Jakkireddy Nagarjuna Reddy vs Appsc
2021 Latest Caselaw 1356 AP

        HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI


 HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                            &
          HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

                  Writ Appeal No.417 of 2020 and
                    Writ Appeal No.25 of 2021

                      (Through video conferencing)

Writ Appeal No.417 of 2020

Sheik Shanawaj, S/o. Shajahan,
Age : 32 years, Occ : Unemployee,
R/o.H.No.116, Ramagiri, Dharmavaram R,
Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh - 515 672,
H.T.No.271200359; Community -BC-E & 2 Others         ..     Appellants


                                 Versus

Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission,
Rep. by The Secretary, R&B Building,
M.G.Road, Vijayawada & 14 Others                     ..     Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. A.Satya Prasad, Senior Counsel

Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.Addanki Ramachandra Murthy, Standing counsel for APPSC

Writ Appeal No.25 of 2021

Jakkireddy Nagarjuna Reddy, S/o Venkata Subba Reddy, Aged 30 years, Occ : Unemployee, R/o D.No.7-167, Ramalayam Street, A.Muppalla Village & Post, Ipuru Mandal, Guntur District, Pin-522661 & another .. Appellants

Versus

Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, R&B Building, M.G.Road, Vijayawada & 15 Others .. Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants : Mr.J.Sudheer

Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.Addanki Ramachandra Murthy, Standing counsel for APPSC

Date of Hearing : 08.02.2021

Date of pronouncement : .2021

COMMON JUDGMENT

(per C.Praveen Kumar, J)

1. Originally, Writ Petition came to be filed to declare the action of

the respondent in not allowing non-programmable calculators for Paper-II

(General Aptitude) and neglecting the mistakes that occurred in Telugu

translation of at least 51 questions in Paper-1 (General Studies) & Paper-

II (General Aptitude) of Group-I Preliminary examination vide notification

No.27/2018, conducted on 26.05.2019, as arbitrary, illegal and violation

of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently,

to set aside the same.

2. By an order, dated 22-10-2020, the learned Single Judge dismissed

the Writ Petition holding as under :

"19. In the said circumstances, the prohibition of use of calculators cannot be said to be a change in the conditions. Further, in a test of general mental ability, candidates are tested by the proficiency and speed with which such mathematical problems are solved. Usage of calculators to solve such problems would result in a situation where there would be no test of the general mental ability of the candidate and it would only be an exercise of using the calculator to solve the questions. This contention of the petitioners would have to fail.

       20.      ....      ....       ....         ....
       21.      ....      ....       ....         ....
       22.      ....      ....       ....         ....

23. In the light of this instruction, which is similar to the condition considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the errors in translation would require to be overlooked. Viewed from another angle, all the candidates

would have sufficient knowledge of English, to have referred to the question in English in the event of any ambiguity in Telugu translation. Apart from the above, cancellation of the examination would result in penalizing the successful candidates for no fault of theirs."

3. Challenging the same, the present Writ Appeals are filed under

Clause 15 of Letters Patent.

4. Heard Sri Satya Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

appellants in W.A. No.417 of 2020 and Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel

appearing for the appellants in W.A. No.25 of 2021 and also

Sri Addanki Ramachandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra

Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC).

5. The main thrust of the argument advanced by Sri Satya Prasad

and Sri J.Sudheer is that though initially there was a clause in the

notification that non-programmable calculators would be permitted

wherever necessary, but the instructions in the Hall Ticket prohibited use

of non-programmable calculators. In view of the above, the counsel

would contend that authorities were not justified in changing the rules of

the game after issuing the notification. According to them, there are

some questions which warranted use of non-programmable calculators as

candidates are from different faculties. Hence, on this score alone, they

plead that the entire examination has to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for appellants further submit that nearly 51

questions are wrongly translated into Telugu and the multiple choice

answers given to such questions were also not properly translated. Such

being the position, there would be wide disparity in getting marks and as

such, grave prejudice has been caused to the students who have

attempted those questions. They further submit that since negative

marks are given to incorrect answers, the candidates are put to

irreparable loss.

7. Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.25 of

2021, would contend that though preliminary and main examinations are

over, but, having regard to the manner in which the examination is

conducted, more particularly the way in which the questions were

translated, the same warrants setting aside of the entire examination

process. The same is disputed by Sri Addanki Ramachandra Murthy,

learned Standing Counsel for APPSC, contending that similar such issue

came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.

Nos.388, 393 and 394 of 2020, wherein this Hon'ble Court by its common

order, dated 09.12.2020, rejected the pleas taken therein. Subsequently,

the matter was carried in appeal in S.L.P. No.15236 of 2020, which was

also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirming the judgment of

Division Bench of this court.

8. Now, the point that arises for consideration is whether the prayer

of the appellants for setting aside the entire examination process can be

accepted?

