1. We have heard Sri Ajendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri H.N.Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2,3 and 4.
2. By means of the present writ petitioner, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to revise and release correct answer keys, specially answer keys of question nos. 34 and 38 of Paper III, Subject-Law of UGC- National eligibility Test (NET) July, 2016.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner appeared in NET which was held in the year 2016 conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi (in short CBSE). The answers of the questions were to be given on OMR sheet. However, after the examination was over, the CBSE has published the answer keys of the questions paper and invited objections. The petitioner has raised objections with regard to the correctness of options to the question nos. 34 and 38. According to the petitioner for the answer of question no.34 the option (3) was correct and not the option (1) and for the answer of question no. 38 the option (1) was correct and not the option (2). The objection of the petitioner was over-ruled by the CBSE.
4. However on the second occasion the CBSE has given another chance to the candidates to deposit Rs. 5000/- for apprising the CBSE to correct the options. It is stated that again, after deposit of Rs. 5,000/-, the petitioner has reiterated his stand regarding correctness of the answer, options of questions nos. 34 and 38 saying that with regard to question no.34 option (3) was correct and with regard to question no.38, option (1) was correct but this time too CBSE has rejected the objection of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contented that the CBSE has done everything without deep consideration of the fact that which option of question nos. 34 and 38 is correct. With respect to question no.34 learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon paragraph 25 of the judgment rendered in Essar Oil Ltd. vs. Halar Utkarsh Samiti and others (AIR 2004 SC 1834 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:
"25.The pivotal issue, as we have already noticed, is the interpretation
of Section 29 of the WPA. In our opinion this must be done keeping in
mind the Stockholm Declaration of 1972 which has been described as
the "Magna-Carta of our environment". Indeed in the wake of the
Stockholm Declaration in 1972, as far as this country is concerned,
provisions to protect the environment were incorporated in the
Constitution by an amendment in 1976. Article 48-A of the
Constitution now provides that the "State shall endeavour to protect
and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife
of the country". It is also now one of the fundamental duties of every
citizen of the country under Article 51A (g) "to protect and improve the
natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to
have compassion for living creatures."
6. With respect to question no.38 learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance upon paragraph 22 of the judgment of
the Apex Court rendered in M.C.Mehta and another vs. Union of
India and others ( AIR 1987 SC 965), the relevant portion of
which reads as under:
"22...........since cases involving issues of enviornmental
pollution, ecological destruction and conflicts over natural
resources are increasingly coming up for adjudication and these
cases involve assessment and evolution of scientific and
technical data, it might be desirable to set up Environment
Courts on the regional basis with one professional Judge and
two experts drawn from the Ecological Sciences Research
Group........"
7. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the petitioner we have required the learned counsel appearing
for the CBSE vide order dated 4.8.2017 to obtain instruction and
place material in support of its case. Thereafter the case was listed
on several occasions and lastly a counter affidavit has been filed by
the respondent- CBSE.
8. However, before discussing the case any further we would like to reproduce question nos. 34 and 38 of the booklet of law third paper contained in Booklet B, which read as under:
"34. Which one of the folloiwng has been described as the
"Magna- Carta" of the environment?
(1)Rio declaration
(2)Tbilisi declaration
(3)The Stockholm decelaration
(4)Environment produce decelaration
38."Cases involving issues of enviornmental pollution,
ecological destruction and conflict over natural resources are on
the increase and hence setting up of environmental courts on the
regional basis with one professional judge and two experts drawn
from Ecological Science Research Group is necessary", was
observed in one of the following case:
(1)M.C.Mehta Vs. Union of India
(2)Bittu Sehgal vs. Union of India
(3)T.N.Godavarman Thirulmulpad vs. Union of India
(4)A.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Prof. M.V.Nayudu.
9. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit it is stated that after
the order of this Court the matter was re-examined by other subject
experts with respect to question nos. 34 and 38 Law Paper- IIIrd
UGC NET July, 2016 and the expert committee this time has
submitted a different report which has been brought on record as
Annexure I to the counter affidavit. According to the report of
present Committee the correct answer of question no.34 is option
no. (3) which is based on Text Book written by S.C.Shastri, First
Edition, 2002, Chapter IV page 28 on Environmental Law. With
respect to questioin no.38 the Committee has found option no. (1)
as correct one. The decision of the Committee is based upon the
observation of the Apex Court in M.C.Mehta vs. Union of India
(AIR 1987 SC 965) commonly known as the first case of
M.C.Mehta vs. Union of India decided on 17.2.1986.
10. Through counter affidavit the reports of the earlier experts who have examined the objection of the petitioner have also brought on record.
11. We have gone thorugh the report of the earlier experts. So far as question no.34 is concerned, the experts have justified their earlier report mentioning that the genesis of the concept was generated in fact from the ''Rio Declaration'' but here the question 34 was very spsecific, requring, the examinees to answer ''Magna- Carta'' of ''Environment'' from amongst the choices 1, 2, 3 and 4 which does not require genesis of the ''Magna-Carta'' of the ''Environment'', therefore, we are of the view that the report of the subsequent experts, the present one, is correct as it is supported by well known Text Book on ''Environmental Law'' written by S.C. Shastri, published by Eastern Book Company. So far as question no.38 is concerned, undoubtedly, the suggestions for settling environmental courts, for the first time, has been observed in the case of M.C.Mehta vs. Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 965).
12. In view of the foregoing discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are directed to modify the result of the petitioner and issue a revised marks-sheet.
13. However, before departing, we are pained to observe that such a responsible organization, like University Grant Commission and respondent nos. 2,3, and 4 have failed to realise seriousness of the matter at the threshold and not cared to have a proper look at the second time when the petitoner has again prayed for modifying the answers key on the basis of the authentic correct material and in this process the petitioner has been harassed, therefore, in order to compensate, we impose a cost of Rs. 10,000/- payable to the petitioner which is to be equally born out by the respondent no.1 and respondent no.2.
