Telangana High Court

Mrs. Yashoda Vallaptla vs The State Of Telangana on 14 June, 2024

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                       WRIT PETITION No.1108 of 2024
ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is

filed seeking the following relief:

"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the high-handed action of the Respondent No.2 in treating the preliminary key as final key in all three sessions of computer based test conducted on 02.08.2023, without considering petitioner objections with regard to the incorrect answers and in not awarding another 2 marks for the said

2 questions, as the very action is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to cannons of Natural Justice and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the objections of the petitioner and to award 2 marks for correct answers and to pass..."

2. Heard Ms. M. Shalini, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

learned Government Pleader for Services, on behalf of respondent No.1 and

Ms. K. Udaya Sri, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent

No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2

issued Notification No.3 of 2022 dated 30.12.2022, inviting applications for

5,204 vacancies for the position of Staff Nurses in various departments,

and the petitioner, possessing all the requisite qualifications, applied for

the said post. A total of 40,926 applications were received, exceeding the

capacity available in the State to conduct Computer Based Test in a single

shift. Consequently, the examination was conducted in three shifts on

PK,J

02.08.2023, and the petitioner appeared in the first shift. After the

examination, on 07.08.2023, respondent No.2 released the preliminary

answer key on their website, allowing applicants to review and submit

objections online within a specified period of two days i.e., from 05:00PM

on 07.08.2023 to 05:00PM on 09.08.2023. Pursuant thereto, the

petitioner submitted her objections, along with the supporting

documentary proof from the textbooks suggested/referred by the subject

experts and recommended by the Government Colleges, within the allotted

time frame, regarding two specific questions i.e., Question Nos.2 and 62

(Question IDs: 5262241062 and 5262241046 respectively), for which,

respondent No.2 had provided incorrect answers in the preliminary key.

4. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner had chosen

option No.2 (Hospital) for the question No.2, but the preliminary key listed

the answer as option No.1 (Patient). Additionally, for question No.62, the

petitioner chose option 4 (Iatrogenic infection), while the preliminary key

indicated the correct answer as option 2 (Subclinical infection). Learned

counsel contends that based on verification of authoritative sources

recommended by Government Nursing Colleges, the correct answers for

question Nos. 2 and 62 are option 2 and option 4, respectively. As such,

she submitted her objections to respondent No.2 through the official

website. Despite the incorrect answers in the preliminary key, respondent

PK,J

No.2 finalized the same and issued a web notice on 18.12.2023 stating

that after considering the objections from the applicants, since there was

no deviation between the preliminary key and the final key, the

preliminary key is treated as final key in all three sessions.

5. Learned counsel further contends that respondent No.2 awarded

58.02584 marks to the petitioner without even considering her objections

and if respondent No.2 considers the petitioner's objections for adding

marks to those two questions, then the petitioner would have a higher

chance of selection. However, without correcting the wrong answers,

respondent No.2 released the provisional merit list on 28.12.2023, treating

the preliminary key as the final key, by which action, the petitioner is

aggrieved and her rights are affected adversely. Therefore, the action of

respondent No.2 in finalizing the key without considering the objections

raised by the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of

natural justice. Hence, learned counsel prays this Court to pass

appropriate orders in the present writ petition. In support of her

contentions, learned counsel relied on the decision of the Allahabad Bench

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta 1 and the

1 1983 LawSuit(SC) 277

PK,J

order of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in K. Vinopratha v.

Teachers Recruitment Board 2.

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2,

while admitting the fact that the a notification was issued on 30.12.2022

to fill up 5,204 vacancies of Staff Nurses in various departments, submits

that a total of 40,926 applications were received and keeping in view the

number of applications received, the Computer Based Test was conducted

on 02.08.2023 in three shifts in 39 centers in four cities across the State.

Thereafter, the preliminary key of the examination was released on

07.08.2023, and the applicants were given time until 09.08.2023 to

submit their objections to the preliminary key online. She further submits

that the objections filed by the applicants were examined by the Subject

Experts and based on their inputs, the Key Committee has finalized the

preliminary key, and the same was communicated to the applicants

through web notice on 18.12.2023, and basing on the final key, the

provisional merit list was then prepared on 28.12.2023. Thereafter, the

candidates who were shown in the merit list, including the petitioner

herein, were called for certificates verification. Accordingly, the petitioner

attended the certificate verification on 02.01.2024 and after completion of

the verification process, the cut-off marks for the post of Staff Nurse was

2 2020 LiveLaw (Mad) 459

PK,J

notified on 28.01.2024, and the final merit list for the said post was also

drawn up on the same day. Thereafter, the selected candidates have been

issued the appointment orders on 31.01.2024.

7. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that for question No.2

and question No.62, the preliminary key originally showed option Nos.1

and 2 respectively, as the correct answers, and after receiving objections

from various candidates, the subject experts examined the said questions

and they agreed that the answers provided in the preliminary key are the

appropriate ones and finalized the same in the final key. Learned

Standing Counsel further contends that the textbook of Microbiology filed

by the petitioner does not refer to Subclinical Infection and the answer

selected by the petitioner, i.e., "Iatrogenic Infection", is inappropriate.

