Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 809 (GUJ)

Dilsukhbhai Govindbhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat

2019-09-16

A.S.SUPEHIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. The present petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking for the following prayers: “A.*** *** *** B.YOUR LORDSHIP be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent no.2 herein to consider the correct answers with regards to question no. 34 and question no. 39 and further direct to come out with the new merit list/waiting list/selection list. C.YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to further direct the respondents herein to not conduct any further examination till the final disposal of the present petition or in alternative be pleas to direct the respondents to make appointments subject to the outcome of the present petition.” 2. The petitioner along with other persons appeared for written examination for the post of “Electric Assistant” which was conducted by the respondent No.2 on 14.06.2015. In all, 2663 candidates appeared for the said examination and the result was declared on 13.07.2015. It is the case of the petitioner that he has secured 70.15 marks and since there are five(5) questions, of which answers were incorrect, he made a representation on 10.08.2015 to the respondent authority for correcting the same. Thereafter, again vide communication dated 12.02.2016, since the answers were not corrected, he again approached the respondent authority. It is the case of the petitioner that after his representations, out of five(5) questions, three(3) were corrected and remaining two(2) were not corrected by the respondent authority and a selection list was prepared to that effect, in which name of the petitioner did not figure. 3. Learned advocate Mr.Alok Thakkar appearing for the petitioner has invited the attention of this court to the five(5) questions, as referred by the petitioner in his representation. He has submitted that as regards the question Nos. 5 and 15 are concerned, the respondent authorities have rectified the same however, so far as question Nos. 34, 39 and 49 are concerned, since the same are not rectified, the petitioner is entitled to the additional marks. He has submitted that as regards the question Nos. 5 and 15 are concerned, the respondent authorities have rectified the same however, so far as question Nos. 34, 39 and 49 are concerned, since the same are not rectified, the petitioner is entitled to the additional marks. Learned advocate has further pointed out that question No. 34, which refers to “Unit of Capacitor”, he has submitted that the petitioner has answered the above question with option “A” i.e. “Farad”, which is correct and he should have been allotted one mark for the same, however, the same is not conferred to him on the ground that option “D” i.e. “Farad and Micro Farad” is correct, as per the respondent authorities. Further, reliance is placed by the learned advocate on the documents annexed at page No. 32, the source of the same is from internet, which states that the correct answer of question No. 34 would be “Farad” and hence, one mark should be alloted to the petitioner. As regards question No. 39 is concerned, there is no dispute about the correctness of the answer given by the petitioner and, hence, he is given one mark for the same. As regards question No.49, the petitioner has admitted that the same is incorrect hence, he would not get any additional mark for the same. Thus, the only issue, which remains would be of question No. 34, which is answered by the petitioner. He has submitted that as per the source through internet, the answer provided by the petitioner was correct and he should be allotted one mark and if the same is allotted to him, he would be getting the appointment. 4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the correct option for the question No. 34 as regards unit of capacitor would be option “D” i.e. “Farad and Micro Farad” and not the option “A” i.e. “Farad”. He has submitted that the aforesaid view has been expressed by the Superintendent Engineer, who has set the papers, who is an expert person and the same has been decided by the competent authority of PGVCL to change/revise the results of the candidates and again, on the basis of the revised answer key, OMR Sheet of all the candidates were rescanned and the selection list / waiting list came to be revised on 18.12.2015. It is further submitted that accordingly, the second allotment of 154 candidates for the post in question came to be made to various Circle Offices on 28.01.2016. He has further submitted that the aforesaid answer keys are revised by the expert persons and the unit of capacitor is “Farad and Micro Farad” and that is why, option “D” would be the correct answer and hence, the petitioner, who had opted for option “A”, cannot be allotted one mark for the same. 5. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 6. The issue in the writ petition is confined to the allotment of one mark for the question No. 34, which reads as under : “Q34 Unit of Capacitor? A34 (a) Farad (b) Micro Farad (c) None of a & b (d) Both of a & b” 7. The petitioner has relied upon some source from the internet in this regard and has submitted that the correct answer would be option “A” i.e. Farad and hence, he would be entitled to one mark. 8. It is not in dispute that after the petitioner made a representation, the respondent authorities have corrected the answer keys and accordingly, allotted marks to the candidates. However, the issue remains of the question No. 34 and according to the experts’ opinion, correct answer would be option “D” i.e. “Farad and Micro Farad” and not option “A”. 9. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission through its Chairman and Anr. Vs Rahul Singh and Anr., (2018) 7 SCC 254 , wherein the Apex Court, while examining the scope of the constitutional post, while interfering with key answers provided by Expert Committee, has observed thus: 9. In Kanpur University, through Vice Chancellor and Others vs. Samir Gupta and Others, this Court was dealing with a case relating to the Combined Pre Medical Test. Admittedly, the examination setter himself had provided the key answers and there were no committees to moderate or verify the correctness of the key answers provided by the examiner. This Court upheld the view of the Allahabad High Court that the students had proved that 3 of the key answers were wrong. Admittedly, the examination setter himself had provided the key answers and there were no committees to moderate or verify the correctness of the key answers provided by the examiner. This Court upheld the view of the Allahabad High Court that the students had proved that 3 of the key answers were wrong. Following observations of the Court are pertinent:" 16...........We agree 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 wellversed in the particular subject would regard as correct" The Court gave further directions but we are concerned mainly with one that the State Government should devise a system for moderating the key answers furnished by the paper setters. 10. In Ran Vijay Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, this Court after referring to a catena of judicial pronouncements summarized the legal position in the following terms: "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 reevaluation 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 reevaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit reevaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; 30.3. The court should not at all reevaluate or scrutinise 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." 11. 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." 11. We may also refer to the following observations in Paras 31 and 32 which show why the Constitutional Courts must exercise restraint in such matters: (Ran Vijay Singh case, SCC p.369) "31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing reevaluation 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. 32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will get admission in a college or university or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers." 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. 14. 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. 14. In the present case we find that all the 3 questions needed a long process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed that the stand of the Commission is also supported by certain text books. When there are conflicting views, then the court must bow down to the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts. 15. In view of the above discussion we are clearly of the view that the High Court over stepped its jurisdiction by giving the directions which amounted to setting aside the decision of experts in the field. As far as the objection of the appellant Rahul Singh is concerned, after going through the question on which he raised an objection, we ourselves are of the prima facie view that the answer given by the Commission is correct.” 9.1 Thus, as per the law enunciated by the Apex Court, this court will have limited jurisdiction in interfering with the opinions of the Expert Committee, who have prepared the answer key of such questions. It is observed that the constitutional courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of answer key. 9.2 The Apex Court has further held that when there are conflicting view, the court must bow down to the opinion of the expert and cannot overstep the jurisdiction. In the present case, the experts have opined that the answer key of the question No. 34 would be option “D”, while rectifying the other incorrect answer keys. 10. Thus, in the considered opinion of this court, no illegality is committed by the respondent authorities in refusing to give one mark to the answer of question No. 34 for option “A”, which was opted by the petitioner. 11. Under the circumstances, the present petition fails. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. (Rule discharged)