Telangana High Court
Satta Shekhar vs Telanganapublic Service Commission on 15 October, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION Nos.21239 and 22320 OF 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is
intrinsically inter related, they are taken up together, heard and
being disposed of by this common order.
2) W.P. No.21239 of 2024 is filed mainly seeking to declare the
web note dated 19.02.2024 through which the earlier notification
No.04/2022 dated 26.04.2022 was cancelled by the Telangana
Public Service Commission (in short 'Commission') and the
consequential Notification No.02/2024 dated 19.02.2024 was
issued, as illegal, unfair, unconstitutional besides being contrary to
the public interest and mainly contrary to the directions of this
Court in W.P.No.15811 of 2023, dated 23.09.2023, as affirmed by
the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.942 of 2023,
dated 27.09.2023, and consequently to direct the Commission to
conduct fresh preliminary examination in pursuance to notification
No.4/2022 dated 26.04.2022 duly holding the Preliminary
examination held on 09.06.2024 as illegal and unsustainable.
2 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
3) W.P. No.22320 of 2024 is filed mainly questioning the action
of the Commission in not considering the objections raised to the
preliminary key before publishing the list of candidates who cleared
the preliminary examination as illegal and arbitrary and
consequently to cancel the entire preliminary exam held on
09.06.2024.
4) Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioners in
W.P. No.21239 of 2024, Sri Goda Siva, learned Senior counsel,
representing Mrs.Goda RamaLakshmi, learned counsel for the
petitioners, in W.P. No.22320 of 2024, and Sri S.Rahul Reddy,
learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Additional
Advocate General, appearing for the Commission in both the Writ
Petitions.
In W.P. No.21239 of 2024:
5) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that after
bifurcation of erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh into two States, no
fresh Group-I notification was issued till 2022 and it took 8 years
for Telangana Government/TGPSC to issue Group-I notification.
Finally, the Notification No.4/2022, dated 26.04.2022 (A-1), was
3 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
issued for recruitment to the posts of Group-I Services notifying 503
vacancies inviting applications from eligible candidates. The
selection process consists of preliminary examination for 150
marks, objective type through OMR basis, which marks are not
counted for main selection. The successful candidates in
preliminary examination will be allowed to write main examination/
main selection consisting of 7 papers and the marks thereof would
be the basis for final selection. The procedure of interviews is
dispensed with unlike earlier notifications. In pursuance to the
Notification dated 26.04.2022, a preliminary examination was
conducted on 16.10.2022 wherein about 2.8 lakh candidates
appeared by spending their time and energy and even the
Commission has spent huge amounts from the public exchequer to
conduct the preliminary examination. Learned counsel has urged
that due to the incapacity of the Commission in conducting a fool
proof preliminary examination, there was a question paper leakage,
which resulted in cancellation of preliminary examination vide web
note dated 17.03.2023. Thereafter, on 11.06.2023, second
preliminary examination was conducted. However, the issue of
conducting the second preliminary examination fell for
4 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
consideration before this Court in W.P.No.15811 of 2023 wherein
this Court, after noticing several lapses, has allowed the writ
petition on 23.09.2023. Questioning the same, the Commission has
filed W.A. No.942 of 2023 wherein the Division Bench of this Court
has dismissed the appeal on 27.09.2023 confirming the order dated
23.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15811 of
2023. Further, though the Commission has approached the
Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP(C) Diary No.44500 of 2023, the
same was withdrawn on 19.02.2024. On the same day, the
Commission has cancelled the earlier notification dated 26.04.2022
without assigning any specific reasons and simply stating that it is
in public interest, though such cancellation is, in fact, against the
public interest i.e.wasting public exchequer, time and manpower
and delaying the process of filling up the vacant posts, etc. Further,
on the same day i.e. on 19.02.2024, the Commission has issued a
fresh notification No.02/2024 for 563 vacancies (503 old
vacancies+60 new vacancies) inviting applications from eligible
candidates including those who applied earlier and appeared in the
preliminary examination pursuant to notification dated 26.04.2022,
but with fee exemption.
5 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
5.a) Learned counsel has contended that a valid notification dated
26.04.2022 cannot be cancelled by the Commission without any
basis/reason, power and without approval of the Government.
