Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1334 (ALL)

Brajesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U. P.

2019-05-15

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY

body2019
JUDGMENT : Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. 1. Heard Sri Prashant Kumar Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satyaveer Singh learned counsel for the respondent no 2. 2. The petitioner had appeared in the examination held for the post of PGT/Lecturer in subject Geography Examination-2011, which was conducted pursuant to advertisement No. 3 of 2011. This examination was conducted by respondent no 2. The written test was held on 15.6.2016. The petitioner was allotted Series-C of question booklet set. 3. The result of the aforesaid examination was declared on 18.7.2018 and a revised/final answer key of all the series was also published. As the petitioner was not selected, he tallied the answers with the revised answer key-and as per petitioner's case he found that there were five answers of the question of question booklet set-C wherein though he has marked correct answers, however, the key has wrongly provided different answers. The questions numbers were 70, 71, 84, 90 and 104 which are mentioned herein after- "70. Augusta and Atlanta, the two important cotton textile centres are located in: (A) South Carolina (B) Massachusetts (C) North Carolina (D) Georgia 71. The yield of cotton per hectare is the highest in: (A) Pakistan (B) U.S.A. (C) Egypt (D) India 84. At what depth of the earth, solid substances are found in the liquid form? (A) 32 km (B) 50 km (C) 80 Km (D) 100 Km 90. Rift Valley is the result of (A) Fold (B) Fault (C) Warping (D) Nappe 104. Which of the following cloud is responsible for maximum amount of rainfall. (A) Cumulus (B) Cumulo-nimbus (C) Nimbo-stratus (D) Cirro-stratus 4. The petitioner on 10.8.2018 sent a representation to the Secretary of the respondent Board providing the objections on the answer sheet of the above mentioned questions alongwith materials in support of answers suggested by him. The petitioner also personally met the Chairman of the respondent Board to ventilate his grievances. 5. On 26.9.2018 a notification was issued by the respondent No. 2 whereby the answer key to only one question i.e question 70 was corrected as suggested by the petitioner. The said key was published on the basis of a Review conducted by the Experts on the subjects. However, the answer key to the other four questions remained intact; resultantly, the petitioner was also called for the interview. 6. The said key was published on the basis of a Review conducted by the Experts on the subjects. However, the answer key to the other four questions remained intact; resultantly, the petitioner was also called for the interview. 6. The final result was declared on 6.4.2019 and the petitioner was short by only 5.746 marks vis a vis the cut-off marks of selection in PGT/Lecturer in subject Geography. As each question contains 3.4 marks, therefore, in case, the answer key of the other four questions was corrected as per the objections sent by the petitioner, then the petitioner would have got more marks than the cut off marks. 7. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for following reliefs. "(i) to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the select list dated 6.4.2019 of subject Geography, prepared by the respondent Board for the post of PGT/Lecturer in subject Geography Examination-2011, pursuant to Advertisement No. 3/2011. (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus, directing/commanding the respondent Board to get the answers of Question No. 71, 84, 99 & 104 respectively of Question booklet Set-C of subject Geography be rechecked by an Expert Body in light of materials furnished by the petitioner in support of objections raised by him and accordingly declare fresh result including the name of the petitioner on the basis of 361.60 marks, scored by him, which is only 5.46 marks less than the cutoff marks 367.06 assigned for selection." 8. Sri Prashant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had provided sufficient material to the respondent Board in support of his suggestions that the answers key for the remaining four questions was wrong and the answers as marked by the petitioner were correct and on the basis of said material, it is prima facie evident that the answer key provided by the Board was incorrect qua four. questions which are subject matter of present petition for writ. 9. questions which are subject matter of present petition for writ. 9. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ranjit Kumar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and other connected Writ Petitions reported in (2012) 4 All LJ 19 wherein this Court itself has examined correctness of multiple choice options in respect of 7 questions of the examination involved therein and directed to change the answer key and on the basis of said judgment, the counsel submitted that this Court has power to examine the correctness of the key on the basis of materials available on record provided by the petitioner. The relevant para 6 of the Ranjit Kumar Singh (supra) is mentioned hereinafter: "6. The questions which are disputed in this case are multiple choice questions relating to History and Civics in respect whereto any person having general common knowledge may give correct reply. Therefore, if perversity in the answers of said questions has been committed which has resulted in depriving an otherwise able and well conversant candidate, it is difficult to desist a Court of law not to interfere in that matter else it would result in a sheer arbitrary kind of selection denying equal consideration for employment to the candidates concerned. The Court normally does not enter in the territory of judging correctness of opinion of experts except when there is a glaring error going to the extent of perversity or a blunder on the part of selection body in preparing key-answer sheet of multiple choice questions which has caused discriminatory treatment to the candidates." 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Board submitted that under the powers enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court cannot re-evaluate or scrutinized the answer sheet of the candidates as it has no expertise in the matter and the academic matters are best left to academics. The learned counsel further submitted that already the grievances of the petitioners have been addressed as the Board has re-looked into the answer key under the review undertaken by Experts of the field and even answer-key to one question has been corrected. 