Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1296 (ALL)

Sumit Kumar v. State Of U P

2020-11-09

YASHWANT VARMA

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for parties. 2. The instant petition has been preferred seeking quashing of the final result of the PGT Examination 2016 for recruitment of Lecturers in Commerce. The principal dispute is raised with respect to Question No.35 and the various options which were provided for that question by the examining authority. 3. Question No. 35 required candidates to indicate the main objective of cost accounting. Admittedly the petitioner while attempting that question has chosen 'B' to be the correct answer while the answer key which was prepared by the respondents indicated the correct answer to be 'C'. 4. Pursuant to the interim directions issued on this petition, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit in which they state that the said question was sent for the opinion of the Subject Expert who has maintained the original position that the correct answer of Question No.35 would be 'C'. 5. According to Sri Ojha, the counter affidavit filed by the respondents itself places reliance on the extract of a publication titled “Cost & Management Accounting” in which the determination of selling price of goods is mentioned as one along with various other important objectives of Cost Accounting. According to Sri Ojha, in view of the aforesaid, the response submitted by the petitioner here to Question No.35 would also be deemed to be correct and that consequently the said question should be deleted. The submission essentially is that since response “B” could also be treated to be the correct answer, the petitioner is entitled to relief. 6. The Court finds itself unable to sustain the submission for the following reasons. 7. The question itself required the candidate to indicate the main objective of Cost Accounting. While in the process of cost accounting, the management may also be able to determine the selling price of goods, the question which still remains is whether that is the primary objective of cost accounting. 8. In the considered view of the Court, the expression “main objective” as employed in the question is clearly determinative. The expression “main” required candidates to indicate the primary or central objective of cost accounting. The extract from the publication taken into consideration by the respondents and on which alone Sri Ojha learned senior counsel relied during the course of his oral submissions, spells out the various important objectives of cost accounting. The expression “main” required candidates to indicate the primary or central objective of cost accounting. The extract from the publication taken into consideration by the respondents and on which alone Sri Ojha learned senior counsel relied during the course of his oral submissions, spells out the various important objectives of cost accounting. The extract relied upon does not indicate the determination of the selling price of goods to be the main objective. As held above, while the determination of cost price of goods may be one of the objectives of cost accounting, it has not been established before this Court that the same is its principal objective. The Subject Expert has chosen to consider the question principally in light of the manner in which it was worded, namely, requiring the candidate to indicate the main objective of cost accounting. 9. The Court further finds itself unconvinced to interfere with the decision of the respondents on a more fundamental plane. As has been settled by various precedents, in matters like the present where the correctness of an answer key is called in question, the Court must bear in mind the cautionary caveat enunciated in respect of the scope of judicial review and eloquently explained in U.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Rahul Singh, (2018) 7 SCC 254 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………” 14. In the present case, we find that all the three 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 textbooks. 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.” 10. 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.” 10. The width of judicial review as explained in the aforesaid decision has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357 and more recently in Bihar Staff Selection Commission Vs. Arun Kumar, (2020) 6 SCC 362 . 11. The principles which emerge from the aforesaid decisions clearly establish that this Court while exercising its powers of judicial review can neither assume the function nor taken on the mantle of academic experts. The Courts while venturing into this field must exercise due caution and restraint before upsetting the opinion of experts. Additionally, interference 1 would be warranted only in case it is established that the correct answer chosen by academicians is beset by a palpable and manifest error or mistake. Further, the error must be one which can be established without undertaking what the Supreme Court chose to describe as an “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation”. The error must be stark and apparent. Lastly, even where two views can possibly be taken or there be doubt, benefit must be extended to the examining body. 12. The petitioner in the present case has not only failed to establish a patent or palpable error nor has the challenge crossed the threshold as propounded in the decisions noticed above so as to warrant interference. 13. The petition is dismissed.