Prakash Padia, J
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1, Shri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 as well as Shri Ashok Khare and Shri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocates assisted by Shri Ramesh Kumar Tiwari appearing on behalf of newly impleaded respondent no.4.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by two petitioners, namely, Mukesh Kumar & Sandeep Kumar for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for record of the case and quashing the revised answer key dated 7.9.2022 issued by the respondent no. 3, namely, Examination Controller, Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission, Lucknow only to the extent of question nos. 10, 65, 86 & 90 of the booklet series 'B' and its equivalent in all other series of main examination held in pursuance of the advertisement No. 01-Exam/2022 issued by the respondent no. 2, namely, Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission, Lucknow. The consequential reliefs have also been prayed for.
3. After filing of the present writ petition, an application on behalf of the petitioner no. 2, being Application No. 2 of 2023 was filed on 18.5.2023 for dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn in respect of the petitioner no. 2. The said application was allowed, by an order dated 21.7.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, as such, in the present writ petition, there is only one petitioner, i.e., petitioner no. 1. namely, Mukesh Kumar.
4. The counsel for the petitioner, during the course of argument has made a statement that he did not challenge the revised answer key dated 7.9.2022, insofar as it relates to the question nos. 65, 86 & 90 of booklet series 'B'. Thus, in the present writ petition, the only challenge is to revised answer key dated 7.9.2022 only to the extent of question no. 10.
5. The facts as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner has cleared the PET-2021, hence on the basis of his score he was shortlisted of appearing in the main examination, being conducted in pursuance of the advertisement No. 01-Exam/2022 for the post of Revenue Lekhpal.
6. The petitioner has appeared in the main examination held on 31.7.2022 which was conducted by the respondent nos. 2 & 3. The petitioner no. 1 was provided booklet series 'B' and the petitioner no. 2 was provided booklet series 'D'. Since the writ petition with regard to the petitioner no. 2 has been dismissed as withdrawn, as such, the facts relating to the petitioner no. 2 are not being mentioned, being not relevant.
7. The answer key of the main examination held on 31.7.2022 was published on 1.8.2022. In para 9 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner has filed objection and revised answer key of booklet series 'B' and other series was published on 7.9.2022.
8. According to the petitioner, the dispute is with regard to question No. 10, which is as under:
“निम्नलिखित में कौन सा वाक्य अशुद्ध है?
(1) उसे मृत्युदंड की सजा हुई ।
(2) विंध्याचल पर्वत पर घने जंगल है ।
(3) यहाँ शुद्ध भैंस का दूध मिलता है।
(4) मेरे को उससे बात करना पसंद नहीं है ।
(A) पहला और तीसरा
(B) पहला, तीसरा और चौथा
(C) दूसरा, तीसरा और चौथा
(D) पहला, दूसरा, तीसरा और चौथा चारो”
9. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner has marked answer 'D' as correct answer, whereas in the revised answer key, answer 'B' has been treated to be correct answer.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument has placed and relied upon an publication made by the राजस्थान राज्य पुस्तक मण्डल जयपुर stating that answer 'D' is correct answer. In the said publication at sl. no. 9 (at page 72 of the writ petition), it is mentioned that विन्ध्याचल पर्वत हिमालय से प्राचीन है is an incorrect sentence and the correct sentence is विन्ध्याचल हिमालय से प्राचीन है.
11. Relying on the aforesaid publication, the counsel for the petitioner submits that answer 'D' is the correct answer and the publication of revised answer key holding option 'B' as correct answer is incorrect.
12. One of the candidate, namely, Krishna Pratap Singh Patel has moved an impleadment application for his impleadment as respondent stating therein that he has been selected and a conditional allotment letter has been issued to him but due to pendency of the present writ petition, he is not being allowed to join. The application for impleadment was allowed by an order dated 14.3.2024 and he was impleaded as respondent no. 4 in the present writ petition.
13. In the affidavit filed in support of the impleadment application, in para 8 it is stated that in the publication relied upon by the petitioner, there was a comparison made between two mountains hence mentioning of Parwat was not required. It is further stated that there are various places named as Vindhyachal in the official website of the State Government relating to Mirzapur. Relying upon the said website, three places have been mentioned in para 8 of the affidavit filed in support of the impleadment application, which reproduced below:
“i. According to official website of Mirzapur District Administration (Mirzapur.nic.in), There is a famous religious place with the name Vindhyachal Dham.
ii. There is a railway station in Mirzapur with the name Vindhyachal.
