Atul Kumar Verma vs Union Of India & Anr
2015 Latest Caselaw 4908 Del

          *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                       Date of decision: 13th July, 2015.

+               W.P.(C) 5719/2015 & CM No.10285/2015 (for stay).

       ATUL KUMAR VERMA                                    ..... Petitioner
                   Through:          Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. with
                                     Mr. Yashvardhan, Mr. Rajat Khattry
                                     and Mr. Piyush Singh, Advs.
                                  Versus
       UNION OF INDIA & ANR                               ..... Respondents
                    Through:         Mr. Vivek Goyal and Mr. Jitendra Kr.
                                     Tripathi, Advs. for R-1/UOI.
                                     Mr. Amit Bansal, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner, being the father of an aspirant for admission to the

Indian Institutes of Technologies (IITs), for admission whereto Joint

Entrance Examination (JEE) comprising of JEE (Main) and JEE (Advance)

is held by the respondent no.2 Central Board of Secondary Education

(CBSE) and the respondent no.1 Union of India (UOI), Ministry of Human

Resource and Development respectively and whose ward / daughter had

appeared in the JEE (Main) held on 4th April, 2015, has filed this petition

seeking declaration that the questions no.9, 22 & 57 in Set „C‟ of the said

examination are conceptually wrong and seeking a direction to the

respondent no.2 CBSE to award 14 additional marks to the daughter of the

petitioner and to prepare the All India Rank of the said examination by

making the said addition to the marks of his daughter.

2. The petition came up first before this Court on 29th May, 2015 when

the following order was passed:-

"The petitioner had appeared for JEE (Mains) Examination held on 04.04.2015. It is stated that more than 12 lacs students appeared for the said examination. The respondent released the answer keys to different sets of question papers in the public domain and also invited objections to the answer keys. It is stated that the petitioner objected to the answers in respect of question no.9, 20, 22, 57, 73 & 21 from the question papers (set C). The learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice, states that the objections received in response to the answer keys put in public domain were considered by the experts. And, in respect of certain questions the objections were accepted, while in respect of others the same were rejected. However, none of the objections furnished by the petitioner were found acceptable by the experts. Although, the leaned counsel for the petitioner contends that the answers as furnished by the petitioner are correct, it is not possible to conclude that her views should prevail over the views of other experts appointed by the respondent. However, since the petitioner insists that the answers with respect to the aforementioned questions are incorrect and this is confirmed by certain coaching centres as well, I consider it appropriate to call upon the respondent to furnish the views furnished by the experts appointed by the respondent, to consider the objections to the answer keys. Let the same be furnished on the next date of hearing.

List on 01.07.2015."

3. On 1st July, 2015 the counsel for the respondent no.2 CBSE stated that

the reply directed to be filed would be filed by the next date; an advance

copy thereof minus one annexure was however handed over to the counsel

for the petitioner in Court.

4. Since only a specified number of students who appeared in JEE

(Main) are entitled to take the subsequent JEE (Advance), it was on 1 st July,

2015 enquired whether the daughter of the petitioner had appeared in JEE

(Advance). It was informed that the daughter of the petitioner was not found

eligible for JEE (Advance) by one mark but was still interested in

improvement of her result of JEE (Main) since admissions to the Regional

Engineering Colleges and National Institutes of Technology depend upon

the rank in JEE (Main).

5. An affidavit as aforesaid has been filed by the respondent no.2 CBSE

and to which a rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. The counsels were

heard on 7th July, 2015 and judgment reserved.

6. It is the case of the petitioner, (i) that after the JEE (Main) on 4 th

April, 2015 different reputed coaching institutes released the correct answer

key of the questions in the said examination; (ii) the respondent no.2 CBSE

also subsequently released the answer key; (iii) the daughter of the petitioner

(Ms. Amodini Vardhan) found several discrepancies and anomalies in the

answer key published by the respondent no.2 CBSE and made a cross check

of the said answer key with the answer key published by different reputed

coaching institutes like FIITJEE, Brilliant, Aakash Institute, Resonance and

the Time; the same also showed discrepancies in the answer key published

by the respondent no.2 CBSE; (iv) representation dated 21st April, 2015 was

made by the daughter of the petitioner to the respondent no.2 CBSE

disputing the answers as given in the key in respect of questions no.9, 20,

22, 57, 73 & 21 from the said Set „C‟ of the question paper; (v) however the

respondent no.2 CBSE vide its response reiterated that the answers in its

answer key to the questions aforesaid were correct; (vi) the result of JEE

(Main) was declared on 27th April, 2015 in which the daughter of the

petitioner scored 104 marks; the cut-off marks in the General Category

students who could appear in JEE (Advance) was fixed at 105 marks; (vii)

