Syed Shahbazuddin vs The State Of Telangana,
2023 Latest Caselaw 1726 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1726 Tel
Judgement Date : 21 April, 2023

Telangana High Court

Syed Shahbazuddin vs The State Of Telangana, on 21 April, 2023

Bench: E.V. Venugopal

          HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

                 WRIT PETITION No.46029 of 2018

ORDER:

1 Heard Sri P.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.Priyanka Singh learned counsel representing Smt.K.Udayasri,

standing counsel for the respondents.

2 Aggrieved by the impugned action of the 2nd respondent in

declaring the results on 30.08.2018 for the examination held on

08.07.2018 which was conducted for recruitment of Sub-Engineers

(Electrical), vide Notification No.2/2018 dated 24.05.2018, without

rectifying the wrong answer for Question No.74 in the provisional

key for Set-C, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3 Petitioner asserts that he is an Engineering Graduate

(Electrical) from Kakatiya University. He applied for the post of

Sub-Engineer (Electrical) under unreserved general category in

response to the notification No.2/2018 dated 24.05.2018, issued by

the second respondent for filling up 497 posts. The written

examination was conducted on 08.07.2018 and subsequently

provisional key for A, B and C Sets was released, a perusal of which,

in Set C, wrong answers were given for question Nos.58, 14 and 74.

However, answers for question Nos.58 and 14 were rectified. But the

question No.74 remained un-rectified. Results were declared on

30.08.2018. The petitioner secured 86 marks and that the cut off

mark was 87. Since the respondents have not rectified the wrong

answer, he lost opportunity. Hence the present writ petition.

4 Respondents filed counter affidavit denying the material

allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.

Their contention is that the written examination was conducted

through a third party i.e. JNTU, Hyderabad and objections were also

invited from the candidates to the preliminary key and final key was

published on 26.07.2018. Accordingly eligible candidates were

called for verification of certificates and were issued appointment

orders in December, 2018. The expert committee after

consideration of the objections approved and notified the final key.

With regard to Q.No.74 of Set-C in the provisional key, Option-C

was given as correct answer. In terms of the final key, selection list

was drawn up and the eligible candidates were appointed to the

post of Sub-Engineer (Electrical). At this stage interference or

change in the key would adversely affect the selection list which

would ultimately affect the right of the candidates who have been

selected. It is further submitted that as held by the Hon'ble Apex

Court once the expert committee has considered the objections and

has given its recommendations to the key, this Hon'ble Court may

not interfere with the said key in exercise of its powers under Article

226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ

petition.

5 During the course of hearing, the petitioner filed material

papers solutions to Question No.74 of Set-C was A only but not C

issued by a qualified Scholar & Assistant Professor. So also the

respondents have also filed a Memo showing the members of the

expert committee who have finalized the key.

6 In Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Rahul Singh1

the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The constitutional courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309, the Court recommended a system of:

(1) moderation;

(2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions;

(3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions and no marks be assigned to such questions.

13. As far as the present case is concerned, even before publishing the first list of key answers the Commission had got the key answers moderated by two Expert Committees. Thereafter, objections were invited and a 26-member Committee was constituted to verify the objections and after this exercise the Committee recommended that 5 questions be deleted and in 2 questions, key answers be changed. It can be presumed that these Committees consisted of experts in various subjects for which the examinees were tested. Judges cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters. Unless, the candidate demonstrates that the key answers are patently wrong on the face of it, the courts cannot enter into the academic field, weigh the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides and then come to the conclusion as to which of the answers is better or more correct.

14. In the present case, we find that all the three questions needed a long process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed that the stand of the Commission is also supported by certain textbooks. When there are conflicting views, then the court must bow down to the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts.

1 (2018) 7 SC 254

7 So, from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

above judgment, this Court is of the view that when there are two

different and conflicting opinions, the Court must bow down to the

opinion of the experts rather than the conclusion given by some

other academician. In the instant case, the petitioner relied on the

opinion given by one qualified Scholar & Assistant Professor. But,

the respondents have filed a Memo showing the members of the

expert committee who have finalized the key. The shows all the

three experts who have finalized the Key are Professor and Associate

Professors of Electrical and Engineering Department of JNTUH

College of Engineering, Hyderabad. So, once the expert committee