Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Deep Chand vs Board Of Secondary Education ... on 2 March, 2022

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15986/2021 Karma Ram S/o Shri Kishna Ram, aged about 28 Years, Resident of Village Somrado Ki Dhani, Rawniyana, Tehsil- Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus The Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, through its Secretary.

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16514/2021 Naresh Kumar S/o Shri Mahaveer, aged about 27 Years, Resident of Momanvas, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Exam. for Teachers (REET)-2021, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer (Rajasthan).

2. The Controller of Examination, Rajasthan Eligibility Exam. for Teachers (REET)-2021, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer (Rajasthan).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16767/2021 Indu Patel D/o Shri Madan Lal, aged about 23 Years, Near Police Station Luni, Dist. Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan Board of Secondary Edu. Ajmer, Ajmer through its Secretary.

2. Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET), 2021 Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer.

                                                                 ----Respondents





                                           (2 of 16)                  [CW-15986/2021]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16769/2021 Nitu Singh D/o Shri Gurudyal Singh, aged about 26 Years, Resident of Kalana, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET)-2021, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer (Rajasthan).

2. The Controller of Examination, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET)-2021, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer (Rajasthan).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16822/2021 Kirshan S/o Shri Gurudyal, aged about 29 Years, Resident of Kalana, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET)-2021, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer (Rajasthan).

2. The Controller of Examination, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET)-2021, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer (Rajasthan).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16823/2021 Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar, aged about 31 Years, Resident of Ward No. 12, Village Gandhi Bari, 6 Sdr, Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET)-2021, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer (Rajasthan).

2. The Controller of Examination, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET)-2021, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer (Rajasthan).

                                                                   ----Respondents


                                       (3 of 16)                  [CW-15986/2021]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16825/2021 Tulsa Ram S/o Shri Shera Ram, aged about 28 Years, Resident of Jakhron Ki Dhani, Korna, District Barmer (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET)-2021, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer (Rajasthan).

2. The Controller of Examination, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET)-2021, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer (Rajasthan).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16851/2021 Kalu Ram Meena S/o Shri Chittar Lal, aged about 25 Years, Resident of Village Baredi Khurd Post Aklera, Tehsil - Aklera, District Jhalawar. At present residing at Plot No. 11 Khejlera House Paota B Road, Dist- Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus The Board of Secondray Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer through its Secretary.

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17382/2021

1. Deep Chand S/o Shri Sant Lal, aged about 22 Years, Resident of Chak No. 22 Ntr Warde No. 1, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

2. Shyam Lal S/o Shri Ram Niwas, aged about 26 Years, Resident of Awada Bas Village Ren Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur (Raj.).

3. Krishan Kumar S/o Shri Chet Ram, aged about 26 Years, Resident of Munsari, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

4. Gajanand Swami S/o Shri Kedar Das Swami, aged about 29 Years, Resident of Dharmas Tehsil Dungargarh District Bikaner (Raj.).

                                                                ----Petitioners
                                 Versus




                                       (4 of 16)                    [CW-15986/2021]

Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer through its Secretary.

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17759/2021 Seema Choudhary S/o Meetha Lal Choudhary, aged about 28 Years, Village Kushal Niwas Bhadsoda, District Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus The Board of Secondary Edu., Rajasthan, Ajmer through its Secretary.

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 97/2022 Guddi D/o Shri Durga Ram, aged about 27 Years, R/o Behind Bhadwasiya Hospital, Maderna Colony, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary, Department of School Education (Elementary), Secretariat, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Elementary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

3. Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan through its Secretary, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET), 2021, Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

---- respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16453/2021

Sawai Singh S/o Shri Dungar Singh, aged about 28 Years, R/o Rajguro Ki Dhani, Opaji Ki Dhani, Moolji Ki Dhani, Korna, District Barmer (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Coordinator, Raj. Eligibility Exam. for Teacherss (REET)-2021, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer (Rajasthan).

(5 of 16) [CW-15986/2021]

2. The Controller of Examination, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET)-2021, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer (Rajasthan).

---respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16472/2021 Naresh Godara S/o Shri Lumba Ram, aged about 25 Years, Resident of Beniwalo Ki Dhani, Pareu, District Barmer (Rajasthan).

---- Petitioners Versus

1. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET)-2021, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer (Rajasthan).

