Brijendra Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2018 Latest Caselaw 4425 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

									AFR
 

 
Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13646 of 2017
 

 
Petitioner :- Brijendra Pratap Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Sheel Sharma,Girish Chandra Maurya,Manish Singh,Sushma Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kailash Singh Kushwaha
 

 
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

Heard Sri Manish Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kailash Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel who appeared for the Commission.

This petition has been preferred for the respondents being commanded to award a mark in respect of Question No. 46 of Booklet Series "C" to the petitioner and to consequently prepare a fresh select list. The issue itself arises in respect of a recruitment exercise initiated by the Commission for selection of suitable candidates to the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari. The advertisement offered 3587 posts of Gram Panchayat Adhikaris to be filled by prospective candidates. The controversy centered around Question No. 46 which was to the following effect:

"46. Presently who is the Panchayati Raj Minister in Uttar Pradesh?

A. Sh. Shivpal Yadav

B. Sh. Kailash Yadav

C. Sh. Balram Yadav

D. Sh. Durga Prasad Yadav"

The petitioner admittedly chose Option -A "Sri Shivpal Yadav" as being the Panchayati Raj Minister in Uttar Pradesh. The answer key which was uploaded by the Commission reflected the correct answer to the question to be Option-B "Sri Kailash Yadav". The Commission in its Counter Affidavit has submitted that Sri Kailash Yadav was the Panchayati Raj Minister at the time when the question paper was framed and prepared. According to the facts as disclosed in this Affidavit and which are not disputed, Sri Kailash Yadav met an untimely demise on 9 February 2016. The examinations were held on 21 February 2016. It is in the context of the sudden passing away of Sri Kailash Yadav alone that the principal submission of the petitioner rests, namely, of the answer key and the choices offered by the Commission being incorrect.

Sri Singh, learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has placed reliance upon the following four decisions of the Supreme Court: (A) Guru Nanak Dev University Vs. Saumil Garg And Others1 (B) Kanpur University Vs. Samir Gupta2 (C) Richal & Others Etc Etc Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Others Etc Etc3 and (D) Rajesh Kumar And Others Vs. State of Bihar And Others4.

Sri Singh has contended that the answer key was ex facie incorrect and that the choices offered by the Commission clearly could not be the correct response to the question since on the date when the examination was held, Sri Kailash Yadav was not alive and in any view of the matter was not and could not be described to be the Panchayati Raj Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh. According to Sri Singh, once the key answer was demonstrated to be wrong, it was incumbent upon the Commission to re-distribute marks amongst all the candidates proportionally and declare results in consequence of that exercise. Alternatively, it was submitted that the Commission should have deleted the question and evaluated the answer sheets accordingly. According to Sri Singh, the petitioner could not have been penalised for a patently wrong response having been framed by the Commission to Question No. 46. Referring to the principles enunciated in the decisions noted above, it was the contention of Sri Singh that the final results were liable to be redrawn.

Countering these submissions, Sri Kushwaha, the counsel for the Commission has submitted that at the time when the question paper was set, Sri Kailash Yadav was admittedly the Panchayati Raj Minister of the State of U.P. According to Sri Kushwaha, the Commission when it undertakes a recruitment exercise of such magnitude cannot be expected to factor in such unforeseen circumstances as a sudden death or demise. This submission is advanced in the backdrop of the fact that Sri Kailash Yadav admittedly died on 9 February 2016 while the examination was slated to be and was in fact held on 21 February 2016. Sri Kushwaha contends that the Commission had to prepare question papers, evaluate scripts of as many as 5,00,00 applicants who responded to the advertisement which contemplated recuritment to approximately 3,500 vacant posts of Gram Panchayat Adhikaris. Viewed in that context, Sri Kushwaha submits that it was not possible for the Commission to have the question paper amended or to amend the answer key in consequence thereof at such short notice.

Sri Kushwaha further submits that the Commission in all fairness has proceeded to award marks to all those candidates who had not exercised any option from amongst the choices which were provided in respect of Question No. 46. This, according to the Commission was a decision taken by it to ensure that examinees who came to doubt the correctness of the choices offered as on the date of the examination were not penalised. The Commission consequently came to award marks to Question No. 46 to all candidates who either chose Sri Kailash Yadav as the response as well as to those who did not answer the question being doubtful of the correctness of the choices offered.

Sri Kushwaha has further submitted that the petitioner could have also like many other candidates not exercised any option in response to Question No. 46. According to the Commission, undisputedly, Sri Shivpal Yadav was not the Panchayati Raj Minister either at the time when the question paper was set, when the examination was held or when the answer key was uploaded. He has underlined the fact that the petitioner chose to answer Question No. 46 by exercising the option of Sri Shivpal Yadav which answer was patently incorrect. It is in the above backdrop, this Court proceeds to deal with the rival submissions.

Before proceeding further, however, it would be relevant to note that that on a pointed query of the Court of what compelled the petitioner exercising the choice of Sri Shivpal Yadav as being the Panchayati Raj Minister of the State of U.P., no plausible explanation could be offered. Learned counsel for the petitioner candidly admits that Sri Shivpal Yadav was not the Panchayati Raj Minister either prior to or on 21 February 2016 when the examination was held.

