Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Shaik Gilani on 4 January, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT APPEAL NOs.1089, 1098, 1099, 1105, 1106, 1107,
1116, 1119 and 1137 OF 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
All these Writ Appeals are being disposed of by way of
this common judgment, as the issue raised in all these Writ
Appeals is one and the same.
2. Writ Appeal Nos.1089, 1098, 1099, 1105, 1106 and
1116 of 2023 are filed by the State of Telangana and Telangana
State Level Police Recruitment Board, Hyderabad, aggrieved by
the orders passed in W.P.No.18748 of 2023 and batch
dt.09.10.2023, and Writ Appeal Nos.1107, 1119 and 1137 of
2023 are filed by the writ petitioners contending that some more
questions were to be deleted from the scheme of examination on
the ground that the questions were capable of yielding to
multiple answers and there is no correct answer being provided
to certain questions.
2
3. Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-I and
Sri K. Ramakanth Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board, Hyderabad,
Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Sai
Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants in Writ Appeal Nos.1107 and 1119 of 2023 and
Ms. Vladimeer Khatoon, learned counsel for the appellants in
Writ Appeal No.1137 of 2023 and Sri N.S.Arjun Kumar and
Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel for the respondents in the
Writ Appeals filed by the State.
4. It has been contended by the appellants-State as well
as Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board, Hyderabad,
that they have issued a notification to fill up Stipendiary Cadet
Trainee Police Constable in Civil and other categories on
30.04.2023. In all, 15,644 posts were notified and the selection
is comprised of preliminary test followed up physical efficiency
test and final examination, and the appellants' Board has
conducted the final examination on 30.04.2023 and the final
written examination is consisting of objective type questions 3
having four multiple options of answers and a candidate has to
mark only the nearest appropriate answer to any of the question.
The Appellant Board has published the preliminary key on
22.05.2023 and invited objections to the questions which
appeared in the final examination. Several candidates have filed
their objections with regard to correctness of questions and also
to the correctness of preliminary key and the Appellant Board
has referred all the objections to an Expert Committee consisting
of body of academicians and after obtaining their opinion, it has
published the final key on 30.05.2023. The respondents
candidates who have appeared for the final examination, have
filed Writ Petition No.18748 of 2023 and batch of cases before
this Court challenging the correctness of questions as well as
answers provided to the questions and the learned Single Judge
of this Court has partly allowed the Writ Petitions by directing to
delete question Nos.57, 122, 130, and 144 of Booklet 'C' and
directed the Appellant Board to re-do the exercise by deleting the
marks awarded to the candidates afresh, without appreciating
any of the contentions raised by the Appellant Board. 4
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant Board has
contended that in para No.15 of the judgment, the learned Single
Judge has come to the conclusion that the courts cannot go into
the correctness or otherwise of the answers in the final key to
the questions prepared by the Board as the final key was
published only after the Expert Body/Committee has looked into
the objections received from the candidates. When the learned
Single Judge has come to such a conclusion, the learned Single
Judge could not have deleted four questions from the scheme of
examination and could not have directed the Appellant Board to
re-do the exercise afresh by deleting the four questions which
runs contrary to the finding recorded by the learned Single
Judge in the preceding paragraph.
6. Learned counsel for the Appellant Board has further
contended that all the objections were referred to a Body of
Expert Committee and only after Expert Committee gave its
opinion, the final key was published. Therefore, the learned
Single Judge was not justified in interfering with the questions 5
and could not have directed to delete four questions from the
scheme of examination.