9. Before dealing with the same it would be just and proper for us to

refer to certain dates, which are as under :

The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission had issued a

notification, dated 31.12.2018, for filling up the carry forward vacancies

and fresh vacancies falling under Group-I Service. About 50,000

candidates appeared for the preliminary examination, which was

conducted on 26.05.2019 and on the same day, the key to the questions,

giving the correct choice from the multiple options, as decided by the

Public Service Commission, was published. The candidates were

permitted to raise objections to the answers indicated by the Public

Service Commission by 10.06.2019. Later, a report of the experts on the

objections raised by the candidates was received on 05.09.2019 and the

revised key was published on 06.09.2019. As some of the questions were

found to be incorrect, no marks in relation to those questions were taken

into consideration. Objections were again called for in relation to the

revised key published on 06.09.2019 and the time given to submit

objections was till 17.09.2019. The objections received were referred to

the subject experts on 18.09.2019. At that stage, 15 candidates have

filed the present writ petition seeking the relief of setting aside the entire

preliminary examination.

10. From the above it is evident that an opportunity was given to all

the candidates to raise objections to the questions and answers given.

Pursuant thereto, the matter was referred to subject experts, who, after

considering the objections raised, gave a report. Based on the same,

revised key was published. As some questions were found to be

incorrect, the marks in relation to those questions were deleted. As a

further measure, objections were again called for in relation to the

revised key published. These objections were received and referred to the

subject experts and thereafter a final key was released.

11. Be that as it may. In so far as the error/variation in translation

from English version to Telugu language, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. V.

T.K.Rangarajan and Ors.1 dealt with a similar situation wherein there

was variation in Tamil translation of English questions in the NEET-UG-

2018 examination. Dealing with the same, the Hon'ble Apex Court in

paragraph No.17 of the judgment held as under :

"17. ... ... ... In spite of this safeguard, it is proposed that in case of any ambiguity between a regional language and English it will be English version which will be final as held by this Court in the order dated 25.01.2018 referred above."

12. At this stage, it will be very much relevant to refer to the judgment

of the Apex Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. V. The State of

Rajasthan & Ors., (Civil Appeal Nos.3649-3650 of 2020, dated

7.12.2020) wherein a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court observed that,

practice of re-evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the courts,

which lack expertise in academic matters, is to be deprecated. The Court

held as under :

"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 (Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr. [(2010) 6 SCC 759)]. Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of the Expert Committee who have the expertise to evaluate and make recommendations [See Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors. [(2010) 8 SCC 372)]. Examining the scope of judicial review with regards to reevaluation of answer sheets, this Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [(2018) 2 SCC 357] held that court should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matters and the academic matters are best left to academics."

(2019) 12 SCC 674

13. The Bench also observed that it is not open to the Court to

examine correctness of the questions and the answer key to come to a

conclusion different from that of the expert committee.

14. The Apex Court further held as under :

"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 finalization of appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a long period of time."

15. Further, the instruction No.3 printed in the first page of the

question paper for screening test itself clearly states that English version

will be considered as authentic version for evaluation purpose.

Therefore, having regard to the judgment of the Apex Court referred to

above and the instructions mentioned in the question paper, the

variation, if any, in translation from English to Telugu language will not be

a ground to interfere with the screening test conducted.

16. Further, there is no material on record to show that appellants

herein have opted for Telugu Medium as their choice for the examination.

When the same was pointed out, learned Senior Counsel for the

appellants were not in a position to show from the material on record as

to the medium to which the appellants have opted for.

17. The next question that is raised by the learned Senior Counsel is

with regard to change in the conditions relating to usage of non-

programmable calculator.

18. Instruction-D.5, which is found at internal page-35 of the original

notification, dated 31.12.2018, reads as under :

"D.5:- The candidates are not allowed to bring any Electronic devices such as mobile/cell phones, programmable calculators, tablets, iPad, Bluetooth, Pagers, watchers or any other computing devices to examination hall. Non- programmable calculators would be permitted, whenever necessary. Loaning and interchanging of articles among the candidates not permitted in the examination hall and any form of malpractice will not be permitted in the exam hall."

But, in the instructions in the Hall Tickets issued, non-programmable

calculators were also prohibited. Having regard to the above, it is urged

that rules of game cannot be changed after the examination process has

commenced and that the students who are not so good in mathematics

will not be in a position to answer certain questions without the help of

the non-programmable calculator. The counsel pointed out to certain

questions, which, according to him, require a calculator.

19. Learned counsel for the APPSC would contend that the issue as to

the usage of calculator depends upon complexity of the questions in the

question paper and also on the opinion given by the subject expert with

regard to usage of calculator. Depending upon the advice given, the

decision of permitting or prohibiting usage of non-programmable

calculator would be decided.

20. A reading of Instruction-D.5 would show that "non-programmable

calculator" would be permitted whenever necessary and the words

'whenever necessary' appear in the said instructions supports the

contention of Mr.Addanki Ramachandra Murthy that, it is for the examiner

or the APPSC who would suggest as to whether the usage of calculators

should be allowed or permitted into examination hall. Further, it is not

for the students or for this court to decide as to whether such question

requires usage of non-programmable calculator. The decision completely

vests with the authorities who conduct the examination. Therefore, the

subsequent condition in the Hall Ticket prohibiting usage of calculator

cannot be treated as a change in the conditions of the rules. It would

have been a different matter if any positive instruction permitting usage

of calculator was given in the general instructions.

21. Viewed from any angle, we see no ground to interfere with the

order impugned and the Writ Appeals are liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in both the

Writ Appeals are closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                                 C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

skmr