Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2093 (JHR)

Ananjay Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2018-09-18

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2018
ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.2- Jharkhand Staff Selection Commissioner(JSSC) to correct the answer key of the Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Examination- 2016 (CGTTCE-2016) for question no. 85 Section 1- History & Civics QP Code 31 C as the answer for the said question has two correct options but only one answer has been marked as correct in the answer key and further to provide marks to each candidate for question no. 19, 54, 112 and 140 as these questions are incorrect, improper and misleading. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the respondent no.2 published advertisement for conducting Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competition Examination- 2016 for filling up the vacant post of graduate trained teachers for various subjects in government middle schools. The petitioner applied for the same and appeared in the said examination. The respondent no. 2 published the answer key and the objections were invited. After making necessary correction in the first answer key, the second/revised answer key was published. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even in the second answer key, necessary corrections were not done for question nos. 19, 54, 85, 112 and 140. The respondent no. 2 published the second/revised answer key without proper verification and correction and as such the same requires interference by this Court. It is further submitted that if the result is published without correcting the anomalies, the candidates would suffer irreparable loss. It is also submitted that the petitioner visited the office of the respondent no.2 personally several times, but his request was not paid heed by the respondent no. 2. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that after conducting the examination on 19.11.2017, the JSSC uploaded the Model Answer Key on its website and online objections/suggestions were also invited from the candidates from 30.11.2017 to 07.12.2017. The information to the aforesaid effect was also published. Thereafter, several candidates submitted their online objections to the Model Answer Key which were placed before expert committee for verification/correction of the Model Answers in the light of objections of the candidates. Finally, after the opinion of the expert committee, the revised answer key has been published and thus the same needs no interference by this Court. 5. Thereafter, several candidates submitted their online objections to the Model Answer Key which were placed before expert committee for verification/correction of the Model Answers in the light of objections of the candidates. Finally, after the opinion of the expert committee, the revised answer key has been published and thus the same needs no interference by this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The contention of the petitioner is that the mistakes in the concerned question paper have not been corrected by the respondent-JSSC even in the revised answer key. 6. In the case of Basavaiah (Dr.) Vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Ors. reported in (2010) 8 SCC 372 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph- 38 has held as under: “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 fide 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 endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realise and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters.” 7. It would thus flow from the aforesaid judgments that the courts should be slow in interfering with the decision of the expert committee in academic matters. The decision of the expert committee may be interfered with only when malafide has been alleged against it. 8. In the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and Anr. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has 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 no. 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to Law. 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 no. 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.” 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgment has held that the High Court should not get involved into examining the question paper or the answer-sheet, particularly when the commission has assessed the inter-se-merit of the candidates. 10. Further, in the case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse — exclude the suspect or offending question.” 11. In the aforesaid case, The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that even if some error is committed by the examination authority, the same equally affects all the candidates. Moreover, mathematical precision is not always possible. 12. In the present case also, if there is any discrepancy in framing some of the questions, all the candidates appearing in the examination equally suffered. The petitioner has not alleged malafide either against the respondent-JSSC or the expert committee. Otherwise also, if the court sits as an expert body and examine all the objections of the candidate, it would be an endless process thereby opening a Pandora box for all unsuccessful candidates. The petitioner has not alleged malafide either against the respondent-JSSC or the expert committee. Otherwise also, if the court sits as an expert body and examine all the objections of the candidate, it would be an endless process thereby opening a Pandora box for all unsuccessful candidates. Such an exercise should sparingly be made under exceptional circumstances by the Constitutional Court. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.