Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 789 (AP)

N. Saidinesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2020-12-09

C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, D.RAMESH

body2020
ORDER : 1. Originally, Writ Petitions came to be filed to declare the action of respondents on various issues, namely, mistakes in translation of questions from English to Telugu language; not allowing non-programmable calculators to the examination hall for solving certain questions; more than one correct answer in multiple choice questions etc., as illegal, improper and incorrect. 2. By an order dated 22.10.2020, the learned Single Judge, while postponing the main examination, which was scheduled to be held on 2.11.2020, directed the Public Service Commission to do as under: “(1) The Public Service Commission shall take steps, in line with the observations mentioned above, to make appropriate corrections in the marks awarded to the candidates, who appeared for the examination. (2) The Public Service Commission after making necessary corrections shall arrive at a new merit list/shortlist and fix the cutoff point thereafter. Those who qualify in the new shortlist will be eligible to write the main examination. (3) The Public Service Commission shall not conduct the main examinations proposed to be held from 2.11.2020. It shall conduct the main examination only after the completion of the above exercise on the basis of the new merit list/short list.” 3. Challenging the same, the present Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. 4. Though various grounds are raised in the Writ Appeals filed, Sri. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, would restricts his argument to the findings of the learned Single Judge, in holding that questions and answers to Q. Nos. 37, 48, 60 in paper-I and question Nos. 116 and 117 in paper-II are not only erroneously translated but they are incorrectly framed. He took us through the said questions and answers given to the said questions to show that they are not only erroneous in translation but even the questions framed and answers given are incorrect. 5. Insofar as the question No. 37 is concerned, the English version of the said question and answer reads as under: “Regarding the Habeas Corpus, choose the wrong answer: (1) Habeas Corpus safeguards the liberty not only of the citizens but also of the persons within the territory. (2) Writ of Habeas Corpus is not to be entertained when a person is committed to judicial custody or public custody by the competent court. (2) Writ of Habeas Corpus is not to be entertained when a person is committed to judicial custody or public custody by the competent court. (3) A petition of Habeas Corpus lies against the executive authority, not available against the private individuals. (4) The Habeas Corpus petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of imperfect pleadings.” 6. Out of the four options given, the key showed the correct answer as option No. 2. But, the Telugu version of the said question is totally different, wherein the candidates were asked to choose the correct answer out of the multiple choices given. According to him, both these questions are quite opposite to each other and the answer given does not match the question in both the languages. 7. Similarly, he took us to question No. 48, which deals with the powers of the President. As per the key, the answer to the said question is option No. 2, but, according to the Senior Counsel, the question as well as answer were wrongly framed. Similarly, question No. 60 is also wrongly framed as the word “no” should have been incorporated before the words “such law” in the third line of that question, failing which, it carries no meaning. Likewise, he also took us through question No. 116 and question No. 117 and tried to demonstrate before us that in so far as question No. 117 is concerned, as per the material available on the website, the number of Municipal Corporations in Andhra Pradesh are 14 and not 16 as per the key and further the correct answer for question No. 116 is, option No. 3 and not option Nos. 1 to 3. Hence, pleads for postponing of the main examination, which is scheduled to be held on 14.12.2020. 8. Sri. R. Mallikarjun, learned counsel appearing for APPSC, would submit that, mistakes, if any, committed, while framing the questions and picking up right answers by the expert committee, would be affecting all the students and no exception can be claimed by the appellants, who are three in number. It is his plea that in the compilation filed by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5432 of 2020, the objection raised with regard to these questions being that of an error in translation only. It is his plea that in the compilation filed by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5432 of 2020, the objection raised with regard to these questions being that of an error in translation only. Hence, the argument that questions and answers to said questions were wrongly framed is being raised for the first time in Writ Appeals and as such the same cannot be gone into. He further pleads that the notification for this examination was given in the month of May, 2019 and on one pretext or the other, the same is being dragged. He further pleads that though the order impugned came to be passed on 22.10.2020 and being made available within a period of five days thereafter, strangely these appeals are not been filed immediately and only when a date is given for main examination, Writ Appeals came to be filed in the first week of December, 2020. He thus contends that having regard to the judgment of the Apex Court, mistakes, if any, even if grave, cannot be looked into as it affects all the students equally. He would further submit that initially the proportion for selection was in the ratio of 1:15, but, subsequently, basing on the representation made, it was enhanced to 1:50 and though the cut off mark was 92.4 out of 400 questions, but, having regard to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the same is now reduced to 88.5 deleting the marks awarded to five questions. Thus, he would submit that the order impugned warrants no interference. 9. In so far as question Nos. 37, 48, 60 and 116 are concerned, it is to be noted that in the Writ Petition No. 5432 of 2020, a compilation of papers were filed before the learned Single Judge, wherein challenge was made to 15 questions of Paper-I and 11 questions in Paper-II. The objection raised with regard to these questions, and other questions, was that there was an error/variation in translation from English version to Telugu language. Nowhere in the said pleadings it has been urged as to manner in which the questions and answers were framed in both the languages. The objection raised with regard to these questions, and other questions, was that there was an error/variation in translation from English version to Telugu language. Nowhere in the said pleadings it has been urged as to manner in which the questions and answers were framed in both the languages. Having regard to the above, the learned Single Judge answered the query relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and Another vs. T.K. Rangarajan and Others, (2019) 12 SCC 674 wherein a similar situation arose in an examination in NEET UG-2018 examination conducted in Tamil Nadu. There was variation of Tamil translation of English questions in the said examination. Dealing with the same, the Apex Court held as under: “In spite of this safeguard, it is proposed that in case of any ambiguity between a regional language and English it will be English version which will be final as held by this Court in the order dated 25.01.2018 referred above.” 