Kerala High Court
Sindhu B.S vs Union Of India on 7 May, 2024
Author: T.R.Ravi
Bench: T.R.Ravi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 21640 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
SINDHU B.S.
AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. AJITHKUMAR K.S.,
R.K. BUNGLOW, THALIKUZHY P.O. VAMANAPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695612
BY ADVS.
R.SANJITH
C.S.SINDHU KRISHNAH
ALEX JOHN PULIMOOD
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, SHASTRI BHAWAN,
DR.RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION (UGC)
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110002
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
3 NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY
FIRST FLOOR, NSIC-MDBP BUILDING,
OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, NEW DELHI,
DELHI, PIN - 110020
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON
BY ADVS.
H.SUBHALEKSHMI
S. KRISHNAMOORTHY S
NIRMAL S
SRI TC KRISHNA, CGC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.12.2023, THE COURT ON 7.5.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C). No.21640 of 2023
2
T.R. RAVI, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No.21640 of 2023
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was a candidate who appeared in the UGC/NET
during December 2020 & June 2021 cycles for the subject
"Computer Science and Applications" conducted by the 2nd
respondent. According to the petitioner, there were several
anomalies in the questions and the answer key published. The
petitioner along with two others had filed WP(C) No.9359/2022,
which was disposed of by this Court directing the respondents to
consider Ext.P17 representation submitted by the petitioners
therein and adverting to Exts.P3 to P14 produced in the said writ
petition and decide after affording an opportunity of being heard to
the petitioners. Ext.P4 is the judgment in WP(C) No.9359/2022.
Pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment, the 3 rd respondent formed a three-
member committee which has submitted Ext.P1 report. Ext.P1
report would show that during verification of the provisional answer
keys, the Subject Experts have opined to drop question ID 2366
and 2478, which were dropped. Regarding question ID 2439, the
petitioners' claim that there could be two answers for the same
question, was rejected as erroneous. Regarding question ID 2365,
it was noted that the challenge had been rejected by the Subject
Experts, that no change was made in the answer key, that
petitioners 1 and 2 in the earlier writ petition had answered the
question correctly, and hence no such issue arose. Regarding
question ID 2433, the Subject Experts had observed that there is a
difference between the English and Hindi versions, and it would not
affect the petitioner who had opted for English as the medium of
answering the question. Concerning question ID Nos.2477, 2395,
2345 and 2470, the Committee noted that though no challenges
had been received against the said questions, the Subject Experts
had examined the same and found that the claim of the candidates
against the final answer key is wrong, and the relief sought for by
the petitioners in the earlier writ petition was liable to be rejected.
2. The petitioner has now challenged the findings in the
report. One of the main contentions put forward is that with regard
to question ID No.2439, regarding who developed the "Swayam
platform", option ID 9754 which says MHRD and Microsoft, is
correct, and not option ID 9753 which says MHRD and Google. The
petitioner produced Ext.P11 to submit that "Swayam" was
indigenously developed by MHRD - AICTE with the help of
Microsoft. The Subject Experts opined that as per the official
website of "Swayam", the current "Swayam" platform was
developed by the Ministry of Education and NPTEL, IIT Madras with
the help of Google and persistent system and that is why the option
was changed from option ID 9754 to 9753. The respondents have
produced the relevant page of the "Swayam" platform as Ext.R3(a).
The respondents have also submitted that Ext.P11 was not placed
before the Subject Experts and such materials cannot be relied on
at this stage in the writ petition.
3. The question regarding the correctness or otherwise of
an answer key is a purely academic matter which is not an aspect
that can be reviewed in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This
Court had on the earlier occasion directed consideration of the
representation submitted by the petitioner and others, and pursuant
to the judgment of this Court a committee of experts had been
appointed to go into the question. It is thereafter that Ext.P1 report
has been prepared. This Court is not sitting in appeal over the
decision of the expert body [See the judgment in HP Public
Service Commission V. Mukesh Thakur and others (2010) 6
SCC 759 and Ram Vijay Singh and Others V. State of U.P and
Others (2018) 2 SCC 857. It is also settled law that the Court
while exercising its power of judicial review is concerned with the
decision-making process and not the decision as such and a mere
disagreement with the decision-making process or the decision of
the administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional court
to interfere. [See Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro
Rail Corpn. Ltd. [(2016) 16 SCC 818], Dwarkadas Marfatia
and Sons v. Port of Bombay [(1989) 3 SCC 293], Tata
Cellular v. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 651] and Jagdish
Mandal v. State of Orissa [(2007) 14 SCC 517].
4. In the absence of mala fides or an intention to favour
someone, or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity, there is no
reason for the constitutional court to interfere with the decision-
making process or the decision. The writ petition fails and is
dismissed.
Sd/-
T.R. RAVI
JUDGE
Pn
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21640/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 10/05/2023
SUBMITTED BY THE THREE-MEMBER COMMITTEE
CONSTITUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN
PURSUANCE OF JUDGEMENT DATED 23/11/2022 IN
W.P.(C) 9359/2022
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
INFORMATION BULLETIN ISSUED BY THE 2ND AND
3RD RESPONDENTS
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C)
9359/2022 DATED 23.11.2022 PASSED BY THIS
HONOURABLE COURT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONSE SHEET PERTAINING
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONSE SHEET PERTAINING
TO QUESTION NO.2439 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF NEWS ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN TIMES
OF INDIA DAILY DATED 17.06.2016 AS AVAILABLE
AT HTTPS://TIMESOFINDIA.INDIATIMES.COM/TECH-
NEWS/MICROSOFT-TO-DESIGN-APP-FOR-
GOVERNMENTS-OPEN-ONLINE-
COURSES/ARTICLESHOW/52789906.CMS
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONSE SHEET PERTAINING
TO QUESTION NO.2477 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE UGC-NET 2021 FINAL ANSWER
KEY
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF 1ST PAGE (COVER PAGE) AND PAGES
OF CHAPTER 12 OF THE 2017-18 ANNUAL REPORT
OF THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT (MHRD)
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SWAYAM
PLATFORM
Exhibit R3 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE SUBJECT/
CATEGORY WISE CUT OFF UGC NET DECEMBER 2020-
JUNE 2021
