Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 318 (UTT)

Sunita v. State of Uttarakhand

2022-09-24

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

body2022
JUDGMENT : MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. 1. Intervention applications [IA No. 8 of 2022, IA No. 10 of 2022 filed in WP (SS) No. 308 of 2022; IA No. 2 of 2022 and IA No. 3 of 2022 filed in WP (SS) No. 90 of 2022] are allowed. 2. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “Selecting Body”) invited applications, for appointment as Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade in Government Schools in different subjects, by a notification dated 13.10.2020. Petitioners responded to the said advertisement and appeared in the examination consisting of multiple choice objective questions. Having been declared unsuccessful in the said examination; petitioners have approached this Court. 3. Petitioners in these writ petitions have raised the issue of correctness of answer to certain questions, as given in the revised answer key. It is contended by some of the petitioners that answer, treated as ‘correct’ in the first answer key published by the Selecting Body immediately after written test, was wrongly changed in the revised answer key, which has resulted in reduction of their score of marks. The Selecting Body and the interveners, however, contend that the answers to certain questions were wrongly treated as ‘correct’ in the first answer key. However, in view of large number of objections received against such answers, the matter was referred to expert committee and based on the report of the expert committee, the necessary changes were made in the revised answer key. Thus, the question which falls for consideration in all these writ petitions is regarding correctness of answer to certain question as given in the revised answer key. 4. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, these petitions are clubbed together and are being heard and decided together. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WP (SS) No. 308 of 2022 alone are being considered. 5. By means of this writ petition [WP (SS) No. 308 of 2022], petitioner has sought the following relief: (i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the revised answer key (contained as Annexure No. 7) to the extent of answer of Question no. 41 and 59 of Question booklet Series-C treating the answer sheet dated 11.08.2021 as correct. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents commission/Selecting Body to treat the Question no. 41 and 59 of Question booklet Series-C treating the answer sheet dated 11.08.2021 as correct. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents commission/Selecting Body to treat the Question no. 41 and 59 of Question Booklet Series-C correct as shown in initial answer sheet dated 11.08.2021 and allot the marks to the petitioner for the Question no. 41 and 59 revising the marks allotted to the petitioner in the written examination. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents commission/Selecting Body to include the name of the petitioner in the provisional merit list of the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Physical Education) in accordance with law after revision of marks. 6. Petitioner has relied upon certain texts in support of her contention that the answer to Question nos. 41 and 59, of Booklet Series-C, given by her are correct. Counsel for the Selecting Body as well as learned counsel for the interveners have also produced other books in support of their contention that the answers given in revised answer key are correct and supported by authentic text. 7. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the Selecting Body submits that objections received against first answer key were referred to the expert committee and the expert committee, after much deliberation, corrected the answers in respect of few questions. Thus he submits that once the expert committee has taken a decision based on objections, then judicial interference with the view taken by the expert committee would not be proper. 8. It is well settled that High Court, while exercising power of judicial review, cannot assume the role of a Subject Expert and it cannot decide, whether an answer treated as ‘correct’ in reply to a multiple choice question by Subject Experts, is actually correct or not. Thus, this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by Subject Experts. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and Another vs. Rahul Singh and Another, (2018) 7 SCC 254 , has held as under: “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. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and Another vs. Rahul Singh and Another, (2018) 7 SCC 254 , has held as under: “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 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. 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.” 10. Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2018) 2 SCC 357 , where it was held that in the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. Para-30 of the said judgment is extracted 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. 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 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 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. 30.5 In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.” 