11. The learned counsel further submitted that already the grievances of the petitioners have been addressed as the Board has re-looked into the answer key under the review undertaken by Experts of the field and even answer-key to one question has been corrected. 11. The learned counsel for the Respondent-Board has relied upon a judgment passed by the Apex Court in the matter of Ran Vijay Singh and others v. State of U.P and others, 2018 (2) SCC 357 particularly para 30 of the said judgment which being relevant is quoted below. "30. The law on the subject is, therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: 30.1 If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; 30.2 If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; 30.3 The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; 30.4 The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption' and 30.5 in the event of a doubt the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate." 12. Considered the submissions made across the bar and perused the materials on record. 13. The objection made by the petitioner to five questions along with materials were submitted before the Board and the Board has considered the same under Experts on the subjects and accepted the objections qua one question. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner has already been considered by the board. It is obvious that so far as other four questions are concerned, as the Expert must have found that the earlier answer key was correct therefore, there is no necessity to mention about the remaining four questions in the notification issued while publishing the revised answer key. 14. It is obvious that so far as other four questions are concerned, as the Expert must have found that the earlier answer key was correct therefore, there is no necessity to mention about the remaining four questions in the notification issued while publishing the revised answer key. 14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2018) 7 SCC 254 in the matter of U.P.P.S.C. through its Chairman and another v. Rahul Singh, has dealt with the issue in hand and categorically held in paras 12 and 13 as under: "12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The Constitutional Courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers. In Kanpur University case (supra), the Court recommended a system of- (1) moderation; (2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions; (3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions and no marks be assigned to such questions. 13. As far as the present case is concerned even before publishing the first list of key answers the Commission had got the key answers moderated by two expert committees. Thereafter, objections were invited and a 26 member committee was constituted to verify the objections and after this exercise the 9 Committee recommended that 5 questions be deleted and in 2 questions, key answers be changed. It can be presumed that these committees consisted of experts in various subjects for which the examinees were tested Judges cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters. Unless, the candidate demonstrates that the key answers are patently wrong on the face of it, the Courts cannot enter into the academic field, weigh the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides and then come to the conclusion as to which of the answer is better or more correct.'" (Emphasis supplied) 15. In the above judgment, the Apex Court has also relied upon the judgment of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents. In the above judgment, the Apex Court has also relied upon the judgment of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents. Similarly Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of High Court of Tripura through Registrar General v. Tirha Sarathi Mukherjee and others, 2019 SCC Online SC 139, has held in para 22 that- "22. We would understand therefore, the conclusion in paragraph 30.2 which we have extracted from the judgment in Ran Vijay Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2018 2 SCC 357 only in the aforesaid light. We have already noticed that in VS. Achuthan v. Mukesh Thakurs case reported in 2010 6 SCC 759 , a two Judge Bench in paragraph 26 after survey of the entire case law has also understood the law to be that in the absence of any provision the Court should not generally direct revaluation." (Emphasis supplied) 16. As far as present case is concerned revised key answer has been published after key answers were moderated by the Experts on subject and as against one question, already answer key has been corrected and therefore, it is evident that the Experts have applied their mind and have taken a decision. A Judge cannot assume the role of an Expert in academic matters. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the key answers of the remaining four questions are patently wrong on the face of it. A Judge cannot assume the role of an Expert in academic matters. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the key answers of the remaining four questions are patently wrong on the face of it. It is well settled that the Court cannot enter into the academic field and weight the pros and cons of the arguments given by both the parties and then come to the conclusion as to which of the answer is better or more correct and further judgment passed in Ranjeet Kumar Singh (Supra) is not applicable in the facts of the present case, as in the present case, no glaring error going to the extent of perversity or a blunder on the part of selection body in preparing key-answer sheet is event and further the question under dispute are on different subjects such as Science, Physics, Geography, Climatology etc; therefore in the present facts, this Court cannot scrutinize the answer sheets having no expertise in these subjects as held in the judgments passed in Ran Vijay Singh v. U.P.P.S.C through its Chairman and High Court of Tripura through Registrar General (supra). 18. In the conspectus of the above discussion, I am of the view that facts and circumstances of the present case does not warrant any interference under the powers of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed.