Delhi High Court
Mohd Shikoh vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 November, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: November 14, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 9939/2017 & CMs 40509-10/2017
MOHD SHIKOH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vibhor Mathur, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Roshan Lal Goel and Ms. Anju
Gupta, Advocates for respondent No.1-UOI
Mr. Amit Bansal and Ms. Seema Dolo,
Advocates for respondent No.2
Mr. Apoorv Kurup and Ms. Isha Mital,
Advocates for respondent No.3-UGC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. Petitioner had appeared in UGC-NET Examination conducted in
July, 2016 and results were declared in November, 2016 and in
December, 2016, petitioner had made a grievance to respondent-CBSE
pertaining to answer to question No.42, but according to petitioner, no
response to petitioner's query was received. Petitioner claims that on 13 th
July, 2017, petitioner had sought information under RTI in respect of
action taken by the Expert Committee on petitioner's grievance and had
sought correction of the Answer Key in relation to question No.42. It is
the case of petitioner that information under RTI (Annexure P-11) was
received by petitioner in August, 2017 wherein it was disclosed that
petitioner's grievance was considered by Committee of Experts, which
after verification, has not changed the Answer Key. Not satisfied by
information under RTI (Annexure P-11), petitioner has filed this writ
petition in October, 2017 seeking a mandamus to respondent-CBSE, to
correct the Answer Key to question No.42 and to treat petitioner as Junior
Research Fellow Qualified candidate for the post of Assistant Professor,
Department of Library and Information Sciences.
2. Petitioner's counsel relies upon a Division Bench of High Court of
Allahabad in Writ A No.12344 of 2017 titled Niraj Kumar Singh v. State
of U.P. and Others, rendered on 28th April, 2017 to submit that upon re-
evaluation, Answer Key to question No.42 needs to be corrected and
result of petitioner be accordingly declared afresh.
3. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent-CBSE relies upon
a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Atul Kumar Verma v.
Union of India & Anr. 2015 SCC Online Del 10316 to submit that it is
impermissible for this Court to re-examine the question(s) and answer(s)
given by inferential process of reasoning or rationalization as Supreme
Court has declared that in matters of judicial review involving
examination of academic content, the court should be circumspect leaving
evaluation of merits to the experts of academics and in cases like the
instant one, judicial review is permitted only when the decision is so
manifestly and patently erroneous that no reasonable person could have
taken it. Thus, it is submitted that in view of information under RTI
(Annexure P-11), no case for exercise of power of judicial review is made
out.
4. Upon hearing and on perusal of material on record and the
decisions cited, I find that the decision of Allahabad High Court in Niraj
Kumar Singh (supra) will not hold the field in view of Supreme Court's
decision in H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur (2010) 6
SCC 759 wherein re-evaluation was sought and it was held that it is
impermissible for the High Court to examine the question paper and
answers thereto itself, particularly when the examining body has assessed
the inter se merits of the candidates and if there was any discrepancy in
framing of the question and evaluation of the answer, it effected all the
candidates appearing the examination and not petitioner alone and that
the course adopted by the High Court was disproved.
5. In Atul Kumar Verma (supra) reliance has been placed upon
Supreme Court's decision in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta (1983) 4
SCC 309 to reiterate that judicial review in matters like the instant one is
permitted only when the decision is so manifestly and patently erroneous
that no reasonable person could have taken it. One of the options given in
the Answer Key to question No.42 in the Annexure P-3 is "Slopping"
whereas in the Literature (Annexure P-8) by the same very author, the
option given is of "Stopping" and not "Slopping".
6. Since this Court is not an expert on the subject in hand, therefore, it
refrains from opining whether the Answer Key in Annexure P-2 is in
consonance with the Literature (Annexure P-8) by the very author or not.
The information under RTI (Annexure P-11) merely discloses that
petitioner's grievance qua the Answer Key to question No.42 was
examined by Committee of Experts, but it does not make it clear as to
whether the re-look at the answer key to question No.42 as per
information under RTI (Annexure P-11) was by the same very Committee
of Experts, who had set the question paper and the Answer Key thereto or
by another Committee of Experts. This aspect needs to be clarified in the
peculiar facts of this case as during the course of hearing, it was disclosed
that if the benefit of answer to question No. 42 is given to all the
candidates, it would change petitioner's fate as it hangs on answer to this
solitary question and would enable petitioner to qualify the aforesaid
examination. It is made clear that if the re-consideration of the answer
key to question No.42, as indicated in information under RTI (Annexure
P-11) is by the same Committee of Experts, then respondent-CBSE shall
send the Answer Key to question No.42 to another Committee of Experts
and if the benefit accruing from answer to this very question is to be
given, then petitioner's result be declared afresh. Since petitioner alone
has approached this Court, therefore, the benefit of this order will accrue
only to him. Let the exercise be conducted and completed within six
weeks and the outcome be made known to petitioner within two weeks
thereafter.
7. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are
disposed of.
8. Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for respondent-
CBSE.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 14, 2017
s