7. Learned counsel for the Appellant Board has further
contended that the learned Single Judge has set aside three
questions on the ground that the answers in Telugu version were
not properly translated in Telugu; whereas the Expert
Body/Committee has come to the conclusion that merely not
translating the key answers in Telugu would not change the
nature of the question. As per the instructions to the candidates
issued at the time of examination, in instruction No.9 it was
made very clear that the question paper book-let will be printed
in two languages i.e., English/Telugu or English/Urdu. In case
of any doubt or any ambiguity in question, then the English
version will be considered as correct version. Admittedly, there
was no error in the English version. The only issue raised by the
respondents-candidates was that the answers were not properly
translated in the Telugu vernacular language, except writing the
English word in the Telugu that itself would not make the 6
question as invalid. As the instruction No.9 to the candidates
has made it very clear that only English version of the question
has to be taken into account for finality, but the learned Single
Judge has partly allowed the Writ Petitions and directed to delete
three questions on the ground of not properly translating the
answers in Telugu.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant Board
has further contended that in respect of question No.57 of book-
let 'C', the answer was recorded as Pradeep Port instead of
Paradeep Port and since Paradeep can be pronounced in a
different way, that alone cannot be a ground to delete question
No.57 from the scheme of examination.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant Board as
well as learned Government Pleader for the State have contended
that the issue raised is squarely covered by the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh 7
and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 1, wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if there is any dispute
with regard to answers, the benefit of doubt should go to the
Examination Authority rather than to the candidate.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant Board
has further contended that the burden of proving lies on the
candidates if the answers furnished in the final key are
demonstrably wrong by the candidates. No condition is raised in
the Writ Affidavit stating that the answer provided in the final
key was demonstrably wrong, except saying that the answers
were not properly translated in Telugu, and that cannot be a
ground to set aside the questions from the scheme of
examination.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant Board
has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Vikesh Kumar Gupta and another Vs. State of Rajasthan
1 (2018) 2 SCC 357 8
and others 2, wherein it was held that the Court should be very
slow in interfering with the correctness of the questions, more
so, when the answers were finalized after taking opinion from the
expert. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in
interfering with the questions in the examination and the learned
Single Judge ought not to have directed the Appellant Board to
delete the four questions from the scheme of examination.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant Board
has further contended that because of the orders passed by the
learned Single Judge, 15,644 vacancies could not be filled
though the final results were already published by the Appellant
Board on 04.10.2023, and because of pendency of the cases and
the present Writ Appeals, the recruitment process is being
delayed. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ
Appeals by setting aside the orders passed by the learned Single
Judge and allow the Writ Appeals filed by the State.
2 (2021)2 SCC 309 9
13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-
candidates in Writ Appeal Nos.1107, 1119 and 1137 of 2023 had
contended that in all, there are nearly another nine questions
which were not considered by the learned Single Judge, and
they have argued that each of the disputed question is defective,
and those questions are capable of yielding multiple answers
and, therefore, final key which was prepared is contrary to
certain Text Books i.e., Intermediate Standard and to that
extent, learned counsel for the appellants-candidates has relied
upon the question Nos.21, 75, 94, 99, 102, 117, 126, 147 and
175 and to demonstrate that these questions are contrary to the
answers furnished in the Text Books, he has contended that the
learned Single Judge ought to have also dealt with in respect of
these questions, as admittedly, the appellants-candidates could
demonstrate before the learned Single Judge with authority that
the answers furnished in the final key, are contrary to the
prescribed Text Books for Intermediate course. 10
14. Learned counsel for the appellants-candidates had
contended that since answers are capable of yielding multiple
answers and that is the reason, the appellants-candidates could
not answer those questions properly and that has caused a great
injustice to the appellants-candidates. Therefore, prays that this
Court may also deal with the questions, which are referred in
these appeals and delete those questions from the scheme of
examination, so as to ensure that the justice is done to all the
candidates. For the mistake committed by the respondents-
Board, the meritorious candidates should not suffer. Therefore,
appropriate orders be passed in the appeals preferred by the
candidates by deleting the questions, such as, question Nos.21,
75, 94, 99, 102, 117, 126, 147 and 175 and thereafter direct the
respondents-Board to finalise the selections, as admittedly,
meritorious candidates would be put to sufferance.
15. Learned counsel for the appellants-candidates had
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Wajda Tabassum and others Vs. National Testing Agency 11
and another 3; wherein it was held that the disputed questions
should be referred to an Independent Expert Body and let the
Independent Expert Body consider all the disputed questions so
that transparency and confidence in the unemployed youth will
be instilled, otherwise, the entire recruitment process would be
completed with incorrect key answers.
16. Learned counsel for the appellants-candidates also
relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Rishal and others Vs. Rajasthan Public Service
Commission and others 4, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has, in fact, directed that the final key along with Expert's
opinion should be furnished to the candidates in order to have
transparency in the recruitment process. No prejudice would be
caused if the disputed questions are referred to an independent
body of experts, as admittedly, expert body was appointed by the
Appellants-Board and the Expert body, which is appointed by
the Appellants-Board will not disagree with the preliminary key
3 Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No.1260 of 2021 dt.30.11.2021 4 (2018)8 SCC 81 12
prepared by the appellants-Board in order to have a
transparency in the entire examination process. Let the
disputed questions be referred to an independent body of
Experts and that exercise can be done by the appellants-Board
within a short period and later the selections can be finalized
depending upon the Expert's Body opinion.
