Rajasthan High Court

Gautam Swami Son Of Shri Bajrang ... vs All India Institute Of Ayurveda ... on 8 February, 2023

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

[2023/RJJP/002165]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17367/2022

Gautam Swami Son Of Shri Bajrang Lal, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Ward No. 10, Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       All India Institute Of Ayurveda, Through Its Director,
         Ministry Of Ayurveda, Yoga And Naturopathy, Unani,
         Siddha And Homoeopathy (Ayush), Govt. Of                            India,
         Mathura     Road,gautampuri,            Sarita      Vihar,   New    Delhi-
         110076.
2.       National Test Agency, Through Sr. Director (Exams), C-20,
         1A/8, Sector-62, Iitk Outreach Centre, Noida- 201309.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Raghav Mr. Mohit Balwada Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

08/02/2023

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, prayed that your Lordships may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow the writ petition and:

(i) Through appropriate writ, order or direction, direct the respondents to revaluate the result of the petitioner by issuing a revised marksheet with following changes The Answer to question ID 75 should be option ID 297 Both statement (I) and statement (II) are correct.

(ii) Through appropriate writ, order or direction, direct the respondents to declared the revised result of the AIAPGEY- 2022 with above right answer.

[2023/RJJP/002165] (2 of 5) [CW-17367/2022]

(iii) Any other appropriate order, which this Hon'ble court deems just and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(iv) Cost of writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner."

Grievance of the petitioner at this stage is with regard to

answer to Question Id-75.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that before this Court, the

respondents have not produced the report of the Expert

Committee.

In support of the contention counsel relied upon the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of

Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2013)

4 SCC 690 and further relied upon the judgment passed by the

Division Bench of this court in the matter of Rajkamal Basitha Vs.

Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Ors passed in D.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.11347/2021 and further relied upon the judgment

passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the matter of

Karma Ram Vs. The Board of Secondary Education Ajmer passed

in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15986/2021.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents

submits that various questions were subject matter of challenge

before the Delhi High Court including seeking correctness of the

answer to Question Id-75. The Delhi High Court while its judgment

dated 19.01.2023 held that according to sub-expert report, the

option 4 is the correct answer to the said question.

Counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment passed

by the Delhi High Court in the matter of Ashish Singh and Ors. v.

Union of India through Secretary and Ors. ( W.P. (C) No. 17060/2022

[2023/RJJP/002165] (3 of 5) [CW-17367/2022]

& CM. APPL. No.54072/2022) decided on 19.01.2023 wherein para

No.4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 & 18 it has been held as under:-

"4. Similarly, in regard to question no.75, the contention of the petitioner is that in terms of the Provisional Answer Key, option (1) ID No.297 was the correct answer, however, when the Final Answer Key was uploaded option (4) ID No.300 was replaced as correct answer. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that option ID No.297 should be the correct answer and not option ID No.300, which was replaced. The learned counsel invites the attention of the Court to the Book titled - "Sushruta Samhita Sutrasthan", in support of his contention.

11. What is being contended in the instant case is that the material placed on record by the petitioners indicates that the correct answers were different than those finalized by the experts. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur University & Ors. Vs. Samir Gupta & Ors.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of U.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Rahul Singh & Anr. has held that when it came to conflicting views with regard to the answer key in an exam, then the courts must rely on the opinion of the experts and cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters.

13. With respect to objection to the answer key, this court in the matter of Atul Kumar Verma v Union of India & Anr. in Paragraph No. 22 held as under :-

"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

[2023/RJJP/002165] (4 of 5) [CW-17367/2022]

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."

14. A similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Urvashi Khanna v. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare & Ors. and Amrit Adarsh v. The Chairman, Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr.

15. In the instant case, what is to be seen is the process followed by the respondents and the manner in which the objections received were considered. It is the specific case of the respondents that the candidates were given an opportunity to challenge the answer key during the period of 22.10.2022 to 25.10.2022 upto 9.00 PM by paying a fee of Rs.200/- per question. They state that in total, 152 objections were received against the answer key of question No.69 and 42 objections were made against answer key of question No.75. According to them, 32 objections were received with respect to answer key of question No.95. After receiving all the objections within the aforesaid window period, the same were placed before the Expert Committee. The subject experts examined and verified all the challenges. In the post evaluation scrutiny, the subject experts have opined that with respect to question No.69, option 3 is the correct answer, with respect to question No.95, option 4 is the correct answer and with respect to question no.75, option 4 is the correct answer.

17. Having considered the procedure, which has been followed by the respondent No.3-NTA and after perusal of the answers which have been finalized by the experts, this court is not inclined to accept the prayer of the petitioners of either to call for a second expert opinion or to further send the questions before a 'Expert Committee'.

[2023/RJJP/002165] (5 of 5) [CW-17367/2022]

18. It is to be seen that there are no allegations of mala fide or bias against any of the experts or against the examining body. The procedure as detailed above does not, by any judicial standard, seem unreasonable. In fact, this court is of the opinion, that procedure is just, fair and reasonable. There were lakhs of students who appeared in the said examination. The fact remains that all the students were treated similarly. Merely for the reason that some text, as has been produced by the petitioners, indicating answers to be different from what were there in the answer key, the entire examination process cannot be overturned."

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Since, the issue involved in this writ petition has already

been considered and decided by the Delhi High Court in the matter

of Ashish Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. (C)

No.17060/2022 and C.M. Application No.54072/2022 decided on

19.01.2023.

Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

JYOTI /127