2. The Controller of Examination, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET)-2021, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer (Rajasthan).

---- Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1409/2022 Jat Laxmi Ben D/o Dhira Ram W/o Pawan Kumar, aged about 28 Years, R/o 232, Darjiyo Ka Vaas, Ram Nagar, Sindari Charanan, Sindari, Barmer.

---Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj And Rural Development, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Secretary, Elementary Education, Bikaner.

4. The Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer Through Its Chairman.

5. Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teacherss (REET) 2021, Secondary Education Board, Rajeev Gandhi Bhawan, Secondary Education Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer.

---Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Keshav Bhati, Mr. O.P. Sangwa.

Mr. Jogendra Singh on behalf of Mr. Moti Singh.

                                            (6 of 16)                       [CW-15986/2021]


                                  Mr.   Keshav Bhati on behalf of
                                  Mr.   Tanwar Singh.
                                  Mr.   Vijay Jain.
                                  Mr.   Ramdev Potalia.
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit &
                                  Mr. Dilip Choudhary.


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
                                        Order
02/03/2022

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who

are candidates at Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers,

2021 Level-I ("REET-2021") seeking to question the validity of the

final answer key published by the respondent- Board of Secondary

Education, Rajasthan ("Board") and consequential determination

of the marks awarded to them at the examination.

It is, inter-alia, indicated in the writ petitions that the

process for REET-2021 was issued by issuance of Advertisement

No.1/2021 by the respondent-Board. The written examination was

held on 26.09.2021. The model answer key was published on

23.10.2021 alongwith a press-note inviting objections to the

model answer key, to which, it is claimed that the petitioners

responded by filing objections to several questions. The Board

after considering the objections, issued final answer key on

02.11.2021. It is submitted that the answers to few questions are

still erroneous and/or the options to the answers are not

appropriate in the final answer key. Submissions have been made

that as per the authentic material, the final answer key does not

reflect the correct answer. The result of the REET-2021 was

published on the same date alongwith final key i.e. on

02.11.2021.

(7 of 16) [CW-15986/2021]

In the present writ petitions, though the petitioners have

questioned the validity of several questions. However, during the

course of submissions, counsel for the petitioners have confined

their submissions to five questions and one of the petitioners, in

CWP No.1409/2022, has addressed submissions on a question

pertaining to subject-Gujarati.

Learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the

material produced alongwith writ petitions made submissions that

the answers to Questions No.27, 28 and 79, of Code 'J' series, are

incorrect in the final answer key and that qua question No.135 of

'J' series, the correct option is rather missing; and therefore, the

respondents be directed to modify the final answer key and

consequential result of the petitioners. Qua CWP No.1409/2022,

submissions were made that the answer in the final answer key is

incorrect.

Reliance was placed on judgment in Dalip Kumar & Ors. vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13493/2020

decided on 20.12.2021.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Board made vehement

submissions that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners seeking

to question the validity of the final answer key has no substance

and in fact the same are not maintainable. Submissions were

made that after the objections were invited with the publication of

the model answer key, all the objections on various questions

were examined by an expert committee, which has dealt with all

the objections and have given its opinion on various questions and

insofar as the questions under challenge in the present writ

petitions are concerned, the objections raised by the candidates

(8 of 16) [CW-15986/2021]

have been rejected and, therefore, the determination made by the

experts does not call for any interference by this Court.

Reliance has been placed on Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors. : (2021) 2 SCC 309, Ran Vijay Singh &

Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. : (2018) 2 SCC 357, RPSC vs. Pankaj

Raj : D.B.S.A.W. No.697/2019 decided on 29.05.2019 (at Jaipur

Bench) and Lalit Mohan Sharma & Ors. vs. RPSC & Ors. : 2016 (3)

RLW 2082 (Raj.).

Under the directions of the Court, learned counsel for the

respondent-Board has produced for perusal of the Court the

determination made by the expert committee alongwith

supporting material.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for

the parties and have examined the disputed questions, final

answer key, the material produced by the petitioners and the

opinion of the experts.

The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the

latest being in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta (supra) as followed

by the Division Bench (Jaipur Bench) in Rajkamal Basitha vs.

Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Ors. : D.B.C.W.P. No.11347/2021

decided on 21.02.2022 is well settled. Division Bench in the case

of Rajkamal Basitha (supra) observed as under:

"It is well settled through series of judgments of the Supreme Court that the judicial review of the decision of the examining body be it in the field of education or in the recruitment to the public employment, is extremely limited. Particularly when the examination is being conducted by an expert body and disputed questions are scanned by specially constituted expert committee, the Courts are extremely slow in interfering with the decisions of such bodies. Unless it is pointed out that there is a glaring error or an irrational decision has been rendered the Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India would not interfere."

(9 of 16) [CW-15986/2021]

This Court in Dalip Kumar (supra) also after referring to the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikesh

Kumar Gupta (supra) came to the following conclusion:

"From the above categoric determination made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta (supra), as followed in the case of Tarsaim Kumar (supra) by the Division Bench of this Court, though it is true that earlier judgments laying down the parameters for interference by this Court, though have not been reversed, the same to a great extent, have been circumscribed"

Keeping in view the law laid down, the determination is as

follows:

Question No.27 (Subject: Child Development and Pedagogy),

which is under dispute, reads as under:

"27. According to RTE Act, 2009, the Pupil-Teacher ratio for primary schools should be

(A) 25 : 1 (B) 35 : 1 (C) 40 : 1 (D) 30 : 1"

The final answer to the said question is "D".

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners with

reference to the material produced alongwith their objections that

the correct answer is "C" i.e. 40 : 1, and that the determination

made by the Board and/or its expert committee is incorrect. The

expert committee, with reference to the Schedule attached to RTE

Act, a notification by the Press Information Bureau and a

Book-"ledkyhu Hkkjr ,oa f'k{kk " by Dr. Hansram Gurjar and others,

came to following conclusion: -

"Regarding the teacher-pupil ratio in Primary Schools, As per RTE Act-2009 in 3 conditions it is suggested that pupil-teacher ratio will be 30 : 1. In one condition where number of students is more than 200 in school, the pupil- teacher ratio must not exceed 40 : 1 that means it is limit given by the act but generally the ratio should be 30 : 1. Although the question do not specify the condition then right answer will be 30 : 1."

(10 of 16) [CW-15986/2021]

The petitioners have referred to Schedule attached to RTE

Act, Book "jktLFkku v/;;u Part-4", by Dr. Durga Prasad Agarwal.

It would be appropriate to quote the Schedule attached to

RTE Act, as the question relates to RTE Act, which reads as under:

"THE SCHEDULE (See Sections 19 and 25) Norms and Standards for a School

S. No. Item Norms and Standards

1. Number of teachers:

(a) For first class to fifth class Admitted children Number of teachers Up to Sixty Between Two sixty-one to ninety Three Between Ninety-one Four to one hundred and twenty Between One Five hundred and twenty-

one to two hundred.

Above One hundred Five plus one Head- and fifty children teacher

Above Two hundred Pupil-Teacher Ratio children (excluding Head-

teacher) shall not exceed forty.

A perusal of the above would reveal that the determination

made by the expert committee is well reasoned and justified and

the submission made to the contrary, has no substance.

Question No.28 (Subject: Child Development and Pedagogy),

which is under dispute, reads as under:

"28. 'Midterm Exam' is an example of

(A) Creative Assessment (B) Norm-referenced Assessment (C) Summative Assessment (D) Diagnostic Assessment"

The final answer to the said question is "C".

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the

correct answer to the question would be "A" i.e. creative

(11 of 16) [CW-15986/2021]

assessment and the determination made by the respondents is not

justified.

The expert committee, on the above aspect, came to the

following conclusion:

"This question deal with form of assessment used by teacher in school. Generally we test student for assessing what they have learnt or we assess what they require to learn in a better manner. So, this is called "Assessment of learning" and "Assessment for learning". The question emphasize Mid-term Examination and asked to choose option what type of assessment it is and in the option- summative assessment appeared as option-assessment of learning. Generally, we conduct Mid-term Exam after a gap of 6 months to test what students have learnt. Therefore, it is right answer given by board."

The expert committee has supported its conclusion with the

Book- Advanced Educational Technology by Dr. R.A. Sharma.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have referred to publication:

"mPPrj f'k{k.k laLFkkvksa esa ewY;kadu lq/kkj " by University Grants Commission,

wherein Mid-term written examination has been categorized as

'creative assessment'. Another publication 'Assessment for

Learning' by Uttrakhand Open University, Haldwani has also

indicated the Mid-term Exam as 'creative assessment'.

The expert committee, has given its reasoning for coming to

the conclusion that the final answer key did not call for any

change. It would be seen that the experts, apparently after going

through the material produced by the petitioners in support of

their objections, have reached to a particular conclusion

apparently based on the conflicting opinions of various authors.

Once the conclusion in this regard has been arrived at by the

expert committee after considering the material placed before it,

in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, even if this

Court finds that the material produced by the petitioners is more

convincing, no case for interference is made out, as in the case of

(12 of 16) [CW-15986/2021]

RPSC vs. Pankaj Raj (supra), the Division Bench while setting

aside the judgment of the Single Bench, inter-alia, observed as

under:

"The impugned judgment in this Court's opinion is clearly erroneous inasmuch as the court has unwittingly donned the robe of the decision maker: to wit, that of an expert, in art, in concluding that one of the choices was defective (question No. 11) and that the RPSC's explanation about a misprint was irrelevant, because the answer was wrongly given. These conclusions the court cannot arrive at, as they amount to primary decision making- a task which cannot be undertaken under Article

226. The impugned judgment also overlooked the salutary rule that in the event of doubt, "the benefit ought to go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate" (Ran Vijay, supra)"

Question No.79 (Subject: Hindi), which is under dispute,

reads as under:

"79- Hkk'kk f'k{k.k fof/k;ksa esa dkSu&lh fof/k izkFkfed fo|ky; ds cPpks ds fy, furkUr O;FkZ gS\ (A) MkYVu iz.kkyh (B) izkstsDV iz.kkyh (C) ek.Vsljh i)fr (D) fd.MjxkVZu i)fr"

The final answer to the said question is "A".

It is claimed by the counsel for the petitioners that the

correct answer is "B". The expert committee while referring to the

material taken into consideration by it, came to the following

conclusion:

"& vkifRr fujLr djus ;ksX; gSA & izek.k & ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa fgUnh f'k{k.k] fujatu dqekj flag] jktLFkku fgUnh xzUFk vdkneh] t;iqj i`- 383] laLdj.k&2019 & fgUnh f"k{k.k] izks- cStukFk "kekZ] i`- 166] lkfgR; izdk"ku vkxjk] laLdj.k& uohu laLdj.k cksMZ }kjk iznRr mRrj lgh gSA"

The petitioners have relied on Book "lkekU; f'k{k.k&fl}kUr rFkk

fof/k;k¡" by Niranjan Kumar Singh.

A perusal of the material relied on by the experts would

reveal that apparently the text of the material has been

misconstrued by the Committee.

(13 of 16) [CW-15986/2021]

The first book relied on i.e. " ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa fgUnh f'k{k.k " by

Niranjan Kumar Singh, inter alia, contains the following portion,

which has been relied on by the counsel for the respondent Board:

"Hkk'kk&f'k{k.k vkSj MkYVu ;kstuk f"k{kk dh vk/kqfud euksoSKkfud fopkj/kkjkvksa ds QyLo:i ckyd dks dsUnz ekudj mldh O;fDrxr f'k{kk ij cy nsus ds fy, ftu f'k{k.k&iz.kkfy;ksa vFkok ;kstukvksa dk lw=ikr gqvk muesa MkYVu dk egRoiw.kZ LFkku gSA bl ;kstuk dk izorZu lu~ 1913 esa fel gsysu ikdZgLVZ us fd;k ftUgsa MkW- esfj;k ek.Vsljh ds lkFk dk;Z djus dk Hkh volj feyk FkkA bl ;kstuk dk izFke iz;ksx vesfjdk ds eslkpqlsV~l izkar ds MkYVu uxj ds gkbZLdwy esa fd;k x;k Fkk] bl dkj.k bl ;kstuk dk uke MkYVu ;kstuk iM+kA fdaMj xkVZu ,oa ek.Vsljh iz.kkfy;k¡ gS ij MkYVu ;kstuk dk iz;ksx 8 o'kZ ls vf/kd vk;q okys ckydksa ds fy, fd;k x;k gSA "

A perusal of the above would reveal that Dalton Scheme is

used for students above the age of 8 years i.e. students of

primary classes.