the daughter of the petitioner on 7th May, 2015 applied for her OMR sheet as

well as calculation sheet and which were supplied on 15 th May, 2015;

therefrom it was found that the marks of the answers of the questions which

were conceptually wrong not counted and negative marking was done

against such questions which led to the drop in the marks of the daughter of

the petitioner below the cut-off marks for the General Category; and, (viii)

that the answer key of the respondent no.2 CBSE with respect to questions

no.9, 22 and 57 of four marks each is incorrect and the answers given by the

daughter of the petitioner are correct and the daughter of the petitioner is

thus entitled to additional 12 marks on this account; she is also entitled to be

awarded additional two marks which have been deducted for wrongly

answering questions no.9 & 57.

The petitioner in the petition, besides referring to the answer key with

respect to the aforesaid questions published by the coaching institutes, has

also pleaded having obtained expert opinion of two academicians and whose

affidavits as to the incorrectness of the answer key of the respondent no.2

CBSE with respect to the aforesaid questions and correctness of the answers

given by the daughter of the petitioner have been filed with the petition.

7. The respondent no.2 CBSE in its affidavit pursuant to the order supra

dated 29th May, 2015 has stated, (a) that as per the scheme of JEE (Main) -

2015, the objections preferred by the petitioner were duly considered and

finding no merit therein the subject experts of respondent no.2 CBSE

rejected the same; (b) the petitioner has no vested right to a review or to

challenge the decision of the subject experts of the respondent no.2 CBSE;

(c) that it is a settled law that it is for the experts / academic bodies and not

for the Courts to go into the correctness of the answers contained in the

answer key, as experts are the best judge of the subject / academic issues and

these matters should be left to the wisdom of academic bodies and the

Courts should not ordinarily interfere in the same; (d) for admission to NITs,

Centrally Funded Technical Institutes like IIITs etc. and other participating

institutions, the merit / rank list is prepared by the respondent no.2 CBSE,

based on 40% weightage to school Board marks in class 12th or equivalent

examination and 60% weightage to JEE (Main) (the weightage to school

Board / equivalent examination marks is considered only after

normalization); (e) that under the scheme evolved by the respondent no.2

CBSE, answer key for JEE (Main) is uploaded on the website and challenges

/ objections to the answer key invited from the candidates; the objections so

received are considered and examined exhaustively by the subject experts of

the respondent no.2 CBSE; if the subject experts on examining the

objections find that any answer contained in the answer key was not the

correct answer, then on the advice of the subject experts the respondent no.2

CBSE modifies its answer key accordingly and gives appropriate benefit to

the candidates; if the subject experts are of the view that the answer

contained in the answer key is a correct answer, no modification in the

answer key is made; (f) the respondent no.2 CBSE, as a policy, does not

place any reliance on the assessment or evaluation made by the coaching

institutes; (g) the respondent no.2 CBSE‟s decision on the challenge /

objections stands final; (h) upon examining all the objections received for

the Set „C‟, the subject experts of the respondent no.2 CBSE came to the

conclusion that they found merit only in the objection to questions no. 51 &

53 as in the case of question no.51 there was an error and for question no.53

there were two correct options; accordingly full marks of question no.51

were awarded to all the candidates and marks of question no.53 were

awarded to the candidates opting for either of the correct options; and, (i) no

merit was however found in the objections raised by the daughter of the

petitioner to the questions no.9,20,22,57,73 and 21.

