Gajendrapal vs Chhattisgarh Public Service ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 378 Chatt

                                               1




                                                                                 NAFR
                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                  WPS No. 2503 of 2021

             Gajendrapal S/o Subhash Diri, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Khunta,
             Post Bhereva (Puran), P.S. Kunda, Tehsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham
             Chhattisgarh

                                                                       ---- Petitioner

                                             Versus

        1. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Secretary, Shankar
             Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh

        2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration
             Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

        3. Examination Controller, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Shankar
             Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh

                                                                    ---- Respondents

     For Petitioner                      :      Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate
     For State                           :      Mr. Amrito Das, Addl. AG
     For PSC                             :      Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate


                            Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                                     Order on Board


17/06/2021

1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the revised amended answers

published by the respondent no.3 vide Annexure P-1 dated 14.03.2021.

2. The issue involved in the case revolves around the preliminary

examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission on

14.02.2021. The model answers to the said examination were published

on 15.02.2021. While publishing the modal answers objections were called

from the candidates to be submitted online. The last date of submisssion

of objections being 22.02.2021. The petitioner herein at that point of time

did not raise any objection to any of the answers pointed out in the model

answers. However, pursuant to the objections received by the CGPSC

from the other candidates the commission referred the matter to a team of

experts to deal with the respective objections. Subsequently, on due

scrutiny of the objections received from the various candidates, the

Committee scrutinized all the objections and finally the revised answers

were published on 14.03.2021 and it is thereafter now that petitioner has

filed the present writ petition questioning the revised answers reflected in

the model answers.

3. According to the petitioner he has objections in respect of the finding given

in the revised answers so far as question no.20, 48, 53 & 58 from SET-B

which was attended by the petitioner. So far as question no.20 of Set-B is

concerned, the model answers shows correct answer to be 'B' whereas in

the revised amended answer the correct option shown is option D. So far

as question no. 48 is concerned, there was no change both to the correct

option given in the model answer as also in the option given in the final

answer. So far as question no.53 is concerned as per SET-B the model

answer reflected correct answer to be option D whereas in the course of

publication of revised amended answer the authorities had deleted the

said question. Likewise, as regards question no.58 of SET-B is concerned,

the correct answer as per the model answer was option C whereas as per

revised amended answer the correct option was shown to be 'A'.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the CGPSC submits that he had already

filed his objections to the writ petition and according to the learned counsel

for the PSC after the model answers were published objections were

called in the department on receiving these objections constituted a

Committee of experts who had thoroughly verified the objections and

thereafter after due consideration and deliberations the revised answer

was published. It was the contention of the counsel for the PSC that in the

instant case the petitioner in fact has not submitted any objections

whatsoever to any of the questions and answers published by way of

model answers on 15.02.2021. In the absence of any objections raised by

the petitioner at the first instance, the authorities could not have

considered the contentions which the petitioner now intends to raise after

the revised and final answer is published.

5. The Division Bench of this High Court while deciding a Bunch of Writ

Appeals, the leading Writ Appeal being 165/2020 in the case of Umang

Gauraha Vs. State of Chhattigarh and others decided on 10.12.2020 in

paragraph 17, 18, 19, 20 had held as under :-

"17.It is settled law that the Constitutional Courts must exercise great

restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea

challenging the correctness of the key answer, as the Judges are not

Experts in every field to decide the issue either one way or the other. The

matter can be dealt with only by the Experts in the field and judicial

scrutiny can only be to the limited extent, to see whether proper course of

action has been pursued by the agency conducting the selection or

whether the final answers given are palpably wrong as discernible from

the face of it, without going for any research.

18.The issue had come up for consideration before the Apex Court inRan

Vijay Singh (supra) where the fundamental principles were laiddown in

crystal clear terms as discernible from paragraphs-30 to 32,which are

extracted below for easy reference :

"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we

only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They

are:

30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an

examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or

scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the

authority conducting the examination may permit it;

30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an

examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an

answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court

may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated

very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or

by a process of rationalization"and only in rare or exceptional

cases that a material error has been committed;

30.3. The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the

answer sheets of a candidate - it has no expertise in the

matter and academic matters are best left to academics;

30.4. The Court should presume the correctness of the key

answers and proceed on that assumption; and

30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit shouldgo to the

examination authority rather than tothe candidate.

31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion

does not play any role in the matter of directing or not

directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is

committed by the examination authority, the complete body of

candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not

deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are

disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having

been caused to them by an erroneous question or an

erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some

might suffer more but that cannot be helped since

mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has

shown one way out of an impasse - exclude the suspect or

offending question.

32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of

this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there

is interference by the Courts in the result of examinations.

This places the examination authorities in an unenviable

position where they are under scrutiny and not the

candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged

examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty.

While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous

effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten

that even the examination authorities put in equally great

efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity

of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage,but the

Court must consider the internal checks and balances put in

place by the examination authorities before interfering with

the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully

participated in the examination and the examination

authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the

consequence of such interference where there is no finality to

the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight

years. Apart from the examination authorities even the

candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise

of the result of the examination -whether they have passed or

not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by

the Court; whether they will get admission in a college or

University or not; and whether they will get recruited or not.

This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's

advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion

being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all

this is that public interest suffers."

"19.As observed in paragraph-30.5, the Apex Court alerted all concerned

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

authority rather than to the candidate. This being the position, even if it is

to be held that the Writ Petitioners have referred to some literature in their

hand to support their answers, that by itself is not sufficient to hold that

the Expert opinion relied on by the Respondent-Board is bad in all

respects or to be ignored. The observations made by the Apex Court in

Ran Vijay Singh (supra) were adverted to in the subsequent decision in

Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission(supra). It was reiterated in the

said judgment (paragraph-12) that 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. It was simultaneously observed that the Constitutional Courts must

exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to

entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answer. The Apex

Court then held in paragraph-14 that if 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.

20.When the Writ Petitioners seek to rely on the decision rendered by the

Apex Court in Guru Nanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg and Others

reported in (2005) 13 SCC 749 (paragraph-12) seeking to revisit the final

answer key, it is discernible from the declaration made by the Apex Court

in 'paragraph-9' of the same verdict that, insofar as the key answers are

concerned, the benefit of doubt, as per the law well settled by the Apex

Court, has to go in favour of the examining body. Similarly,we are of the

view that the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Richal and Others v.

Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Others reported in (2018) 8

SCC 81 (paragraph-20) sought to be relied on by the Petitioners to cause

reappraisal of the key answer by another Expert Committee does not

come to their rescue, as the inference made therein is for the reasons as

discussed on specific facts; simultaneously alerting that the scope of

judicial review in such matters is very limited.

6. In view of the decision of the Division Bench in the aforesaid writ appeal of

Umang Gauraha(Supra) and also taking note of the judgment of the

Supreme Court referred to in the judgement of the Division Bench, this

Court has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that in the given

factual backdrop there would hardly be any scope for interference left by

this Court. Firstly, on the ground that petitioner at the first instance did not

raise any objections when the model answers were published and

secondly because these questions have been decided considering the

objections which were received from the other candidates by a team of

experts constituted by the commission.

7. The writ petition Sans-merits and for the given reasons the same deserves

to be and is accordingly rejected.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit