Asia Tabassum vs The State Of Telangana,
2024 Latest Caselaw 1388 Tel

Telangana High Court

Asia Tabassum vs The State Of Telangana, on 2 April, 2024

             HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
                             I.A.No.3 of 2020
                                  in/and
                      Writ Petition No.4796 of 2020
COMMON ORDER:

In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of

Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2-Telangana

State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited

(TSSPDCL), Hyderabad, in printing two different questions

while translating a question from English to Telugu in the

written examination (which was conducted on 15.12.2019),

pursuant to the direct recruitment notification No.02 of 2019,

dated 28.09.2019 for the post of Junior Personnel Officer

issued by respondent No.2, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory,

in violation of the principles of natural justice and

unconstitutional and consequently, to direct the respondent

No.2 to consider both the answers of option 'C' for the question

in English and option 'A' for the question in Telugu since both

answers are correct for question No.27 of Booklet-C and as a

result, to award one additional mark for the petitioner herein

and consequently to consider for appointment if she comes

within the zone of consideration for the post of Junior

Personnel Officer and to pass such other order or orders.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ

petition are that the petitioner belongs to BC-E woman

category and she participated in the written examination

conducted pursuant to the notification issued by respondent

No.2 on 28.09.2019 for the post of Junior Personnel Officer. It

is submitted that the written examination was conducted on

15.12.2019 in the form of a booklet which contained 100

questions and each question carries one mark. It is submitted

that all the questions are set in English and the corresponding

Telugu version is also provided. Accordingly, the petitioner

being a Telugu medium candidate, chose to read the Telugu

version to answer all the questions. It is submitted that in

respect of question No.27 of booklet-C, option-A was the

correct answer to the translated form in Telugu and she has

accordingly answered in Telugu version. It is submitted that on

20.12.2019 the respondents have published the preliminary

key and given just two days time to raise any objections

regarding any questions online. It is submitted that some of the

candidates have submitted objections to the answers to

question No.27 of booklet-C and final key was published on

17.01.2020 and the results were published with the list of

qualifying candidates on 03.02.2020 and verification of

certificates took place on 17.02.2020. The petitioner came to

know that she has got only 68 marks, instead of 69 marks and

therefore, she was not considered for appointment. Hence, the

present writ petition has been filed.

3. Heard Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services appearing

for respondent No.1, Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned senior counsel

appearing on behalf of Mrs. K. Udaya Sri, learned Standing

Counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri K. Lakshmi Narasimha,

learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the material

placed on record.

4. When the matter was taken up for admission, there is an

interim direction reserving one post of Junior Personnel Officer

in favour of the petitioner. However, due to lapse of six months

from the date of interim order, the said order has got vacated.

In the meantime, respondent No.3 filed another Writ Petition in

W.P.No.32381 of 2021 seeking consideration of her case for

appointment, since she secured 69 marks. This Court, by

taking note of the fact that interim order granted earlier against

the petitioner herein has been vacated, directed for

consideration of the case of respondent No.3 herein and the

petitioner in W.P.No.32381 of 2021 for the post of Junior

Personnel Officer and also observed that the said selection

shall be subject to further orders of this Court. It is submitted

that thereafter, respondent No.2-TSSPDCL has appointed the

respondent No.3 as Junior Personnel Officer and she has

joined the duty. Later, Respondent No.2 has filed a counter

affidavit and respondent No.3 has also filed counter affidavit

along with the vacate stay petition in I.A.No.3 of 2020 and

therefore, the vacate stay petition and the writ petition have

been taken up together for hearing and disposal.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating

the averments made in the writ affidavit, submitted that as per

the instructions given in the question paper, for all questions

the corresponding Telugu version is also provided and the

petitioner, being a Telugu medium candidate, has read the

questions and answers in Telugu version and has given

answers accordingly. It is submitted that in instruction No.(iii)

of the question paper, the only direction was that in case of any

discrepancy in the translation, the English version of the

question will be considered as correct and final. It is submitted

that since there was no discrepancy in the question and

answer in Telugu version, the petitioner did not refer to the

English version and the answer given by her was correct.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor and others Vs.

Samir Gupta and others 1 wherein a similar situation had

arisen and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the

finding of the High Court that the key answer to question No.24

is correct insofar as the English version is concerned but the

correct answer to the Hindi version of that question is the 1st

option and therefore, marks have to be given for both the

answers. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

in view of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, if the

answer given by the petitioner is accepted, she would also get

(1983) 4 SCC 309

69 marks and where two candidates got the same marks, the

candidate, who is the older in age, would have to be considered

and in this case, the petitioner is older as compared to the

third respondent. Therefore, the learned counsel for the

petitioner is seeking a direction to the official respondents to

award one mark to the petitioner for the option 'A' given by her

to the question No.27 of booklet-C and thereafter, to consider

her case for appointment to the post of Junior Personnel

Officer.

7. The learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2

submitted that the question papers have been prepared by

Osmania University, Hyderabad and the instruction to the

candidates clearly mentioned that wherever there is a

discrepancy in the translation of a question in Telugu, the

English version would be considered as correct and final. It is

submitted that the question itself related to the limitation

period for payment of wages under Section 5 of the Payment of

Wages Act, 1936 and the said section referred to only the

number of workmen less than 1000 and therefore, the English

version itself was the correct one and wherever there is a

discrepancy in Telugu translation, the petitioner ought to have

referred to the English version and therefore, no mark can be

awarded for the answer given by the petitioner. He also placed

reliance upon the contentions raised in the counter affidavit

wherein it is stated that the preparation of question paper

along with answers was entrusted to the Osmania University

and provisional key pertaining to the written examination was

communicated by the Osmania University on 19.12.2019 and

the same was placed in the Website of respondent No.2-

TSSPDCL on 20.12.2019 calling for objections, if any, from the

individuals. It is submitted that a total of 432 objections were

received for various questions and in particular to question

No.27 of booklet-C, 17 objections were received.

8. It is submitted that all the objections were considered by

the Examiner i.e., Osmania University and they only suggested

five changes for five questions in Booklet-C and there was no

interference in respect of question No.27. It is submitted that

the final key was published on 19.12.2019 and on the same

day, marks were also notified and the petitioner secured 68

marks and that she belonged to BC-E community. The

circumstances under which respondent No.2 has been

appointed are also mentioned in para-3.3 of the additional

affidavit. It is submitted that in respect of question 88 of

Booklet-B, an Expert Committee had reviewed the same in

terms of common orders dated 03.03.2021 in Writ Petition

Nos.11810 of 2020 and 18335 of 2020 as confirmed by a

Division Bench of this Court by common order dated

29.10.2021 in Writ Appeal No.126 of 2021 and batch and there

is no change in the marks of the writ petitioner as well as the

unofficial respondent in respect of the same.

9. The learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2

also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. G. Hemalathaa

and another 2 wherein it has held that the instructions issued

by the Examiner are mandatory having the force of law and

they have to be strictly complied with. He also referred to the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttar

Pradesh Public Service Commission, through its Chairman and

another Vs. Rahul Singh and another 3 wherein the preposition

(2020) 19 SCC 430

(2018) 7 SCC 254

of law laid down by the Apex Court is that the committees

consisted of all the experts in various subjects for which the

examinees were tested and judges cannot take on the role of

experts in academic matters and that 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 answer is

better or more correct. Therefore, their recommendations are

not being interfered with by the Courts and prayed that the

writ petition be dismissed.

10. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 also supported

the contentions of respondents No.1 & 2 and submitted that a

candidate aspiring to be appointed to the post of Junior

Personnel Officer, is expected to know English language and

therefore, the petitioner ought to have read the questions and

answered them correctly in English version. While referring to

Section-5 of the Payment of Wages Act, he also submitted that

there is only one circumstance referred in the section i.e.,

where there were employees less than 1000 and therefore, the

question of employees being more than 1000 as indicated in

Telugu version of the question does not arise. He submitted

that respondent No.3 has secured more marks than the

petitioner herein and therefore, her appointment should not be

interfered with.

11. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material

placed on record, this Court finds that the entire controversy is

only around the option of Telugu version to question No.27 of

booklet-C. When the English version referred to the

circumstances where number of employees was less than 1000

in a factory or industrial establishment, the Telugu version

referred to the circumstances where employees were more than

1000. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Telugu version is

the exact translation of the question in English. If there was

any discrepancy with regard to the meaning of a word in the

question, then the meaning of the word in English question

would prevail and therefore English version of the question

only would have to be looked into. But this Court finds that the

circumstances mentioned in the English version and the

Telugu version of the same question i.e., Question No.27 are at

variance with each other and the discrepancy is not the

meaning of mere translation, it is with regard to the entire

circumstance. Therefore, the options of answers would

definitely vary. In the case of Kanpur University (stated supra),

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered similar

circumstances where in English version and Hindi version with

regard to the translation, there was a distinction between the

circumstances and therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

upheld that the finding of the High Court that there is a

marked difference in English version and Hindi version of

question No.24 therein.

12. In the judgment on which the learned senior counsel has

relied upon, i.e., the decision in the case of Rahul Singh (stated

supra) also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the

earlier judgment of the Kanpur University and also other

precedents on the issue to hold that when there are conflicting

views, then the Court must bow down to the opinion of the

experts and that the 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. However, this Court finds that where the subject is

complicated, and where the Courts would not be in a position

to come to a conclusion about the answer, the Court should

not interfere and must rely upon the wisdom of the experts in

the field.

13. In the present case, the discrepancy is in respect of

simple translation, and simple words i.e., less than 1000

employees, which have been translated into Telugu as more

than 1000 employees. Therefore, there is no expert opinion

needed to judge the correct answer to the question given in

English and Telugu versions and option 'C' is the correct

answer to the question in English version and option 'A' is the

correct answer to the question in Telugu version to the

question No.27 of booklet-C. Therefore, this Court is of the

opinion that the option 'A' as given as the answer in Telugu

version also should be considered. Further, in the booklet there

is no instruction for choosing of medium of language by the

candidates to answer the question paper. Therefore, the

petitioner has the option of choosing to reply answers to the

questions in English or Telugu or both.

14. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the present

case, question No.27 of booklet-C has put two different and

opposite circumstances in English and Telugu versions.

Therefore, while the correct options to both the versions are not

denied by the respondents, i.e., the option given by the

petitioner as well as indicated in the final key of English

version are both correct, the respondents have to give the

marks to the petitioner herein by accepting the answer to the

question in Telugu version also. Therefore, respondents No.1 &

2 are hereby directed to give one mark to the petitioner for

option 'A' given by her to question No.27 of booklet-C and

consequently, to consider her appointment if she is otherwise

eligible.

15. With the above observations and directions, the writ

petition is allowed and I.A.No.3 of 2020 in W.P.No.4796 of 2020

is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ

petition, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 02.04.2024 isn