Reliance in the affidavit itself is placed on order dated 10th July, 2013

in W.P.(C) No.4323/2013 titled Master Gautam Bathla Vs. CBSE and on

order dated 15th May, 2015 of this Court in W.P.(C) No.4777/2015 titled

Sushant Jain Vs. CBSE and on University Grants Commission Vs. Neha

Anil Bobde (2013) 10 SCC 519.

8. The petitioner in its rejoinder has reiterated his petition and referred to

Kanpur University Vs. Samir Gupta (1983) 4 SCC 309 and to Manish

Ujjwal Vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University (2005) 13 SCC 744.

9. The senior counsel for the petitioner contended, (i) that a question

relating to a Science subject could have only one correct answer; (ii)

however the subject experts consulted by the petitioner, with respect to the

questions to which objection has been taken by the petitioner opined that the

same were not capable of one answer; (iii) that the factum of the answer key

of the respondent no.2 CBSE being erroneous is established from the

respondent no.2 CBSE having admitted the answer key qua some other

questions being erroneous; (iv) some of the questions qua which objection

has been taken did not have complete particulars and required the examinees

to make assumption, making the question erroneous and incapable of a

single answer; (v) that since there was a difference of opinion between the

subject experts of the respondent no.2 CBSE and the other subject experts

equally competent and qualified, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction

should refer the disputed questions to an independent expert viz. IIT, Delhi

or anyone else not connected with the respondent no.2 CBSE; and, (vi) that

the subject experts of the respondent no.2 CBSE would naturally be inclined

to, as far as possible, reiterate the answers in the answer key and would not

be completely open to re-consider.

Attention of course was invited to the affidavits of the experts

consulted by the petitioner and the reasons given by them in their affidavits /

annexures thereto for the answer in the answer key being incorrect. The

senior counsel for the petitioner during the hearing also handed over a chart

to show, (a) that with respect to question no.9, the answer as per the FIIT

JEE and Time was same as in the answer key, as per Resonance and Akash

the question was theoretically wrong; (b) with respect to question no.22

(which the petitioner did not answer), according to Time the answer was the

same as in the answer key, according to FIIT JEE the correct option was not

available and according to Resonance and Akash the question was

theoretically wrong; and, (c) with respect to question no.57, according to

FIIT JEE, Resonance, Akash, Brilliant as well as Time the answer given by

the daughter of the petitioner was correct and the answer in the answer key

was wrong.

Also, besides the judgments referred to in the rejoinder, reliance was

also placed on Guru Nanak Dev University Vs. Saumil Garg (2005) 13

SCC 749 with respect to the views of the subject experts of CBSE, which the

CBSE had been directed to produce in Court, it was argued that the same did

not give any reasons for the objections preferred by the daughter of

petitioner being not sustainable and the answer key being correct.

10. The counsel for the respondent no.2 CBSE argued that the daughter of

the petitioner, while preferring the objections to the answer key did not give

any explanation for the answer in the answer key being wrong as is now

given in the affidavits filed by the experts and thus the subject experts of the

respondent no.2 CBSE while considering the said objections did not have

the said opinion before them. It was further stated that the CBSE had been

directed to produce the views of its subject experts as received then and had

produced the views received of three subject experts consulted and of which

one contained explanation. Reference, besides to the orders / judgments

referred to in the counter affidavit was also made to the order dated 8 th April,

2015 of the Division Bench of this Court of which the undersigned was a

member in W.P.(C) No.2275/2010 titled Dr. Rajeev Kumar Vs. Union of

India concerning JEE and where it was inter alia observed / held as under:-

"20. As far as the suggestion, for the objections to the answer key to be reviewed by an independent body of experts, we are of the view that in the light what we have been informed, of the answer key prepared by the question setter being examined by the experts from all the seven IITs and the final answer key being prepared only thereafter, there is no need for the objections to the answer key being considered / reviewed by an independent body of experts. We have rather enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to where the said process is to end - in the event of the independent body of experts differing from the experts of the IIT, whether not the next step would be to seek judicial review thereof. In our view no judicial review of the answer key is ordinarily permissible. The said aspect has been dealt in detail in recent judgments of this Court in Salil Maheshwari Vs. The High Court of Delhi MANU/DE/2085/2014 (DB) and in Manoviraj Singh Vs. University of Delhi (judgment dated 25th September, 2013 in WP(C) No.5074/2013) and need is not felt to elaborate further. Suffice it is to say that the process of examination and selection of the candidates cannot be made an unending exercise which would result in the admissions and the academic session being delayed and which cannot be permitted."