Therefore the very cancellation of the earlier notification dated
26.04.2022 and issuance of second notification dated 19.02.2024 is
illegal, unfair, unsustainable and unconstitutional and such action
of the Commission at its whims and fancies is nothing but abuse of
power. Learned counsel has contended that when the candidates
applied in pursuance to the first notification dated 26.04.2022, it is
an acceptance by the candidates to the offer of the Commission and
therefore the unilateral cancellation of the notification dated
26.04.2022 by the Commission is unsustainable, as both the
parties i.e. the candidates and Commission are bound by the said
notification. Further, the Commission being a Recruiting Agency,
has no business to cancel the very notification that too without
reference to and consulting the appointing authority/State
Government, as seen from the Web Note where there is no reference
of Government's consent for such cancellation. In the whole
process of the employer i.e. Government sending indent to the
Commission, issuance of notification by the Commission, sending
6 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
selection list to the employer, three entities viz., Government,
Commission and Aspirants are involved, out of whom, the
Commission alone has failed in its duty and delayed the process,
which caused detriment to the Government as well as the aspirants.
By cancellation of two preliminary examinations, the Commission
has wasted public exchequer and therefore it cannot attribute
public interest for cancellation of the earlier notification and such
cancellation is against all cannons of justice and absolutely against
public interest. Merely because one stage of selection i.e.conducting
preliminary examination could not be undertaken properly, the
same does not call for cancellation of notification and such
cancellation does not salvage their dented reputation. According to
the learned counsel, the best course available for the Commission is
to set right their house by plugging the loopholes and conduct a
proper and valid preliminary examination but not cancelling the
earlier notification. Further, when the first preliminary examination
was found to be illegal due to paper leakage, the Commission on its
own accord has cancelled the first examination only but not the first
notification dated 26.04.2022. Applying the same analogy, in the
present scenario also, the Commission ought to have cancelled only
7 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
the second preliminary examination rather than cancelling the first
notification dated 26.04.2022 itself. Further, the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.15811 of 2023 while dealing with the second
preliminary examination, has allowed the writ petition only
cancelling the second preliminary examination and also directing to
conduct fresh preliminary examination and the same was confirmed
by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.942 of 2023 vide judgment
dated 27.09.2023. Instead of conducting the preliminary
examination, afresh, the Commission has cancelled the notification
itself, which is not only illegal but also against the directions of this
Court amounting to contempt of this Hon'ble Court. Further, the
Commission having defended the validity of the second preliminary
examination before this Court in W.P.No.15811 of 2023, cannot at a
later point of time take U-turn and cancel the very notification dated
26.04.2022 itself, which does not suit well for the Commission,
which is a Constitutional Body.
5.b) Learned counsel has further contended that the notification
dated 26.04.2022 was issued for filling up of 503 vacancies. The
Commission duly cancelling the said notification dated 26.04.2022
has issued the fresh notification dated 19.02.2024 in respect of 563
8 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
vacancies i.e.adding 60 more vacancies. The cut-off date for age of
the applicants in the notification dated 26.04.2022 was 01.07.2022
whereas in the notification dated 19.02.2024 the cut-off date is
01.07.2024. Thus, the persons who were not eligible as on
01.07.2022 i.e.,the cut-off date in respect of the notification dated
26.04.2022, were made eligible for applying pursuant to the
notification dated 19.02.2024. Thus, by way of the notification
dated 19.02.2024, the Commission made the ineligibles for 503
vacancies as eligible for 563 vacancies, which is impermissible
under the law. Hence, the Commission ought to have confined the
fresh applicants only to the extent of 60 vacancies, which it has not
done. Further, the applicants of the first notification dated
26.04.2022 not only underwent hardship by preparing and
appearing for two preliminary examinations, but also now subjected
to face larger competition. Therefore, the learned counsel has
contended that though one selection process can be conducted for
503 (old) + 60 (new) vacancies due to efflux of time, the
consideration for two different sets of vacancies should be confined
based on the eligibility of the candidates as on 01.07.2022 and
01.07.2024, as the case may be.
9 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
5.c) Learned counsel has further contended that in the notification
dated 26.04.2022, reservation to ST candidates was shown as 6%.
However, in view of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.33, Tribal Welfare
Department, dated 30.09.2022, wherein the said percentage was
enhanced from 6% to 10%, in the subsequent notification dated
19.02.2024, the reservation for ST candidates is increased to 10%,
due to which the vacancies for open category were reduced, which is
unfair and unsustainable. Hence, the Commission ought to have
confined the 10% reservation for ST candidates only to the extent of
60 vacancies i.e. newly added vacancies, but not to total 563
vacancies. Learned counsel has brought to the notice of this Court
that petitioner No.2 herein has challenged G.O.Ms.No.33, dated
30.09.2022 before this Court by way of filing writ petition being
W.P.No.16426 of 2024 and the same is pending adjudication.
