Parjanya Das vs Union Of India And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 4655 Cal

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Parjanya Das vs Union Of India And Others on 11 September, 2024

Author: Jay Sengupta

Bench: Jay Sengupta

                      HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

                CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

Present:

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA

                            WPA 19540 of 2024
                               Parjanya Das
                                  versus
                         Union of India and others



For the petitioner               Mr. Dhiman Kumar Sengupta
                                 Ms. Farhin Mustaque

For the Union of India          Mr. Souvik Nandy
                                Mr. Tirtha Pati Acharyya

For the respondent Nos.2&3       Mr. U.S. Menon

Mr. Abhirup Chakraborty

Last Heard on 11.09.2024

Judgment on 11.09.2024

JAY SENGUPTA, J:

This is an application praying for a declaration that the

final answer-keys to question Nos.19 and 43 of Booklet 'B' of

subject Biology to CUET (UG) 2024 Examination are incorrect

and for directing the respondent No.2 to grant 12 marks against

the two questions attempted by the petitioner i.e., question

Nos.19 and 43.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submits as follows. There is a serious doubt about the final

answer-keys given in respect of question Nos.19 and 43 for the

said examination. In fact, the answer-key to question No.43 is

wrong. So far as question No.19 is concerned, initially a

different answer-key was given provisionally. Finally, it was

altered to another. In case of such discrepancy, the question

itself should be dropped and marks for the answer should be

given to all students including the petitioner. However, despite

efforts made by the petitioner, he was unable to obtain any

expert's opinion on these questions.

Learned counsel for the NTA denies the allegations made in

the writ petition and submits that so far as the question No.43

is concerned, the answer is quite clear. However, there was an

error in respect of answer-key given provisionally in respect of

question No.19. The same was corrected at the time of

publication of the final answer-keys. Expert's opinion has been

taken from three eminent experts of the subject and they fully

support the final answer-keys. Names of the experts have been

placed before this Court in a sealed envelope. Reliance is

placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ran Vijay

Singh vs State of U.P., reported at (2018) 2 SCC 357 and Uttar

Pradesh Public Service Commission through its Chairman and

another vs. Rahul Singh and another, reported at (2018) 7 SCC

254.

I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and

have perused the writ petition, affidavits filed and the

documents placed in sealed cover. After perusing such

documents, they are again kept with the record in sealed cover.

In Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (Supra), the

Hon'ble Apex Court held that 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.

In Rahul Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court made it

clear that in the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the

examination authority rather than to the candidate.

One has to assess the present facts in the light of the

above referred decisions.

In the instant case, the answer-keys to the two questions

have been challenged by the candidate. However, the

examination agency has come up with an expert's opinion given

by a panel of three eminent experts.

Experts' report is absolutely clear and supports the final

answer-keys in full.

After going through the rival contentions of the parties, it

does not appear that the answer-keys could be patently wrong

or that there is something so clinching as to question the

credibility of the experts.

Opportunities were given to the petitioner to come up with

an alternative view from any other expert. But, the petitioner

has failed to obtain one.

This Court does not find any reason not to believe in the

opinion of the eminent experts provided by the testing agency

and to indulge in any roving and fishing enquiry.

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be

supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities.

(Jay Sengupta, J) 2/SG