Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2210 (JHR)

Rama Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2018-10-04

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGEMENT : Heard the parties. 2. Petitioners have approached this Court with a common prayer for re-examination of Paper-II i.e. Physical Education paper of Combined Graduate Trained Teachers’ Competitive Examination, 2016 (for short “CGTTCE-2016”) conducted by Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (for short “JSSC”) on 29.10.2017, for the purpose of appointment of Trained Graduate Teachers in different subjects in Govt. Secondary Schools of all the districts of Jharkhand, in view of the fact that most of the questions asked in the said examination were out of syllabus. 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that an advertisement, being CGTTCE-2016, was issued by respondent No. 2, JSSC, for appointment of Trained Graduate Teachers in different districts of Jharkhand. As per the aforesaid advertisement, for appointment to the post of Teachers, a candidate has to qualify in two papers consisting of General Knowledge (200 marks) and second paper for the concerned subject in which appointment was to be made and it consists of 300 marks. Paper-I was common for all and was only qualifying in nature whereas, paper-II for these petitioners who were appearing for the post of Teachers in Physical Education, consists of Physical and Health Education subject with three parts i.e. Part-A, Part-B and Part-C, 50 marks for each of the groups. The petitioners having the requisite qualifications applied for the said post and after scrutiny, they were issued admit cards for appearing in the written examination, which was scheduled to be held on 29.10.2017. Further, for Physical Education Teachers, the paper-II was meant for testing the general and common knowledge of the candidates concerned about physical education and to appear in the said examination, a candidate was not required to have vast knowledge of Medical Sciences, Physiology, Biology and related subjects rather, they were expected to have general knowledge about physical education. The aim and object of Physical Education Teachers are quite different and limited to simple and common knowledge and information related to human physique to be taught to the students of secondary schools, who are mostly minors, so that they could be aware of the normal functioning of the organs of the human body and could know the basic knowledge of maintaining general health conditions and could live a healthy life. But, when the petitioners appeared in the Paper-II i.e. Physical Education Paper, to their utter surprise, the questions asked were of a very high standard which is not supposed to be answered by a general candidate indenting to apply as Teacher of Physical Education subject rather, the same could have only be answered by a regular student of medical sciences. Further, about 53 questions of Paper-II, Physical Education, asked in the said examination, were out of syllabus, which is enough for elimination of the petitioners from the race of selection with probabilities of deprivation from the proposed job of physical trained teachers. In such disadvantageous condition, the petitioners approached the authorities with their representation dated 07.11.2017, addressed to the Chairman, JSSC, praying for re-examination of Paper-II or for giving average marks of 53 questions, which were asked out of syllabus or above standards, so that justice could be done to the candidates who were not well versed with such high standard of questions asked in Paper-II. However, the representation of the petitioners is still unheeded and excommunicated and as such, the petitioners have been constrained to knock the door of this Hon’ble Court for redressal of their grievances. 4. Dr. Shree Krishna Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the syllabus prescribed by the statutory body like JSSC with approval of the State Govt. is the central pillar of the entire process of examination and appointment of Trained Graduate Teachers in different subjects including Physical Education in Govt. Secondary Schools of the Jharkhand State can only be made according to the fixed syllabus prescribed by JSSC. Learned counsel further argues that any violation with respect to prescribed and set syllabus is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further argues that holding of examination in complete contravention to the prescribed syllabus is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel argues that as almost 53 questions were out of syllabus, the candidates are entitled for getting average marks of those 53 questions or in alternative, re-examination of Paper-II, Physical Education, as the candidates who appeared in the said examination have been deprived of their legal rights. Learned counsel argues that as almost 53 questions were out of syllabus, the candidates are entitled for getting average marks of those 53 questions or in alternative, re-examination of Paper-II, Physical Education, as the candidates who appeared in the said examination have been deprived of their legal rights. Learned counsel submits that the respondents be directed for re-evaluation of the Paper-II by awarding average marks of 53 questions to each candidates or in alternative, the respondents be directed for holding re-examination of Paper-II i.e. Physical Education, of the Combined Graduate Trained Teachers’ Competitive Examination, 2016. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-JSSC vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and argues that after conducting the examination, JSSC uploaded the Model Answer Key on its Website and objections/ suggestions were invited from the candidates from 02.11.2017 to 08.11.2017 and information to that effect was also published in the daily newspaper. After publication of the Model Answer Key, several candidates submitted their online objections/ suggestions to the same and after receipt of the said objections/ suggestions, the same was placed before the Experts for verification/ correction and thereafter, JSSC published the final corrected answer keys and as such, there is no illegality in publication of the final model answer key. Learned counsel further submits that the contention of the petitioners that questions were out of syllabus is misleading, is misconceived and not correct and as such, strongly denied by the respondents. It is well settled law that on the ground that questions were out of syllabus, the examination cannot be cancelled in view of the fact that the same was common for all and as such, instant writ application is not maintainable and the same is fit to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned counsel places reliance on several judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Hon’ble Court. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for intervention in the writ petition. The petitioners have appeared in the examination and after being declared unsuccessful, they have approached this Hon’ble Court for re-examination and also for awarding average marks, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The petitioners have appeared in the examination and after being declared unsuccessful, they have approached this Hon’ble Court for re-examination and also for awarding average marks, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The out of syllabus papers were for every candidates and not only for the present petitioners. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that several questions in the said examinations were out of syllabus and prayer for awarding average marks for the questions which were out of syllabus and for reconsideration of their cases for selection, is not acceptable to this Court. Similar issue fell for consideration before this Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., [ (2018) 2 JLJR 357 ], in which the Hon’ble Apex 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.” The same view was reiterated by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [2018 (1) JBCJ 641 (HC)], wherein the Division Bench, relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case M.C Gupta (Dr.) V. Arun Kumar Gupta (Dr.), reported in (1979) 2 SCC 339 , has also reiterated the same. Relevant para of the judgment passed in case of M.C Gupta (Dr.) V. Arun Kumar Gupta (Dr.) is reproduced herein below:- “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.” 7. From the rival submissions of the parties and from perusal of the records, it transpires that the petitioners have approached this Court, after fully participating in the examination and when they have been declared unsuccessful. No right has accrued to the petitioners to get themselves appointed even if vacancies are lying vacant. It is totally within the domain of the employer and not the legal right of the candidates. After inviting objections, the matter was referred to the Expert Committee and thereafter, results were published. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & Anr. [ (2010) 6 SCC 759 ] has held as under:- “20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question paper 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. 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. The issue of re-evaluation of answer book is no more res integra. This issue was considered at length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth etc. AIR 1984 SC 1543 , wherein this Court rejected the contention that in absence of provision for re-evaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for rechecking/verification/re-evaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Court held as under. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for rechecking/verification/re-evaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Court held as under. ..........It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the Statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act... .......The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any draw-backs in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act.........". 8. This Hon’ble Court in its recent judgment in case of Aashish Kumar Chaurasiya Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2018 (4) JLJR 107 , has held that in the event of doubt, the benefits should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. Even if some questions were asked out of syllabus, the candidates cannot take benefits out of it for allotment of grace marks. Admittedly, petitioners had appeared in the examination without any objection and after being declared unsuccessful, they have raised objection with respect to the standard of questions, which is not sustainable at all in the eyes of law. 9. As a sequel of the aforesaid observations, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and resultantly, the same is hereby dismissed.