Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, therefore, they are heard together and are being decided by a
common judgment. However, for sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3622 of 2018 alone are being considered and discussed.
3. Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission issued an advertisement on 26.11.2015, inviting applications for appointment as Village
Panchayat Development Officer. Petitioner, who belongs to General Category, responded to the said advertisement. According to petitioner, the
Selecting Body issued admit card to him for appearing in the written examination, pursuant to which, he had appeared in the written examination held
on 25. 02.2018.
4. It is not in dispute that petitioner scored 67. 75 marks, out of 100 marks; while, the score of marks of last General Category Candidate in the said
selection is, 68.75. Thus, there is difference of only 1 mark.
5. It is the contention of the petitioner that he had indicated option (D) as correct answer to question no. 50 of Question Booklet Series ‘B’,
however, the Selecting Body treated option (C) as correct answer to the said question. Consequently, petitioner was not only denied one mark for the
said correct answer; but, he was also subjected to negative marking of .25 marks, as a result, his score was reduced by 1.25 marks, which resulted in
denial of appointment to him. Question No.50 of Question Booklet Series ‘B’ is reproduced below:-
“50. The origin of Sarda (Kali) is:-
(A) Pindari
(B) Kafni
(C) Milam
(D) None of the aboveâ€
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the proposed answer key, which was uploaded on the website of the Selecting Body immediately
after the written examination, answer (D) was shown as correct answer to the aforesaid question, however, in the revised answer key, option (C) was
treated as correct answer to question no. 50.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon certain documents in support of his contention that options (A), (B) & (C) to question no. 50, do
not give the correct answer, therefore, option (D) alone would be the correct answer to the said question.
8. Per contra, Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the Selecting Body submits that soon after the written examination, proposed answer
key was uploaded on the website and objections were invited from the candidates regarding any wrong question or answer to any question, which is
wrongly treated as correct in the proposed answer key. He further submits that as many as 36 objections were received in respect of the aforesaid
question and all the objections were sent to the Expert Committee. He further submits that the Expert Committee met on 26.03.2018 and decided that
the correct answer to the aforesaid question is Option (C) and not (D) and accordingly, answer to aforesaid question no. 50 was corrected in the
revised answer key.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the Selecting Body further submits that the provisional answer key was uploaded on the website on 25.02.2018 and
revised answer key was uploaded on 01.05.2018, however, the writ petition was filed after declaration of final result on 11.10.2018. Thus, he submits
that the writ petition is not maintainable, as petitioner had not filed any objection against proposed answer key, when it was invited and also on the
ground that the writ petition was filed after declaration of final result. Therefore, the sole question, which falls for consideration is whether option (D)
to the aforesaid question is correct answer, as contended by petitioner or whether option (C) would be the correct answer, as contended by the
Selecting Body.
10. It is settled position in law that this Court cannot take upon itself task of Examiner or Selecting Body and examine the discrepancies and
inconsistencies in question papers and evaluation thereof. It is equally well settled that Constitutional Courts should be extremely reluctant in
substituting its own views over the opinion of subject experts in public examinations. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of
Secondary Education v. Khusboo Shrivastava and others, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 523 has held as under:-
“11. In our considered opinion, neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court could have substituted his/its own views
for that of the examiners and awarded two additional marks to Respondent 1 for the two answers in exercise of powers of judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution as these are purely academic matters. This Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth has observed:
“29. … As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise,
prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich
experience of actual day-to -day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the court to
make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grassroots problems involved in the
working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be
propounded.â€
11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759, has held as under:-
“20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the
Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could
be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for Respondent 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the
answer sheets relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such
a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High
Court.â€
12. Similar view was expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh, reported in (2018) 7
SCC 254. Paragraph nos. 10 to 13 of the aforesaid judgment, are extracted below:-
“10. In Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., this Court after referring to a catena of judicial pronouncements summarised the legal position in the
following terms:
“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 scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidateâ€"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.â€
11. We may also refer to the following observations in paras 31 and 32 which show why the constitutional courts must exercise restraint in such
matters:
“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 â€" 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 examinationâ€"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.â€
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 keyanswers. In Kanpur
University case2, 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.
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 answers is better or more correct.â€
13. In a recent judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (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. 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 v. 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 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 impasseâ€"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 examinationâ€"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.â€
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 v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission10. 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.â€
14. In the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the merit list, on the ground that answer given by him to question no. 50 is correct; but, it has
been wrongly treated as incorrect, which has resulted in denial of appointment to him. Thus, the only issue before this Court is whether option (D) is
the correct answer to question no. 50 in Booklet Series ‘B’.
15. Since the Expert Committee after considering the objections received from the candidates has taken a decision that option (C) is the correct
answer to question no. 50, therefore this Court cannot revaluate or scrutinize the decision so taken by experts.
16. In view of the aforesaid legal position, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts. Thus, the relief, as claimed in the writ petition,
cannot be granted.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner then prayed that question no. 50 may be referred to a panel of experts to ascertain whether the answer given by
petitioner is incorrect. This Court is not inclined to grant such prayer, when selected candidates have been appointed in the year 2020, and such
interference at this belated stage may result in unsettling the vested rights of selected candidates.
18. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions fail and are dismissed.