In another relied on Book, "fgUnh f'k{k.k" by Prof. Baijnath

Sharma in relation to Project Method, it is inter alia indicated as

under:

"fgUnh f'k{k.k dh n`f'V ls ;g i}fr NksVh d{kkvksa ds fy, bruh vf/kd mi;ksxh ugha gks ldrh] ftruh cM+h d{kkvksa ds fy,] D;ksafd bl i}fr dh Hkh ml le; rd mi;ksfxrk ugha tc rd ckydksa esa le> mRiUu u gks tk;A"

A plain reading of the above would reveal that it is indicated

that the project method is not so much useful for smaller classes.

Therefore, apparently while one book indicates that Dalton

Scheme is for students aged 8 years and above, another book

indicates that Project Method is not good for smaller classes,

however, the experts have apparently reached to a contrary

conclusion.

In the book relied on by the petitioners, by the same author

Niranjan Kumar Singh, it is clearly indicated as under:

"izkstsDV iz.kkyh dh ,d fo'ks'k dfBukbZ ;g Hkh gS fd bls ek/;fed Lrj dh f'k{kk ds fy, gh viuk;k tk ldrk gS tc fd ckydksa dk dqN ckSf}d fodkl gks pqdk jgrk gSA izkjfEHkd Lrj ds fy, bls iz;ksx esa ugha yk;k tk ldrkA"

(14 of 16) [CW-15986/2021]

As such, even going by the principles laid down in various

judgments, the determination in the present case appears to be

not justified and as such, the same calls for a re-determination on

the part of the respondent Board.

Question No.135 (Subject: Environmental Studies), which is

under dispute, reads as under:

"135. Who coined the term 'biodiversity'?

           (A)   A.G. Tansley          (B) E. Haeckel
           (C)   R.H. Whittaker        (D) W.G. Rosen"

The final answer to the said question is "D".

The petitioners have claimed that none of the answers are

correct. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the

answer "D" indicated by the respondents is factually incorrect, as

from the various material placed on record, it is apparent that the

word 'Biodiversity' was coined by E.O. Wilson and not by W.G.

Rosen. Reliance has been placed on Geography book for Class 11 th

by the Board of Secondary Education, Biodiversity and

Environmental Biotechnology by Padamnabh Diwedi and " i;kZoj.k

Hkwxksy" published by Vardhanman Open University, Kota.

The expert committee on the said question, has simply

annexed book of Biology of Class 11th issued by the Board of

Secondary Education, inter alia, indicating that Biodiversity word

was used by W.G. Rosen in 1985.

Looking to the above aspect, wherein except for the material

relied on by the expert committee, the books produced by the

petitioners unanimously indicated that the word Biodiversity was

coined by E.O. Wilson, this Court accessed the Book 'Biodiversity'

written by E.O. Wilson, published by National Academies Press on

(15 of 16) [CW-15986/2021]

the website : Open Book, wherein the Editor E.O. Wilson, in his

foreword has inter-alia indicated as under:

"The National Forum on BioDiversity and thence this volume were made possible by the cooperative efforts of many people. The forum was conceived by Walter G. Rosen, Senior Program officer in the Board on Basic Biology-a unit of the Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences (NRC/NAS). Dr. Rosen represented the NRC/NAS throughout the planning stages of the project. Furthermore, he introduced the term biodiversity, which aptly represents, as well as any term can, the vast array of topics and perspectives covered during the Washington forum"

[emphasis applied]

From the above indication made by the author E.O. Wilson

himself, it is apparent that the term Biodiversity was introduced by

Dr. W. G. Rosen only and as such the determination made by the

expert committee cannot be faulted.

Question No.63 (Subject: Gujarati), which is under dispute,

reads as under (Scanned version):

The final answer to the said question is "C".

It is claimed that the correct answer is 'A'. The expert

committee has come to the following conclusion:

"63. In poetry, the composer of poetry wants to say that, instead of what you have, you will not do this, you will not accept. Not accepting in this way means giving up. Answer 'C' is correct."

The question was to be answered on plain reading of the

poem based on which, the question has been asked and as

apparently the expert committee has come to a particular

conclusion, the petitioners having failed to produce any specific

material to the contrary alongwith the petition and this Court is

(16 of 16) [CW-15986/2021]

unable to read the script and come to a conclusion on its own, has

no option but to accept the determination made by the expert

committee.

No other challenge has been pressed by the petitioners.

In view of above discussion while the determination made by

the expert committee on Questions No.27 & 28 (Subject: Child