11. In a recent judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 2 SCC 309 , it has been reiterated that it is not open to the High Court to examine correctness of questions and answer key to come to a conclusion different from the opinion of the Expert Committee. It is further held that assessment of questions by the Court itself to arrive at correct answer, is not permissible. Paragraph nos. 13 to 17 of the aforesaid judgment, are extracted below: “13. The point that arises for the consideration of this Court is whether the revised select list dated 21-5-2019 ought to have been prepared on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key. The appellants contend that the wait list also should be prepared on the basis of the 3rd Answer Key and not on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key. The 2nd Answer Key was released by RPSC on the basis of the recommendations made by the expert committee constituted pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court. The appellants contend that the wait list also should be prepared on the basis of the 3rd Answer Key and not on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key. The 2nd Answer Key was released by RPSC on the basis of the recommendations made by the expert committee constituted pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court. Not being satisfied with the revised select list which included only a few candidates, certain unsuccessful candidates filed appeals before the Division Bench which were disposed of on 12-3-2019. When the Division Bench was informed that the selections have been finalised on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key, it refused to interfere with the select list prepared on 17-9-2018. However, the Division Bench examined the correctness of the questions and the answer keys pointed by the appellants therein and arrived at a conclusion that the answer key to 5 questions was erroneous. On the basis of the said findings, the Division Bench directed RPSC to prepare the revised select list and apply it only to the appellants before it. 14. Though re-evaluation can be directed if rules permit, this Court has deprecated the practice of re-evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the courts which lack expertise in academic matters. 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. Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of the expert committee who have the expertise to evaluate and make recommendations. 15. Examining the scope of judicial review with regards to re-evaluation of answer sheets, this Court in Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P. held that the court should not re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matters and the academic matters are best left to academics. This Court in the said judgment further held as follows: “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. This Court in the said judgment further held as follows: “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. 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.” 16. 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.” 16. In view of the above law laid down by this Court, it was not open to the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of the questions and the answer key to come to a conclusion different from that of the expert committee in its judgment dated 12-3-2019. Reliance was placed by the appellants on Richal vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission. In the said judgment, this Court interfered with the selection process only after obtaining the opinion of an expert committee but did not enter into the correctness of the questions and answers by itself. Therefore, the said judgment is not relevant for adjudication of the dispute in this case. 17. 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 finalisation of appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a long period of time. The cascading effect of delay in appointments is the continuance of those appointed on temporary basis and their claims for regularisation. The other consequence resulting from delayed appointments to public posts is the serious damage caused to administration due to lack of sufficient personnel.” 12. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the Selecting Body has relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in WP (SS) No. 481 of 2022. He submits that similar challenge thrown by unsuccessful candidates to the selection process was repelled by this Court vide judgment dated 07.07.2022 rendered in the said writ petition. Para 36 of the said judgment is reproduced below: “36. Public Service Commission has been established under Article 315 of Constitution of India, thus, it is a Constitutional Authority. As a specialized body for holding competitive examinations for appointment to public services, it can devise ways and means for conducting its affairs. Certain degree of discretion is available to the Commission, as a Selecting Body. Public Service Commission has been established under Article 315 of Constitution of India, thus, it is a Constitutional Authority. As a specialized body for holding competitive examinations for appointment to public services, it can devise ways and means for conducting its affairs. Certain degree of discretion is available to the Commission, as a Selecting Body. Interference with exercise of such discretion would be permissible only when it is contrary to laid down norms or is irrational. The impugned decision taken by the Commission cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. Although, other options were also available to the Commission, however, it is for the Commission to decide, which out of several options, it chooses. Every statutory authority or a Selecting Body is entitled to play in the joints so that it is able to discharge its functions. The scope of judicial review in such matters is very limited and the decision taken by Commission, impugned in these writ petitions, cannot be interfered with in the absence of any valid ground.” 13. The issue whether answer to a particular ‘multiple choice objective question’ which is treated as correct by the Selecting Body, is actually correct or not, is not justiciable. It is well settled that Judges cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters and it is not for this Court to re-evaluate the answer key prepared by the Selecting Body under the guidance of Subject Experts. Which option to a given question gives correct answer can only be decided by Experts and answer key was revised by the Selecting Body based on recommendation of the Subject Experts, who considered the objections received against the first answer key. Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of the Expert Committee. 14. In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference with the answers, as given in the revised answer key. 15. Accordingly, the writ petitions fail and are dismissed.