5.d) Learned counsel has further contended that the Commission
has issued the notification dated 19.02.2024 fixing the last date for
receipt of applications as 14.03.2024. However, on the said date,
the Commission has issued the web note dated 14.03.2024
extending the date for receipt of applications for two more days i.e.
upto 16.03.2024, on the ground that requests were received from
10 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
several candidates. If such requests are allowed, there cannot be
any finality. Further, it is strenuously contended that when the
Commission has fixed the date and time for receipt of applications,
it is not open for it to flout their own clauses of the notification and
the request of the candidates cannot be the reason for such
extension. The difficulties of those candidates, who requested for
extension, are not forthcoming. According to the learned counsel,
out of 4 lakh candidates, only 2,70,000 candidates have applied
within the time initially fixed by the Commission and the remaining
1,30,000 candidates have applied in the extended time of two days,
which expanded the competition and reduced the chances of
success to those who have applied within the time. There is no
necessity for the Commission to show extra grace and sympathy for
those who failed to apply within time.
5.e) Learned counsel also expressed suspicion as to whether such
huge number of applications were actually received within the
extended period of two days or even after 16.03.2024. In this
regard, learned counsel has contended that in the press note dated
16.03.2024, the Commission claimed that a total of 4.03 lakh
candidates have applied for Group-I services. However, in the Web
11 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
Note dated 21.06.2024, the Commission claimed that they received
4,03,667 applications and that Hall tickets were generated to
4,03,645. Therefore, as per their own admission, there is a
variation of 600, which gives rise to suspicion that the Commission
has received applications beyond the extended date and permitted
them to write preliminary examination. In fact, the second
preliminary examination was canceled on the ground that there
were more number of OMR sheets than claimed by the Commission.
Therefore, on the ground of discrepancy in figures claimed by the
Commission in the Press note dated 16.03.2024 and web note dated
21.06.2024, the preliminary examination is liable to be cancelled.
5.f) Lastly, learned counsel has contended that the preliminary
examination was conducted for 150 marks with four multiple
options. The prelims key was released on 13.06.2024, to which, the
petitioners have raised objections in respect of 15 questions.
Thereafter, the final key was released on 07.07.2024 duly deleting
two questions i.e. Question Nos.56 and 59 and therefore the final
merit list will be for 148 marks. Learned counsel has contended
that in respect of question No.119, there is ambiguity in the
question; wrong option was the answer in respect of question
12 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
Nos.35, 68, 79, 105, 106, 127, 139; question Nos.66 and 112 were
incorrect or no correct answer was given in the options; in respect of
question No.116, given option was wrong; for question No.41, one
correct option was missing; and question Nos.56 and 59 were
deleted.
5.g) Learned counsel has vehemently contended that in view of the
above detailed discrepancies, the Writ Petition has to be allowed and
therefore prayed to issue necessary directions in the Writ Petition.
5.h) Reliance has been placed on the following judgments:
i) Amar Nath Singh v. Union of India 1;
ii) Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India 2;
iii) East Coast Railway v. Mahadev Appa Rao 3;
iv) Mohinder singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi 4;
v) Common order dated 10.05.2024 passed by the Division Bench of High
Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. Nos.8648 of 2019 & batch;
vi) Unreported judgment dated 11.08.2023 passed by the High Court of
Jharkhand at Ranchi in Rajendra Institute of Medical Science v. Ranjan Kumar
Singh;
vii) Union of India v. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu 5;
1 (1998) 3 UPLBEC 1885
2 (1991) 3 SCC 47
3 (2010) 7 SCC 678
4 (1978) 1 SCC 405
5 (2003) 7 SCC 285
13 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
viii) Praveen Singh v. State of Punjab 6;
ix) Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta 7;
x) Unreported order dated 26.04.2024 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Patna, in Dr. Saida Fatima v. AIIMS;
xi) Unreported judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to
Appeal (Civil) No.25157/2023, dated 07.10.2013;
xii) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v.
State of Bihar in Civil Appeal No.9482 of 2019, dated 17.12.2019;
xiii) Krishna Rai v. Banaras Hindu University 8;
xiv) Common order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of
High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No.15701 of 2022 & batch;
xv) Common judgment dated 04.01.2024 passed by the Division Bench of
this Court in W.A. Nos.1089 of 2023 & batch;
xvi) Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India 9; and
xvii) Richal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission 10.