10. Further, in the instant case it is to be noted that the question paper itself gives a clear caution stating that “question paper is set in English and translated into Telugu language. The English version will be considered as an authentic version for valuation purpose.” However, the said plea is now given a go bye and a new plea is raised in so far as these questions are concerned in these appeals, which, in our view, are liable to be rejected for the following reasons: (i) Such plea was never raised before the learned Single Judge and for the first time a new plea is raised with regard to framing of these questions; (ii) In spite of giving number of opportunities for raising objections to the questions and answers furnished, it appears that the appellants never raised any objection, or, in other words, no material is placed to show that objections were raised by the appellants to these questions. In fact, the material on record would show that preliminary examination was conducted on 26.5.2019 in which about 50,000 candidates appeared for the examination and candidates were permitted to raise objections to the key released on 10.6.2019. About a month's time was given to submit their objections and only 100 objections were received. The same were referred to an expert committee for verification. About a month's time was given to submit their objections and only 100 objections were received. The same were referred to an expert committee for verification. After receipt of the report on 5.9.2019, a revised key was published on 6.9.2019. Objections were again called for to the revised key, by 19.9.2019. On receipt of such objections, the matter was again referred to experts. Later on, a Writ Petition was filed seeking stay of pronouncement of results of preliminary examination. Vacate Stay Application came to be filed, which was allowed on 1.11.2019. Challenging the same, the Writ Appeal was filed and which was allowed setting aside the order dated 1.11.2019 with a request to the learned Single Judge to decide the matter within two months. Thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed in October, 2019 postponing the main examination, which was scheduled on 2.11.2020 with a direction to the Public Service Commission to comply with certain conditions, which we have referred to earlier. So, from the above, it is very much clear that thirty days time was given to the candidates, who appeared for examination, to submit their objections to the questions and answers which appeared in preliminary examination and the objections made were dealt with and thereafter again another chance was given to raise objections to the revised key. As the grievance of the appellants herein being not that the objections raised by them were not considered, we feel that the request of the appellants herein cannot be considered. (iii) When the committee of experts consisting of 26 members sat and felt that the answers given in the key being correct and in the absence of any objections being raised to the key released twice, it would be improper for this court to decide the correctness of the answers at this point of time, more so, when the disadvantages, if any, to the answers given would be to all the candidates who appeared for the examination. However, learned Single Judge showed indulgence in directing the authorities to evaluate the questions and answers which lead to deletion of certain questions for calculating the cut off mark, but that by itself, in our view, may not be a ground to direct re-assessment of the questions once again at this stage. However, learned Single Judge showed indulgence in directing the authorities to evaluate the questions and answers which lead to deletion of certain questions for calculating the cut off mark, but that by itself, in our view, may not be a ground to direct re-assessment of the questions once again at this stage. Improper setting of questions cannot be a ground to hold that only some of the students suffered disadvantage as against other candidates. The disadvantage, if any, in our view, will uniformly apply to all the candidates. At this stage, it will be very much relevant to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Another vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (Civil Appeal Nos. 3649-3650 of 2020, dated 7.12.2020) wherein a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court observed that, practice of re-evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the courts, which lack expertise in academic matters, is to be deprecated. The Court held as under: “It is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when the Commission has assessed the inter se merit of the candidates Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur and Another, (2010) 6 SCC 759 . Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of the Expert Committee who have the expertise to evaluate and make recommendations [See Dr. Basavaiah vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Others, (2010) 8 SCC 372 ]. Examining the scope of judicial review with regards to reevaluation of answer sheets, this Court in Ran Vijay Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2018) 2 SCC 357 held that court should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matters and the academic matters are best left to academics.” The Bench also observed that it is not open to the Court to examine correctness of the questions and the answer key to come to a conclusion different from that of the expert committee. The Apex Court further held as under: “A perusal of the above judgments would make it clear that courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters. In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. The Apex Court further held as under: “A perusal of the above judgments would make it clear that courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters. In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. The delay in finalization of appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a long period of time.” (iv) The depth in which the learned Senior Counsel argued the matter with reference to Q. Nos. 48 and 60, by taking us through Articles 254 and 304 of the Constitution of India, in our view, would perhaps be too much to expect from the candidates and the persons who set the paper to understand the same in such perspective. 11. Coming to the question No. 117, the Court, after verification of the answers found option No. 3 is correct, which is now challenged on the ground that the option No. 1 would be the correct answer and not option No. 3. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the Government website publication to show that option No. 1 would be the correct answer. As held by us earlier, the correctness of this answer as to the number of municipal corporations in Andhra Pradesh came to be decided by an expert committee and which finding, in our view, requires no interference at this stage. 12. Apart from the above, it is also to be noted, the order impugned in this Writ Appeals came to be passed on 22.10.2020 and copies of the same were furnished within five days. But, strangely, these Writ Appeals came to be filed in the first week of December, 2020, just a week or 10 days prior to the main examination, which is scheduled to be held on 14.12.2020. Viewed from any angle, we see no ground to interfere with the order impugned and accordingly, the Writ Appeals are liable to be dismissed. 13. Having regard to the above, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs in all the Writ Appeals. 14. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in all the Writ Appeal are closed.