On the basis of the above it was argued that the matter is no longer res

integra. It was further contended that in Kanpur University supra the experts

of the examining body themselves had admitted to the wrong and the said

judgment is thus not applicable.

11. The senior counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder contended that, (i)

unlike as per the procedure in JEE (Advance) where objections to the answer

key are referred to persons other than those who had framed the answer key,

even though of the IITs only, the consideration of the objections to the

answer key of JEE (Main) conducted by respondent no.2 CBSE is not by

independent persons; (ii) that thus the observations aforesaid of the Division

Bench in Dr. Rajiv Kumar pertaining to JEE (Advance) would not have

application to JEE (Main); (iii) that once according to all the coaching

institutes as well as the experts consulted by the petitioner including the

expert whose affidavit is filed along with the rejoinder, the answer in the

answer key to question no.57 is wrong, the same ought to invite a reference

by this Court of the dispute to an independent expert and the petitioner will

be bound thereby.

12. During the course of hearing it was enquired whether any other

objections besides from the petitioner were received to the aforesaid three

questions. The counsel for the respondent no.2 CBSE answered in the

affirmative and informed that the objections of the others also to the said

questions were negated. The senior counsel for the petitioner responded that

it matters not whether the challenge is by one candidate or by several in as

much as once there is a difference of opinion, an independent expert

necessarily has to be consulted.

13. Before considering the rival contentions I may observe that this Court

is inundated with writ petitions concerning academic matters, so much so

that a separate Roster therefor has been created. Though the said matters in

the past pertained to challenge to the administrative actions of the academic

institutions / bodies viz. of cancelling an examination, rusticating a student,

but off late the said challenge has expanded to all facets of education and the

zenith thereof is evident from the challenge in this petition, seeking judicial

review of the marking in an examination or of the decision of an examining

body of what the correct answer to a question in an examination should be. I

have pondered, whether the power conferred by the Constitution of India on

the High Courts under Article 226 to issue to any person or authority orders

or writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo

warranto and certiorari or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the

rights conferred by Part-III and for any other purpose extends to the High

Courts in exercise of said power reviewing the appropriate / correct answer

to a question in an examination held whether to test comparative merit or for

admission or for selection or posting.

14. The Supreme Court, in Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India (1994) 6

SCC 651 was concerned with the extent of judicial review of decisions bona

fide arrived at in tender cases and on a review of case law it was inter alia

held that:-

(i) there are inherent limitations in exercise of power of judicial

review;

(ii) judicial review is a great weapon in the hands of the judges; but

the judges must observe the constitutional limits set by our

parliamentary system upon the exercise of this beneficient

power;

(iii) the restraint has two contemporary manifestations - one is the

ambit of judicial intervention; the other covers the scope of the

court's ability to quash an administrative decision on its merits;

(iv) these restrains bear the hallmarks of judicial control over

administrative action;

(v) judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of

the decision in support of which the application for judicial

review is made, but the decision-making process itself;

(vi) unless that restriction on the power of the court is observed, the

court will, under the guise of preventing the abuse of power, be

itself guilty of usurping power;

(vii) that the concern of the Court while exercising the power of

judicial review should be confined to, (a) whether a decision-

making authority exceeded its powers; (b) committed an error

of law; (c) committed a breach of the rules of natural justice;(d)

reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have

reached or; (e) abused its powers;

(viii) therefore, it is not for the Court to determine whether a

particular policy or a particular decision taken in the fulfilment

of that policy is fair;

(ix) the Court is only concerned with the manner in which those

decisions have been taken;

(x) if the decision-maker understood correctly the law that

regulates his decision-making power and has given effect to it,

his decision cannot be said to be illegal, inviting interference;

(xi) a decision would be regarded as unreasonable if it is impartial

and unequal in its operation;