Therefore, there is no illegality in the action of respondents in finalizing the

preliminary key after examination by the subject experts. Hence, learned

Standing Counsel prays this Court to dismiss the present writ petition. In

support of her contentions, learned Standing Counsel relied on the

decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. State of

Rajasthan 3, Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 4 and Uttar

Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh 5.

3 2021 (2) SCC 309 4 2018 (2) SCC 357 5 2018 (7) SCC 254

PK,J

8. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by the

respective parties.

9. Admittedly, the Computer Based Test for the post of Staff Nurses,

pursuant to Notification No.3 of 2022 dated 30.12.2022, was conducted on

02.08.2023 in three shifts. After the Computer Based Test was conducted

successfully, respondent No.2 issued the preliminary key and a web notice

on 07.08.2023, inviting objections to the preliminary key, if any, from the

applications from 05:00 PM on 07.08.2023 till 05:00 PM on 09.08.2023. It

was stated that the objections had to be submitted online through the

applicants' web login and any objections received otherwise will not be

considered. Further, the petitioner has submitted her objections to

question Nos.2 and 62, within the stipulated time. The disputed questions

are extracted as under:

Question No.2 (Question ID:5262241062) - Filing of records and reports should be done according to

1. Patient

2. Hospital

3. Ward

4. Area

According to the petitioner, the correct answer is Option No.2 (Hospital).

But according to the subject expert, the correct answer is Option No.1

(Patient).

PK,J

Question No.62 (Question ID:5262241046) - Infection detected while doing diagnostic or therapeutic procedures is termed as

1. Latent Infection

2. Subclinical Infection

3. Nosocomial Infection

4. Iatrogenic Infection

According to the petitioner, the correct answer is Option No.4 (Iatrogenic

Infection). But according to the subject expert, the correct answer is

Option No.2 (Subclinical Infection).

10. For better appreciation of the case on hand, it is pertinent to refer to

the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rahul Singh (referred supra),

and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

"7. In the appeal filed by the Commission it has been urged that the High Court transgressed its jurisdiction and went beyond the scope of judicial review available in such case and it should not have overruled the view of the Commission which was based on the report of two Committees of Experts. On the other hand, one of the original writ petitioners in his appeal claims that as far as the question where the High Court has held more than one answer is correct, the same should be deleted and in respect of another question it is urged that the High Court wrongly accepted the answer of the Commission.

8. What is the extent and power of the Court to interfere in matters of academic nature has been the subject-matter of a number of cases. We shall deal with the two main cases cited before us.

9. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta2, this Court was dealing with a case relating to the Combined Pre-Medical Test. Admittedly, the examination setter himself had provided the key answers and there were no committees to moderate or verify the correctness of the key answers provided by the examiner. This Court upheld the view of the Allahabad High Court that the students had proved that 3 of the key answers were wrong. Following observations of the Court are pertinent:

"16....We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be

PK,J

wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct."

The Court gave further directions but we are concerned mainly with one that the State Government should devise a system for moderating the key answers furnished by the paper setters.

10. In Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P.3, this Court after referring to a catena of judicial pronouncements summarized the legal position in the following terms:

"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:

30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it;

30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;

30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate--it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;

30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and

30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.

11. We may also refer to the following observations in Paras 31 and 32 which show why the Constitutional Courts must exercise restraint in such matters:

"31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re- evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse -- exclude the suspect or offending question.

PK,J

32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination -- whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will get admission in a college or university or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers."

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 case2, the Court recommended a system of -

(1) moderation;

(2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions;

(3) prompt decision 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 answer is better or more correct.

PK,J

14. In the present case we find that all the 3 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 text books. 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.

15. In view of the above discussion we are clearly of the view that the High Court over stepped its jurisdiction by giving the directions which amounted to setting aside the decision of experts in the field. As far as the objection of the appellant - Rahul Singh is concerned, after going through the question on which he raised an objection, we ourselves are of the prima facie view that the answer given by the Commission is correct.

16. In view of the above discussion we allow the appeal filed by the U.P. Public Service Commission and set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. The appeals filed by Rahul Singh and Jay Bux Singh and Others are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of. "

11. In the above-referred judgment, it is categorically held that where

there are conflicting views, the Court must bow down to the opinion of the

experts. It is further held 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 overturn the opinion of the experts.

Therefore, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner

are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

12. At the time of hearing, this Court has called for original record

pertaining to the subject experts' report and perused the same.

13. As regards the question bearing ID 5262241046, a total of 195

objections have been received. Some applicants claimed that the correct

answer is 'Iatrogenic Infection', but according to the subject experts, the

PK,J

correct answer in the preliminary key is 'Subclinical Infection'. Similarly,

for the question bearing ID 5262241062, a total of 11 objections have been

received without any substantiation, and according to the subject experts,

the correct answer in the preliminary key is 'Patient'. Hence, it is clear

that the preliminary key was finalized based on the opinion of the expert

committee, which cannot be found fault with, given that the questions fall

within their domain.