It would be apposite to firstly recognise the fundamental precepts which would govern the issue at hand. This Court must bear in mind the oft repeated note of caution that Courts must bear in mind before entering into the arena of evaluating the correctness of answer keys since they inherently lack the requisite expertise and in matters relating to academic questions, the issue must be best left to academics. It is in view of this basic postulate that the decisions rendered by this Court as well as the Supreme Court hold that it is prudent to venture forth with due circumpsection and restraint. The precedents further hold that in the event of doubt with respect to the correctness of a key answer the benefit must be given to the examination authority rather than the candidates.

At the same time, one cannot approach the issue without taking into consideration that a grave and palpable mistake would undeniably impact and affect the career of a large number of students and prospective candidates on the gateway of a future. One also cannot be unmindful of the fact of candidates competing in large numbers for a few and limited number of coveted vacancies and positions. As has been demonstrated in the present case, the Commission had received as many as 5,00,000 applications for a mere 3,500 posts.

In order, therefore, to strike a just balance between these two competing factors, the correct test would appear to be to justify the interference of the Court only in case the key answer is established to be demonstrably and palpably incorrect or illogical. The Court bears in mind the following lucid enunciation of the principles which must govern in Kanpur University to the following effect:

"[16] Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University, contended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The contention of the University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged text-books, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those text-books leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect."

The view so taken was reiterated in a recent decision of the Supreme Court in U.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Rahul Singh5. In paragraph -12 while reiterating the principles enunciated in Kanpur University, the Supreme Court held thus:

"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 [Kanpur University Vs. 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."

As was held by the Supreme Court in the two decisions referred to above, it is through the vision of a reasonable person well-versed in the particular subject or field that the Court must come to conclude that the choices offered could not be viewed as correct at all. In the case of objective questions having multiple choices, the Court must stand convinced that none of the choices provided could possibly be a correct response to the question. This conclusion is not to be arrived at upon a laboured or inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization as was observed in Kanpur University. In the case of multiple choices, the Court must be convinced that all the choices offered do not possibly furnish or represent the correct answer.

In situations like the present, regard must also be had to the large number of candidates that the Commission caters to. This would necessary entail the question paper being prepared sufficiently in advance in order for the examination being conducted in acordance with stipulated time frames. Acceptance of the submission which is advanced in this particular case would entail the Court recognising an obligation upon the Commission amending question papers already prepared dependant upon fortuitous and unforeseen intervening circumstances. This would clearly jeopardise the sanctity of the examination process itself.

In the facts with which this Court is faced, it also cannot be said that the choices offered were palpably incorrect. While it is true that on the date when the examination was held, Clause (B) may not have been wholly or strictly accurate on account of the sudden demise of Sri Kailash Yadav but from amongst the given choices it was the most appropriate response. In the case of multiple choices, the examinee is required to select one out of the offered choices as being the correct response. It is essentially an exercise of choosing the most appropriate response from out of the choices offered. It is only in a position where none of the choices offered could possibly be accepted as correct and are shown to be preposterously wrong that benefit would be liable to be give to the examinee. The principles which were lucidly explained in Kanpur University were again reemphasised by the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P.6 in the following terms:

"19. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta [Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309] this Court took the view that: (SCC p. 316, para 16)

"16. ... the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct."

In other words, the onus is on the candidate to clearly demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect and that too without any inferential process or reasoning. The burden on the candidate is therefore rather heavy and the constitutional courts must be extremely cautious in entertaining a plea challenging the correctness of a key answer. To prevent such challenges, this Court recommended a few steps to be taken by the examination authorities and among them are: (i) Establishing a system of moderation; (ii) Avoid any ambiguity in the questions, including those that might be caused by translation; and (iii) Prompt decision be taken to exclude the suspect question and no marks be assigned to it."

The Court also cannot loose sight of the fact that in the present case, the petitioner attempted Question No. 46 and chose the option providing that Sri Shivpal Yadav to be the Panchayati Raj Minister for the State. This answer was palpably incorrect since he was neither the Minister of the Department concerned on the date when the question paper was set or on the date when the examination was conducted. The petitioner also did not leave the question unattempted, a course of action which was open to him to adopt if he was firmly of the view that none of the choices represented the correct answer.

The decision of the Supreme Court in Guru Nanak Dev University does not assist the case of the petitioner since in the facts of that case, the Court had come to record a positive finding that the questions posed were "....so vague that they are incapable of having a correct answer." Similarly in Richpal the Supreme Court found that the "...key answers are palpably and demonstrably erroneous".

The further submission of the learned counsel for an equal distribution of marks or for deletion of the question and a consequential reevaluation of all answer sheets cannot be countenanced since these are dependant upon the acceptance of the principal submission that the question as posed and the choices offered were patently incorrect. This the Court has already negatived.

On an overall conspectus of the aforesaid facts, this Court finds itself unable to grant relief to the petitioner. The challenge consequently fails. The writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 19.12.2018

Arun K. Singh

(Yashwant Varma, J.)