(xii) a decision taken after taking into account all the factors which

ought to be taken into account is ordinarily not to be held as

unreasonable;

(xiii) if the scope of judicial review is too broad it would turn the

various authorities / agencies into little more than media for

transmission of cases to the courts and that would destroy the

value of the agencies created to secure the benefit of special

knowledge acquired through continuous administration in

complicated fields;

(xiv) it is not the function of a Judge to act as a super board or with

the zeal of a pedantic schoolmaster substituting its judgment for

that of the administrator;

(xv) no judicial review by the non-expert Judge is permitted of the

discretion exercised by the expert; and,

(xvi) if a Court were to review fully the decision of a body such as a

State Board of medical examiners, it would find itself

wandering amid the mazes of therapeutics of boggling at the

mysteries of the pharmacopoeia - such a situation is not a case

of the blind leading the blind but of one who has always been

deaf and blind insisting that he can see and hear better than one

who has always had his eyesight and hearing and has always

used them to the utmost advantage in ascertaining the truth in

regard to the matter in question.

15. When I apply the aforesaid principles to a plea, seeking judicial

review of the answer key which the question setter / s with or without

consultation with other subject experts has prepared and who, upon

objection being raised thereto has reiterated the answer key, with or without

the assistance of other experts, and which answer key has been uniformly

applied to all the candidates taking the examination, in my view the answer

is unequivocal that no judicial review lies.

16. Judicial review, as aforesaid is of the decision making process and not

of a decision which the authority / body has been entrusted in the scheme of

things to take. If that be the case, how, without there being any averments

impugning the process by which answer key has been processed, can the

Court be said to be empowered to review the answer key or for that matter

the question paper. It is settled position in law that merely because the

decision / action, of which judicial review is sought, being wrong in the

opinion of the Court or of several others, is no ground for entertaining

judicial review thereof unless any illegality or unreasonableness in arriving

of the decision or taking of action is shown. The parameters of illegality and

unreasonableness also are, as laid down in Tata Cellular supra. Applied to

questions in an examination and answer key thereto, they would be say,

where the preparation of question paper and the answer key is by person not

an expert in the subject or in violation of any rule prescribed therefor or if

inspite of merit being found in objection preferred thereto no correction

thereof is carried out inspite of procedure prescribed therefor or if there is

any bias or other uncalled for motivation in preparation thereof. This list is

certainly not meant to be exhaustive but is certainly meant to be illustrative.

17. Unless the Courts, though accustomed to resolve / adjudicate on

disputes, curb their temptation to interfere with the question paper and

answer key inspite of counter view, of other subject experts, being brought

before them and there being thus a dispute as to which view is correct, the

Universities and the examining bodies on whom the said function has been

entrusted, would loose their sheen and the respect in which they are held. I

would go to the extent of saying that if the Courts, which cannot possibly be

experts in all subjects, on the basis of opinions to the contrary obtained from

other „ independent‟ subject experts, were to start setting aside the questions

and answer keys bona fide prepared by the subject expert and who bona fide

continues to believe in correctness thereof, we may reach a day where no

self respecting expert would agree to partake in the exercise of setting the

question papers and answer key (and which mostly is honorary or for

nominal remuneration) for the fear of his / her opinion, bona fide held being

pitted against that of other in Court and his name and honour being sullied in

the process. We, in my opinion, ought not to allow our Universities and

examining bodies being so reduced to a „medium‟ as the Supreme Court

observed in Tata Cellular instead of Centres of learning and expertise. If

they have ceased to be so, the jurisdiction under Article 226 ought to be

exercised to set right their functioning rather than the Court taking over the

mantle of correcting the question paper set and answer key thereto framed

by them.

18. Notice may be taken of H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh

Thakur (2010) 6 SCC 759. The petitioners therein had sought re-evaluation

of the paper of Civil Law in the examination held for selection for the post

of Civil Judges. The High Court directed the answer sheet of the petitioner

to be sent to another examiner for re-evaluation and as per the re-valued

marks held the petitioner eligible for appointment and disposed of the writ

petition directing the petitioner to be appointed. The Supreme Court, while

setting aside the said judgment, held, (a) that it was not permissible for the

High Court to examine the question paper and the answer sheet itself

particularly when the examining body has assessed the inter se merit of the

candidates; (b) if there was a discrepancy in framing the question or

evaluation of the answer, it was for all the candidates appearing in the

examination and not for the petitioner alone; (c) it is a matter of chance that

the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to law; had it been

other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, such a course could

not have been adopted by the High Court; (d) that the course adopted by the

High Court was not permissible.

