Delhi High Court
Yogesh Kumar Sharma And Ors. vs Central Board Of Secondary Education ... on 29 April, 2024
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C.Hari Shankar
$~95
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1924/2019
YOGESH KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal with Ms.
Shreya Kukreti, Ms. Divya Aggarwal
and Ms. Tanmaya Dhari Sinha,
Advocates
versus
CENTRAL BOARD OF
SECONDARY EDUCATION (CBSE) ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Seema Dolo, Advocate, for
Respondent 1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
JUDGEMENT (ORAL)
% 29.04.2024
W.P.(C) 1924/2019
1. The petitioners attempted the Central Teacher Eligibility Test
(CTET) conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education
(CBSE) in December 2018. Passing of the CTET is mandatory for
recruitment as a teacher at Primary level or as a Trained Graduate
Teacher (TGT).
2. The petitioners have sought to question the correctness of the
final answer key released by the CBSE with respect to several
questions in the CTET. After hearing learned Counsel and going
through the record, I had, on 8 March 2019, found the challenge
relating only four of the questions worthy of consideration. They
WP(C) 1924/2019 Page 1 of 6 Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
KUMAR HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:01.05.2024 Signing Date:01.05.2024
12:08:19 12:06:02
were Question Nos. 61, 66, 88 and 95.
3. Learned Counsel for both sides are ad idem that, with respect to
Questions 66, 88 and 95, this Bench has already rejected a challenge
to the correctness of the final answer key in its judgment dated 1
February 2019 in WP (C) 1068/2019 (Surjeet v. CBSE).
4. The only question that remains to be considered is, therefore,
Question No. 61. Question No. 61 and the suggested answer thereto
read thus:
"61. Who built the Golconda Fort?
(1) Chalukya Dynasty
(2) Kakatiya Dynasty
(3) Pallava Dynasty
(4) Chola Dynasty"
5. The petitioners challenge Question No. 61 not on the ground
that the suggested answer in the final answer key to the question is
incorrect, but that question was out of syllabus.
6. Ms. Shreya, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that
identity of the person who built the Golconda Fort cannot constitute
part of the syllabus in a paper relating to environmental studies.
7. The petitioners have, however, not placed on record any
syllabus for environmental studies, so as to enable the Court to test the
correctness of the submission.
8. Though, in ordinary parlance, the argument may appear
WP(C) 1924/2019 Page 2 of 6 Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
KUMAR HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:01.05.2024 Signing Date:01.05.2024
12:08:19 12:06:02
attractive, as one does not usually identify the identity of the person
who constructs a building with environmental studies, a court cannot,
by exercise of its subjective discretion in that regard, arrive at such a
finding. Environmental studies encompass a vast and compendious
space. For example, if a particular building is constructed in violation
of environmental standards, the person who constructs the building
also becomes guilty of harming the environment and his identity may
justifiably form subject matter of a syllabus in a paper relating to
environmental studies.
9. However, one does not have to proceed on hypothesis in this
case, as the CBSE has placed on record the information bulletin
relating to the CTET 2018, which sets out the syllabi of various
papers. The syllabus for the environmental studies paper is thus as
under:
"V. Environmental Studies 30 Questions
a) Content 15 Questions
i. Family and Friends:
1.1 Relationships
1.2 Work and Play
1.3 Animals
1.4 Plants
ii. Food
iii. Shelter
iv. Water
v. Travel
vi. Things We Make and Do"
10. Ms. Dolo submits that identity of the dynasty which built the
Golconda Fort, would be encompassed within the heading "Travel" in
WP(C) 1924/2019 Page 3 of 6 Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
KUMAR HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:01.05.2024 Signing Date:01.05.2024
12:08:19 12:06:02
Environmental Studies.
11. She has also handed over, across the bar, the comment of the
expert, in the challenge of the petitioner to the provisional answer key
apropos Question No. 61, as provided to the CBSE. The petitioners
are already in possession of this communication which was made
available to the petitioners even before hearing today. The said
communication reads thus:
"Dear Sir/Madam,
In reference to your mail regarding subject cited case, please
find below the reply from the concerned subject expert. The
topic 'Travel' is very well mentioned in the syllabus of Paper
- 1 of CTET under EVS portion. The copy of relevant page
of the Information Bulletin of CTET Dec 2018 is attached for
reference.
As per NCF - 2005, Environmental Studies is recommended
as a core curricular area at the primary stage which is an
integration of science and social science. The theme 'Travel'
in the NCERT syllabus of EVS at class V, includes the
following (Page 133-134).
Questions Key Concepts/Issues
Oldest buildings Heritage buildings as a
source of knowledge about
Is there any well-known our past; to be able to
monument/historical place understand how they were
in your area that people built; materials used come
come to visit? What are the from a variety of places,
oldest buildings around your skills of the crafts person;
area? Have you traveled far Some historical
to see any historical personalities.
monuments?
Have you heard of those
personalities who lived in
these monuments or who
built these?
WP(C) 1924/2019 Page 4 of 6 Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
KUMAR HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:01.05.2024 Signing Date:01.05.2024
12:08:19 12:06:02
Chapter 10, in the class V textbook of EVS (Walls Tell
Stories), deals with this section. The teachers are expected to
be aware of such aspects of history to be able to deal the
pedagogical aspects of related concepts and issues."
12. Viewed from the perspective of this communication, it cannot
be said that identity of the dynasty which built the Golconda Fort -
whoever he may be - is irrelevant to syllabus of environmental
studies.
13. The nature of the examination is also relevant in the present
case. The CTET is not an examination undertaken for obtaining
admission to an educational institution. It is a pre-recruitment
examination, to be undertaken by persons who have already been
trained to be teachers, for recruitment on the post of teacher (Primary
as well as TGT). The scope of knowledge expected of the person
attempting the CTET cannot, therefore, be likened to that of a student
attempting an examination for admission to an institute of study.
There is, therefore, substance in the observation of the examiner
expert that a teacher is expected to be aware of pedagogical aspects of
related issues, and that her, or his, knowledge cannot be restricted to
the confines of the subject, as strictly understood. The scope of the
syllabus, and the knowledge expected of the person attempting the
examination has to be reckoned keeping in view the nature of
examination, and the purpose that it intends to serve.
14. Insofar as the scope of interference, by Courts, with answer
keys, especially in examinations which are conducted on an all India
level is concerned, the Supreme Court has, time and again, advised
circumspection even though there is no absolute proscription against
WP(C) 1924/2019 Page 5 of 6 Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
KUMAR HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:01.05.2024 Signing Date:01.05.2024
12:08:19 12:06:02
interference. It is, however, only in the rarest of cases that the Court
can interfere. If the final answer key says that 2+2 is 3, then quite
obviously, the Court would step in. However, in cases which are
debatable, the Court would hold its hand.
15. It is not necessary to interfere into that arena in the present case,
as the challenge to Question 61 is not based on a grievance regarding
the correctness of the final answer key. The challenge is on the
ground that the question is out of syllabus.
16. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I am not persuaded to
accept the challenge.
17. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is
accordingly dismissed.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
APRIL 29, 2024
rb
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
WP(C) 1924/2019 Page 6 of 6 Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
KUMAR HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:01.05.2024 Signing Date:01.05.2024
12:08:19 12:06:02