Iii. There is village with the name Vindhyachal, in Tehsil-Premnagar, District – Soorajpur, Chhattisgarh.”
14. In view of the aforesaid, it is argued that if only Vindhyachal word is used, various meanings are coming out like religious place, railway station and villages. However, if word parvat is used along with word Vindhyachal, then scene becomes crystal clear and same is beyond any doubt.
15. A counter affidavit to the impleadment application has been filed by the petitioner and in the counter affidavit, the petitioner has relied upon the book, namely Prayojanmoolak Hindi. In chapter-III of aforesaid book, the correct and incorrect sentence is explained. Item No. 13 of aforesaid chapter contains अगस्त्य विन्ध्याचल पर्वत पार कर गये as incorrect sentence and the correct sentence mentioned is अगस्त्य विन्ध्याचल पार कर गये.
16. Relying upon the aforesaid books, it is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the correct answer of question no. 10 is 'D'.
17. Shri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Commission, on the basis of the instructions submits that after objections were invited from the candidate, an Expert Committee was constituted and after taking into consideration all the aspect of the matter, the revised answer key was published and based on the revised answer key, the result was declared. It is further argued that answer 'D' was published as the correct answer on 1.08.2022 but subsequently, it was found by the Expert Committee that the correct answer is option 'B', and as such, based on Expert opinion, revised answer key was published, mentioning therein option 'B' of question no. 10 of booklet series 'B' as correct answer.
18. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Commission has further argued that time and again it has been held by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court that it is only the Expert Committee who look into the matter and the Writ Court should not interfere into this kind of matter especially because the Courts are not experts and once an expert opinion had been obtained, the Court should not interfere in expert opinion. Learned counsel has further relied upon the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ran Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others, reported in 2018(2) SCC 357. Paragraph nos.30, 31 and 32 reads as follows:-
“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. 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 re-evaluation 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; and
30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.
31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation 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.”
19. The Hon’ble Apex Court, further in case of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Rahul Singh & others, reported in 2018(7) SCC 254, affirmed the aforesaid judgment of Ran Vijay Singh (Supra) and further held in para 12 that candidate has 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. Paragraph-12 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:-
“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. In Kanpur University case (supra), the Court recommended a system of -
(1) moderation;
(2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions;
(3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions and no marks be assigned to such questions.”
20. The Court further held in paragraph no.14 of the aforesaid judgment that when there are conflicting views, then the Court must bow down to the opinion of the experts. Paragraph-14 reads as follows:-
“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.”
21. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No. 481 of 2021 Arsiya Bano Vs. State of U.P. & others, reported in (2022) 5 ALJ 287, after relying upon various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and also of this Court, held as under:
“47. Undoubtedly, the Courts cannot judicially review the expert opinion unless and until the key answer is patently wrong. There is no doubt that the candidates put in dreadful efforts while preparing for an examination, it must not be unremembered that even the examination authorities as well as experts put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct the examination, therefore 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.
48. Therefore, the Court should restrain in interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates as well as the examination authorities unless and until the mistake is apparent on the face of record and no research has to be done in proving the same, as the same will be an unending process resulting in uncertainty and confusion.
54. Taking into consideration the settled position of law in the matters where the answer key is disputed, this Court in case of Jitendra Singh Vs. Union of India and Another, passed in Writ C No. 53877 of 2017, has held that the Court has to proceed on the assumption and presumption that the answer key is correct as the same is based on experts opinion given by the persons specialised. In the event of any doubt, benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. It is with a rider that the Court should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of the candidates as it has no expertise in the matter, the academic matters are best left to the academicians there being no scope of judicial review in the matter.”
22. Applying well settled principle of law in the present case, the Court finds that there are different places, named as Vindhyachal as is clear from State of U.P. website i.e., mirzapur.nic.in. If only word Vindhyachal is mentioned without mentioning therein Parvat, Station or Dham, the area on which the dense forest is situated cannot be identified, as such, the revised answer key based on the opinion of expert mentioning answer 'B' as correct answer of question no. 10 of series 'B' Booklet does not call for any interference.
23. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the answer key is not only 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 answer key is wrong.
24. In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