19. A Division Bench of this Court also recently in Salil Maheshwari Vs.

The High Court of Delhi MANU/DE/2085/2014 held that, (i) a candidate

in an examination who has not availed of the opportunity given for objecting

to the answer key is estopped from raising a challenge at a belated stage; (ii)

that the Supreme Court in Kanpur University has held that the answer key

must 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; and if the traditional parameters

of judicial review - illegality, irregularity, non-consideration of material

facts or consideration of extraneous considerations or lack of bona fides in

decision making process as contrasted with the decision itself, are satisfied

can the decision be corrected in judicial review; (iii) in matters of judicial

review which involve examination of academic content and award of marks,

a circumspect approach, leaving evaluation of merits to the expertise of

academics has to be effected; (iv) and, else judicial review is permitted only

when decision is so manifestly and patently erroneous that no reasonable

person could have taken it.

20. Mention at this stage may be made of In Re: v. Askew [1768] 4 2168,

where Lord Mansfield considered the question whether mandamus should be

granted against the College of Physicians and held "it is true, that the

judgment and discretion of determining upon this skill, ability, learning and

sufficiency to exercise and practise this profession is trusted to the College

of Physician: and this Court will not take it from them, nor interrupt them in

the due and proper exercise of it. But their conduct in the exercise of this

trust thus committed to them ought to be fair, candid and unprejudiced; not

arbitrary, capiricious or biased; much less, warped by resentment, or

personal dislike".

21. In my view, it is the aforesaid principle which alone applies to the

scope of judicial review of answer key.

22. That brings me to the judgments relied upon by the senior counsel for

the petitioner. The ratio of Kanpur University has already been culled out

by the Division Bench in Salil Maheshwari supra. Moreover Kanpur

University and Guru Nanak Dev University pertain to an era where no

opportunity was given for objecting to the answer key, though the answer

key was published along with the result of the examination and where after

the result was challenged. Since then, most examining bodies themselves or

under directions of the Courts have devised a procedure of inviting

objections to the answer key and considering the said objections and if

satisfied therewith, correcting the answer key and thereafter declaring the

result. After the said procedure has been followed, in my view there is no

scope for judicial review of the answer key unless allegations of bias, mala

fide, non-consideration of relevant factors etc. which are traditionally the

grounds for invoking the power of judicial review are made out. The Courts

have directed the examining bodies which did not have the procedure of

inviting objections to the answer key to follow the said procedure which the

Courts felt was necessary to have a fair result of the examination and to

eliminate the possibility of mistakes in the answer key. Once such a

procedure has been followed, there can be no possible further challenges

except on the traditional parameters of judicial review. If such challenges

were to be allowed, the same would lead to disgruntled students filing one

petition after other with opinions of the subject experts and which can vary

and which will ultimately lead to delays in admissions and in

commencement of academic session and all of which will be contrary to

public interest and cannot be permitted and if permitted would amount to a

cure worse than the disease of a possibility of error remaining in the answer

key inspite of the procedure of inviting objections and considering the same

being followed.

23. No case for judicial review within the traditional parameters thereof

has been made out.

24. I am conscious that in some other cases also the Courts, in their zeal

to prevent injustice, without going into the question whether the power

exercised by them is within the confines of Article 226, issued directions for

obtaining an opinion of an independent expert to resolve the differing

versions of the examining body and the students as to the correctness of the

answer key. However, a judgment where the said aspect has not been raised

or considered cannot be a precedent. Now a time has come for a definite

opinion to be taken, so that the students, in future, owing to the uncertainty

in law, are not attracted to take a chance.

25. No merit is thus found in the petition.

Dismissed.

No costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

JULY 13, 2015 „pp‟