In W.P.No.22320 of 2024.
6) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has
contended that the petitioners have responded to the notification
dated 19.02.2024, appeared for the preliminary examination held
on 09.06.2024 and did the examination well. Further, according to
6 (2000) 8 SCC 633
7 1983 AIR 1230
8 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 553
9 2024 INSC 553
10 (2018) 8 SCC 81
14 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
the learned counsel, the petitioners were also in the list of
candidates shortlisted in the first preliminary examination, which
was canceled due to alleged leakage. To the preliminary key, the
petitioners have responded pointing out the incorrectness of the
key. But, no serious thought was spared to the objections raised by
the petitioners and none of them were accepted by the Commission.
14 questions were corrected based on an erroneous key. Thus, for
150 questions in the preliminary examination, 10% of the marks
have been assessed based on the wrong key, which itself would have
a direct bearing on the marks secured in the preliminary
examination. An error in the exam, which is the foundation for
accentual appointment, is bound to jeopardize the eventual merit
which had to be the only basis on which selections to the top
Executive posts in the State Government are to be made. In view of
the fact that any amount of persuasion with the Commission did
not result much less a positive action of atleast referring the
objections to an expert on the subject to find out the veracity or
otherwise of the objections raised by the petitioners, the petitioners
are left with no other option except to knock the doors of this Court
by way of the present Writ Petition.
15 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
6.a) Learned senior counsel has further submitted that it is the
general principle that the matters of this nature are better left to the
academicians, but in the present case such general theory cannot
be pressed into service as the Commission has never thought it
appropriate to see the logic in atleast those questions, which on the
face of it, have been wrongly decided in the final key. The Judicial
review vested in this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is bound to be used where the Constitutional
Body vested with the duty to pick up the most meritorious
candidates for being recruited in the State Civil Services, has failed
to discharge its duty. Learned senior counsel has submitted that
the petitioners have submitted their objections in respect of
question Nos.41, 56, 66, 68, 79, 106, 112, 113, 114, 116, 119, 125,
127, 139. However, the learned senior counsel has submitted that
he is not pressing for question Nos.56, 58, 125 and 127 and further
he elaborately demonstrated the discrepancies in respect of other
questions i.e. question Nos.41, 66, 66, 79, 106, 112, 113, 114, 116,
119 and 139 duly referring to the material in support of his
contentions. Therefore, the learned senior counsel has prayed this
Court to cancel the entire preliminary examination held on
16 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
09.06.2024. Reliance has been placed on Richal's case (referred
supra).
W.P. Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
7) Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader has
contended that the Commission has conducted preliminary
examination on 09.06.2024 with different question paper sets,
which were formed through the jumbling of questions and options
from the Master Question Paper in 897 Test Centres in entire of
Telangana State. As per the web note of the Commission, around
3,02,172 candidates appeared for the preliminary examination.
Further, the preliminary key along with Master Question Paper was
made available in all the candidates' login on 13.06.2024 and
objections if any on the preliminary key were invited from the
candidates through online from 13.06.2024 to 17.06.2024. Totally,
6417 objections were received from 1721 candidates, including
petitioner No.3 in W.P.No.21239 of 2024 and petitioner No.1 in
W.P.No.22320 of 2024. Learned Special Government Pleader has
submitted that petitioner Nos.1 and 3 in W.P.No.21239 of 2024 are
already qualified in the preliminary examination and admitted to
17 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
write main examination and petitioner No.2 has not qualified.
Therefore, having applied and appeared afresh in pursuance to the
notification No.2/2024, dated 19.02.2024, and only after
declaration of results on 07.07.2024 i.e. after knowing their
position, challenge to the notification is not tenable and the same is
nothing but a malafide intention. After applying for the new
notification and appearing for the preliminary examination, the
petitioners do not have any right to seek cancellation of new
notification No.2/2024.
