HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
WRIT PETITION No.46029 of 2018
ORDER:
1 Heard Sri P.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Priyanka Singh learned counsel representing Smt.K.Udayasri, standing counsel for the respondents.
2 Aggrieved by the impugned action of the 2nd respondent in declaring the results on 30.08.2018 for the examination held on 08.07.2018 which was conducted for recruitment of Sub-Engineers (Electrical), vide Notification No.2/2018 dated 24.05.2018, without rectifying the wrong answer for Question No.74 in the provisional key for Set-C, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3 Petitioner asserts that he is an Engineering Graduate (Electrical) from Kakatiya University. He applied for the post of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) under unreserved general category in response to the notification No.2/2018 dated 24.05.2018, issued by the second respondent for filling up 497 posts. The written examination was conducted on 08.07.2018 and subsequently provisional key for A, B and C Sets was released, a perusal of which, in Set C, wrong answers were given for question Nos.58, 14 and 74. However, answers for question Nos.58 and 14 were rectified. But the question No.74 remained un-rectified. Results were declared on 30.08.2018. The petitioner secured 86 marks and that the cut off 2 mark was 87. Since the respondents have not rectified the wrong answer, he lost opportunity. Hence the present writ petition. 4 Respondents filed counter affidavit denying the material allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Their contention is that the written examination was conducted through a third party i.e. JNTU, Hyderabad and objections were also invited from the candidates to the preliminary key and final key was published on 26.07.2018. Accordingly eligible candidates were called for verification of certificates and were issued appointment orders in December, 2018. The expert committee after consideration of the objections approved and notified the final key. With regard to Q.No.74 of Set-C in the provisional key, Option-C was given as correct answer. In terms of the final key, selection list was drawn up and the eligible candidates were appointed to the post of Sub-Engineer (Electrical). At this stage interference or change in the key would adversely affect the selection list which would ultimately affect the right of the candidates who have been selected. It is further submitted that as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court once the expert committee has considered the objections and has given its recommendations to the key, this Hon'ble Court may not interfere with the said key in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
35 During the course of hearing, the petitioner filed material papers solutions to Question No.74 of Set-C was A only but not C issued by a qualified Scholar & Assistant Professor. So also the respondents have also filed a Memo showing the members of the expert committee who have finalized the key.
6 In Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Rahul Singh1 the Hon'ble Apex Court held 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 v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309, 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.
14. In the present case, we find that all the three 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 textbooks. 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.
1 (2018) 7 SC 254 4 7 So, from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above judgment, this Court is of the view that when there are two different and conflicting opinions, the Court must bow down to the opinion of the experts rather than the conclusion given by some other academician. In the instant case, the petitioner relied on the opinion given by one qualified Scholar & Assistant Professor. But, the respondents have filed a Memo showing the members of the expert committee who have finalized the key. The shows all the three experts who have finalized the Key are Professor and Associate Professors of Electrical and Engineering Department of JNTUH College of Engineering, Hyderabad. So, once the expert committee consisting of Professors and Associate Professors has finalized the Key, this Court, not being expert in the said field, must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts.
8 Moreover, after the entire exercise of recruitment being exhausted the petitioner filed the present writ petition in December, 2018 after much water has gone under the bridge. So, at this stage directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and re-evaluate the question papers based on the objections raised by the petitioner is not and will not be proper.
9 Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
510 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
------------------------------
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.
Date: 21.04.2023 Kvsn