Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 237 (UTT)

Pawan Nainwal v. State of Uttarakhand

2022-08-01

R.C.KHULBE, VIPIN SANGHI

body2022
JUDGMENT : VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. The present Special Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.07.2022, rendered by the learned Single Judge in a batch of Writ Petitions, including Writ Petition (S/S) No. 410 of 2022, which had been preferred by the appellants herein. The learned Single Judge has dismissed all the Writ Petitions, which were dealt with simultaneously on account of the fact that similar grievances were raised by all the petitioners. 2. The respondents conducted a public examination, namely, the Combined State (Civil) Lower Subordinate Service Examination-2021. The petitioners, including the appellants herein also, participated in the said examination. The cut-off marks, for the economically weaker section candidates, were fixed at 105 marks. The writ petitioners-appellants secured less than 105 marks out of 150 in the preliminary examination. The examination consisted of 150 Multiple Choice Questions in the preliminary examination. 3. It appears that when the answer-key, to the question paper, was made public, and objections invited, the Expert Committee went into the objections and found that 12 questions were erroneous. The respondents then took a policy decision to delete the said 12 questions, and to award 12 bonus marks for the said 12 questions to all the candidates. The petitioners before the learned Single Judge, including the appellants herein, raised the grievance that the methodology adopted by the respondents had resulted in other candidates stealing a march over them, even though, according to the petitioners, they were more meritorious. The marking scheme for the examination was that one mark was awarded for each correct answer, and negative mark, i.e. -0.25 (minus 0.25), was awarded for every wrong answer. The petitioners contended that the process of awarding bonus marks to all the candidates meant that, even those candidates, who have not attended the said 12 questions, were awarded marks for those questions. The petitioner, in particular, raised a grievance in respect of Question No. 91, set out in Question Booklet Series (C), which reads as follows: “91. As per census 2011, in India per 1000 males, the number of females is: (a) 910 (b) 940 (c) 920 (d) 980.” 4. According to the petitioners, the correct answer for the said question was option (b) i.e. 940. As per census 2011, in India per 1000 males, the number of females is: (a) 910 (b) 940 (c) 920 (d) 980.” 4. According to the petitioners, the correct answer for the said question was option (b) i.e. 940. Yet, the model answer, which was also the option (b), was treated as incorrect for no rhyme or reason, and one mark was awarded in respect of the said question to all the candidates, while deleting the said question. 5. The learned Single Judge considered the submissions of the petitioners, and did not find any merit in the same. The learned Single Judge placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in H.P. Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur, (2010) 6 SCC 759 , Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Khusboo Shrivastava, (2014) 14 SCC 523 and Vikesh Kumar Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 2 SCC 309 , wherein the Supreme Court has repeatedly frowned upon the High Court sitting as the Super Expert Committee, over the decision taken by an Expert Committee consisting of academicians, to conclude whether answers, to the questions posed in the examination, were correct, or not. 6. The learned Single Judge also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. vs. Balbir Kumar Walia, (2021) 8 SCC 784 , wherein the Supreme Court stated the law with regard to judicial review over administrative decisions, by placing reliance upon Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 . 7. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants before us is, firstly, focused on the aforesaid Question No. 91, set out in Question Booklet Series (C). Learned counsel submits that the appellants had produced conclusive documents before the learned Single Judge to show that option (b), i.e. 940, was the correct answer. Even before us, learned counsel has produced a compilation of documents, wherein the overall sex ratio, at the National level, has been noted to have been increased by 7 points since Census 2001 to reach 940 at Census 2011. Since the aforesaid documents were placed before us, we passed over the matter to enable the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 to take instructions. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent no. Since the aforesaid documents were placed before us, we passed over the matter to enable the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 to take instructions. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has taken instructions, and has pointed out that the documents, produced by the learned counsel for the appellants, only contain the provisional figures of the 2011 Census. He has also produced documents founded upon the Census of India 2011. The document produced is titled “Population Projections for India and States 2011-2036.” The same is a report of the Technical Group on Population Projections, and was published in November, 2019. The same mentions the sex ratio of women during 2011 as 943. The compilation produced also contains a bar chart of sex ratio of females per 1000 males, as published by Census Info India 2011 “Final Population Totals” which also mentions the total sex ratio of females as 943 per 1000 males. 9. It, indeed, appears that the documents produced by the appellants contain only the provisional figures, and not the final figures of the 2011 Census. This explains the figure of 940, being mentioned as the sex ratio of women per 1000 males. 10. The aforesaid instance only fortifies the view that once an Expert Committee, consisting of academicians, has examined the questions; the model answer-key and the objections thereto, it is not for this Court to sit in judgment over the decision of the said Expert Committee. This is the position, which also emerges from the decisions of the Supreme Court noted above and which have also been relied upon by the learned Single Judge and quoted in extenso in the impugned judgment. 11. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the award of bonus marks to even those candidates, who did not attend the 12 questions which were found to be erroneous, was unjustified. 12. We do not find any merit in this submission for the reason that there was negative marking of -0.25 marks for every wrong answer. Therefore, a candidate, who may be aware of the correct answer to a question, which is erroneous, would not mark one of the options only to be awarded negative marks to the extent of -0.25. 13. We do not find any merit in this submission for the reason that there was negative marking of -0.25 marks for every wrong answer. Therefore, a candidate, who may be aware of the correct answer to a question, which is erroneous, would not mark one of the options only to be awarded negative marks to the extent of -0.25. 13. Another submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that, in another examination process, the Examining Body deleted the erroneous questions, and proportionately worked out the percentages of the candidates on the basis of the remaining questions. The submission is that the candidates should have been marked on the basis of 138 questions, since 12 questions were found to be erroneous and deleted. 14. We do not find any fault in the methodology adopted by the respondents, as all the candidates have been treated equally by awarding 12 bonus marks to all of them, including the writ petitioners-appellants. There is nothing to say that only one methodology may be adopted by the Examining Body. We are not called upon to interfere with the methodology, since the same does not appear to be arbitrary or irrational, and as it appeals to us as one of the correct approaches. 15. The appellants have also raised a challenge to the decision of the Expert Committee in respect of several other questions, but we are not inclined to get into that issue at all. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the present Special Appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 17. In sequel thereto, pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.