Allahabad High Court
Km.Pravesh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 22 March, 2023
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 28221 of 2021
Petitioner :- Km.Pravesh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rishabh Tripathi
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.1-State and Sri Rishabh Tripathi for respondent No.2 and 3 i.e. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Prayagraj.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was duly qualified and accordingly appeared in T.G.T.-Sanskrit of Trained Graduate Teacher Examination, 2021 issued vide notification No.1 of 2021 by U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Prayagraj and was given booklet B Series.
3. The grievance raised in the present writ petition is with regard to question No.66 whose correct answer according to the petitioner was 'A' while the respondents while publishing the revised answer key have held the answer occurring as 'B' to be correct. It has been submitted that the petitioner appeared in the said examination consisting of 125 questions of 4 marks each and, hence, the total marks comes to 500 marks. In the said examination the petitioner has obtained 463.11920 marks in the final result and the case of the petitioner is that in case the answer to key No.66 is deemed to be correct then the petitioner would be awarded 4 extra marks and the cutoff in the said examination being 463.11920 and, hence, he would stand qualified in the said selection. With regard to the dispute raised in the present it has been submitted that in question No.66 two words have to be combined to form a complete word. It has been submitted that as per the syllabus published by the respondents the book titled as 'Sanskrit Vyakaran Praveshika' authored by Sri Ram Babu Saxena would be prescribed book for the said examination. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the booklet according to which at page No.242 of the said book the answer occurring at 'A' is the correct answer and submits that the petitioner is entitled for 4 extra marks and consequently prayed for a direction to quash the result dated 26.10.2021 and direct the respondents to add 4 marks against question No.66 and subsequently declare the petitioner to be selected in the said examination.
4. Sri Rishabh Tripathi, on the other hand, contested the said matter. He firstly submitted that this Court would not have jurisdiction to assess the question papers which can be looked into only by an expert committee. In the present case scrutiny of the question and the answer has already been subjected to scrutiny by the expert committee which has given its opinion that answer 'B' is the correct answer. He further submits that the booklet annexed by the petitioner is authored by Sri Babu Ram Saxena rather than by Dr. Ram Babu Saxena and, hence, it cannot be believed that the booklet annexed by the petitioner is authored by the same person mentioned in the said syllabus. It is for the aforesaid reasons that he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner appeared in Trained Graduate Teachers Examination in pursuance of Advertisement No.1 of 2021. The dispute squarely relates to question NO.66 of Series B of T.G.T. Examination. Submission of the petitioner is that 'A' is the correct answer which he had written in the examination and the same find support in the book authored by Dr. Babu Ram Saxena. The Court has noticed that there is variation in the author as annexed in the said booklet and prescribed by the respondents for the said examination. Undoubtedly at the first instance it is clear that the said booklet is not authored by Dr. Ram Babu Saxena whose book is prescribed in the said examination. Apart from the above, the procedure followed for the said examination was that immediately after the said examination tentative answer key was published by the respondents on 10th August, 2021. The candidates were at liberty to file their objections to the answer published in that answer key. After consideration of the objections the matter shall be referred to select committee of experts in various subjects and after obtaining opinion of the select committee of experts the final answer key was to be published.
7. In the present case, the objections received with regard to question No.66 from various other students were already placed before the said committee which has duly examined the said objections and returned a finding that the answer occurring at 'B' would be the correct answer contrary to the claim of the petitioner. Along with the report of the committee the respondents have enclosed a copy of the extract of the booklet indicating that 'B' is the correct answer. In view of the aforesaid facts also no case is made out in favour of the petitioner.
8. Apart from the above, the issue with regard to correctness or other wise of any question occurring in a written examination should be referred to an expert committee and it is not for this Court to sit in judgment over the said committee unless it is demonstrated that the answer key are patently wrong on the face of it or there is any illegality in the same. Aforesaid proposition have been clearly laid down in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak and others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and others,(2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 540 as under:-
"15. No doubt it is a salutary principle not to permit the State or its instrumentalities to tinker with the "rules of the game" insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria is concerned as was done in C. Channabasavaih vs. State of Mysore, etc. in order to avoid manipulation of the recruitment process and its results. Whether such a principle should be applied in the context of the "rules of the game" stipulating the procedure for selection more particularly when the change sought is to impose a more rigorous scrutiny for selection requires an authoritative pronouncement of a larger Bench of this Court. We, therefore, order that the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders in this regard."
9. In the present case also objections raised by other candidates with regard to question No.66 was subjected to an expert body which has adequately considered the objections and returned a finding against the petitioner that answer 'B' of question No.66 would be correct answer.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand has submitted that the respondents cannot change the rules of the examinations during the conduct of the said examination. In light of the aforesaid the petitioner has canvassed his submissions and has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh Public Services Commission through its Chairman and another VS. Rahul Singh and another, (2018) 7 Supreme Court Cases, 258 where this Court also considered the submission of the petitioner that the respondents have changed the rules of examination midstream which is not permissible.
11. From the facts occurring in the present case it is seen that the rules of the examination have not been changed. The rules itself prescribe that after written examination a tentative answer key would be published and objections would be invited. After considering all the objections available the final answer key would be published and the result would be declared according to the final answer key. The procedure is already laid down very clearly and has never been changed. The petitioner could not show any provision contrary to what has been followed in the present case by the respondents. There is no substance in the arguments raised by the petitioner in this regard.
12. In light of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity with the result declared by the respondents. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the petition which is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.3.2023 (Alok Mathur, J.)
RKM.
