these propositions may deserve serious reflection, The Administration should not be thwarted in the usual course of making appointments because somehow it displeases judicial relish or the Court does not agree with its estimate of the relative worth of the candidates. Is there violation of a fundamental right. illegality or akin error of law which vitiates the appointment?" (Emphasis supplied) XIX. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 27 , in para 28 and 29, as under : "28. As pointed out by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Fatehchand Himmatlal v. State of Maharashtra "the test of reasonableness is not applied in vacuum but in the context of life's realities". If the principle laid down by the High Court is to be regarded as correct, its applicability cannot be restricted to examinations conducted by School Education Boards alone but would extend even to all competitive examinations conducted by the Union and State Public Service Commissions. If the principle laid down by the High Court is to be regarded as correct, its applicability cannot be restricted to examinations conducted by School Education Boards alone but would extend even to all competitive examinations conducted by the Union and State Public Service Commissions. The resultant legal position emerging from the High Court judgment is that every candidate who has appeared for any such examination and who is dissatisfied with his results would, as an inherent part of his right to "fair play" be entitled to demand a disclosure and personal inspection of his answer scripts and would have a further right to ask for revaluation of his answer papers. The inevitable consequence would be that there will be no certainty at all regarding the results of the competitive examination for an indefinite period of time until all such requests have been complied with and the results of the verification and revaluation have been brought into account. " 29. Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defensive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass-root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case." (Emphasis supplied) XX. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case." (Emphasis supplied) XX. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan, reported in (l990) 1 SCC 305, in para 12, as under :- "12. It will thus appear that apart from the fact that the High Court has rolled the cases of the two appointees in one, though their appointments are not assailable on the same grounds, the Court has also found it necessary to sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee and to embark upon deciding the relative merits of the candidates. It is needless to emphasis that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The Court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved malafides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the Court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction." (Emphasis supplied) XXI. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 372 , in para 21 and 38, as under :- "21. It is the settled legal position that the Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of an Expert Committee consisting of distinguished experts in the field. In the instant case, the experts had evaluated the qualification, experience and published work of the appellants and thereafter recommendations for their appointments were made. It is the settled legal position that the Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of an Expert Committee consisting of distinguished experts in the field. In the instant case, the experts had evaluated the qualification, experience and published work of the appellants and thereafter recommendations for their appointments were made. The Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have sat as an appellate Court on the recommendations made by the country's leading experts in the field of Sericulture. 38. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the Courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against the experts constituting the Selection Committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the Courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the Courts should never make an endeavor to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The Courts must realise and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters. " (Emphasis supplied) XXII. It has been held by the Hon'ble' Supreme Court in the case of Sajeesh Babu K. v. N.K. Santhosh, reported in (2012) 12 SCC 106 , in para 16 and 20, as under : "16. From the above discussion, it is clear that in terms of the guidelines, the Selection Committee consisting of three experienced persons assessed the ability of the candidates with reference to the answers for their questions and awarded marks. In the absence of any allegation as to mala fide action on the part of the selectors or disqualification, etc. interference by the High Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. 20. It is clear that in a matter of appointment/selection by an Expert Committee/Board consisting of qualified persons in the particular field, normally, the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts, unless there is any allegation of mala fides against the experts who had constituted the Selection Committee. Admittedly, in the case on hand, there is no allegation of mala fides against the three experts in the Selection Committee. Admittedly, in the case on hand, there is no allegation of mala fides against the three experts in the Selection Committee. In such circumstances, we are of the view that it would normally be wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of selection of this nature to the experts who are more familiar with the technicalities/nature of the work. In the case on hand, the Expert Committee evaluated the experience certificates produced by the appellant herein, interviewed him by putting specific questions as to direct sale, home delivered products, hospitality/service industry, etc. and awarded marks. In such circumstances, we hold that the High Court ought not to have sat as an appellate Court on the recommendations made by the Expert Committee. " (Emphasis supplied) 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncement, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P. (C) No. 1116 of 2017 vide judgment and order dated 19.09.2017, and we see no reason, to take any other view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge. 7. Hence, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed with no cost. Appeal dismissed.