17. Learned counsel for the appellants-candidates had
contended that the appellants-candidates are not contending
that the benefit should be extended only to the appellants-
candidates, but should be extended to all the candidates, who
have appeared for the examination in order to have a
transparency in the system. In the interest of justice, let the
disputed questions be referred to an independent body of
Experts and thereafter, let the selection be finalized depending
upon the opinion of the Independent Body of Experts.
18. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Board
had contended that when once the disputed questions along with 13
objections were referred to a Body of Experts, the question of
referring again to the Body of Experts, would not arise. The
appellants-candidates have not demonstrated before this Court
as to how these questions are incorrect, and in the absence of
the same, the question of referring these questions again to the
Expert Body would not arise.
19. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Board
had further contended that none of the appellants and writ
petitioners, who have approached this Court, have raised any
objection to any of these questions, when opportunity was given
to the writ petitioners/appellants-candidates to file objections.
When they have not filed any objections, the question of
entertaining the writ petitions at the instance of those
candidates, would not arise. Therefore, referring the disputed
questions to another Expert Body of academician is not
warranted as the final key was published only based upon the
Expert Body opinion.
14
20. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Board
had further contended that the issue was considered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta's case (2
supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is not
permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers
and answer-sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission has
assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. Courts have to
show difference and consideration to the recommendation of the
Expert Committee who have the expertise to evaluate and make
recommendations.
21. In the instant case, the disputed questions were
referred to Expert's Body along with the objections and Expert's
Body has opined and finalized the final key. Therefore, the
question of once again referring to an independent body would
not arise.
22. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Board
had further vehemently contended that the issue was considered
in Ran Vijay Singh's case (1 supra), wherein the Hon'ble 15
Supreme Court held that the Court should presume the
correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption
and even if there is any doubt, the benefit should go to the
Examination Authority rather than to the candidates.
Admittedly, if there is any benefit of doubt, it should be given to
the recruitment authority, but not to the candidates and the
learned Single Judge could not have deleted the questions only
on the presumption that the questions are not properly
translated and one of the answers is improperly spelt. Therefore,
there are no merits in the Writ Appeals and the Writ Appeals
filed by the appellants-candidates are liable to be dismissed, and
the Writ Appeals filed by the respondents-Board are deserved to
be allowed.
23. This Court, having considered the rival submissions
made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the
considered view that the learned Single Judge was not justified
in deleting the four questions on the ground that the answers to
the questions were not properly translated in Telugu and the 16
learned Single Judge finding in para No.15, would make it clear
that the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that
the key-answers cannot be interfered with as the final key was
finalised by the Body of Experts and the learned Single Judge
has declined to interfere with in respect of certain question, but
very strangely in the next para, the learned Single Judge has set
aside the four questions on the ground that three questions were
not properly translated in Telugu and in respect of the remaining
one question, it was set aside on the ground that it was not
properly spelt. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single
Judge directing the appellants-Board to delete four questions
from the scheme of examination and finalise the selection is
contrary to law and accordingly, the same is set aside. The
Court should be very slow in adjudicating the matters, more so,
when the team of Experts have held that questions were properly
framed, but in order to instill confidence in the un-employed
youth and when questions are doubted by the candidates in the
form of objections, this Court is of the considered view that in
order to resolve the entire issue once for all, this Court deems it 17
fit and proper to refer all the disputed questions to the Body of
an Independent Experts afresh and finalise the selection after
duly taking the second opinion from the Independent Body of
Experts and this would cause no prejudice to the appellants-
Board nor to the candidates and it would clear the minds of the
un-employed youth and it will instill great confidence in the
recruitment agency itself.
24. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, this Court
directs the appellants-Board to refer the disputed question
Nos.21, 75, 94, 99, 102, 117, 122, 126, 130, 144, 147 and 175
except question No.57, since it is only a spelling mistake, to an
Independent Body of Experts, to be constituted by Osmania
University and the appellants-Board would ensure that the same
Independent Body of Experts, who were part of earlier
Experts/body, may not be the same persons and we expect that
this exercise should be done by the appellants-Board as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this common
judgment and finalise the selections as soon as possible. 18
25. With the above observations, all the Writ Appeals are
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
_______________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
_____________________________________________ JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Date: 04.01.2024 Note:
Issue C.C. in five days (B/o) Bdr/Prv