7.a) It is further submitted that the procedure/selection envisaged
in G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 25.04.2022, for shortlisting the candidates
from Prelims to Mains, which was incorporated in the notification
No.04/2022, dated 26.04.2022, was also challenged before this
Court by several individuals. As per the said G.O., the number of
candidates to be admitted to the written examination i.e. main
examination (conventional type) would be 50 times to the number of
vacancies available in each multi zone duly following rule of
reservation for each community or category. Further, the
Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 08.02.2024, amending
the selection process envisaged under G.O.Ms.No.55, dated
18 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
25.04.2022, in tune with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Baloji
Badhavath [Civil Appeal No.2244 of 2009 arising out of SLP (Civil)
No.18308 of 2008]. Further, the Government has also issued
G.O.Ms.No.16, Finance (HRM-VII) Department, dated 03.02.2024,
identifying 60 new group-I vacancies and in view of the orders of
this Court in Writ Appeal No.942 of 2023 and several other cases
pending adjudication, and in view of the newly issued
G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 08.02.2024, amending procedure for
shortlisting the candidates from Prelims to Main and also in view of
the new indent received for 60 new posts, after detailed deliberation,
the Commission has taken a considered view and cancelled/
withdrawn the Group-I notification No.4/2022, dated 26.04.2022,
and issued the web note on 19.02.2024 cancelling the notification
No.4/2022, dated 26.04.2022, for 503 vacancies in public interest.
Further, as per para 13 of the notification No.4/2022, dated
26.04.2022, the Commission reserves its right to alter and modify
the time and conditions laid down in the notification for conducting
various stages upto selection or withdraw the notification at any
time. Therefore, the Commission has cancelled the old notification
19 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
as per the norms and procedure only and has done so to overcome
the legal hurdles and to incorporate the procedural changes
envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.29 and to expedite the selections, for
which, the applicants are eagerly waiting since a long period of time
and therefore issued the fresh notification to ensure the compliance
of the changed selection process and to ensure that newly added
vacancies are made open to all.
7.b) It is further submitted that the Commission has extended the
last date for submission of online applications for 2 days due to
technical glitches in the server i.e. burden on server due to last date
of submission of online applications. Some of the candidates, who
could not submit their applications due to technical issues, have
requested the Commission to extend the last date for submission of
online applications. Hence, on discussion with the Centre for Good
Governance (CGG), the CGG has also informed that on last date of
submission of online applications, there was technical problem and
based on the inputs received from CGG, the last date for
submission of online applications was extended for two days i.e.
from 15.03.2024 to 16.03.2024 and the same was informed to all
through web note dated 14.03.2024 hosted on Commission's web
20 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
note. Further, on 15.03.2024 and 16.03.2024, 13136 and 16027
candidates have submitted their applications respectively.
7.c) As regards enhancement of ST reservation from 6% to 10%, it
is contended that the Commission has strictly observed Rule 22 of
Telangana State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1996, while
implementing Rule of Reservation for various categories, at the time
of filling up of vacancies in various recruitments. The percentage of
reservation for each community is stipulated therein and the same
would be provided accordingly. After formation of State of
Telangana, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.33, Tribal
Welfare Department, dated 30.09.2022 enhancing the reservation
for STs from 6% to 10% in educational Institutions and State
Services. In pursuance thereof, the Government vide
G.O.Ms.No.130, GAD (Ser-D) Department, dated 09.11.2022, has
amended Rule 22 of Telangana State and Subordinate Service
Rules, 1996, suitably. Further, when Group-I notification
No.4/2022 was issued, the ST reservation was only 6%, and since
the Government enhanced the same from 6% to 10% before the new
Group-I notification is issued, the Commission was bound to
implement the enhanced reservation in the new Group-I
21 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
notification. In fact, for all the recruitment notifications issued after
09.11.2022, the ST reservation has been enhanced to 10%. As
such, the issue raised by the petitioners in W.P.No.21239 of 2024 is
not within the purview of the Commission to enhance or reduce the
reservation for any community or category since it is only a
recruitment agency and only implements the rules which are in
force as on the date of notification.
7.d) It is further contended that Notification No.2/2024, dated
19.02.2024, is issued in respect of 563 vacancies. As the old
Notification No.4/2022 was cancelled/withdrawn by the
Commission on 19.02.2024 and Notification No.2/2024, dated
19.02.2024, is issued. Further, the candidates who applied for the
old Notification were also been mandated to apply afresh for the new
notification, however, the fee payable was waived. Therefore, the
candidates who applied for the old notification as well as the new
notification have to be treated equally and as per the recruitment
rules, all the eligible candidates have to be treated alike and there
cannot be any discrimination.
22 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
7.e) Insofar as objections to the preliminary key are concerned, it
is submitted that the Commission, after receipt of objections from
the candidates, has constituted Subject Expert Committee (with
experienced Professors from reputed Institutions from across the
Country) to scrutinize all the online objections received from the
candidates on the provisional key. While calling for the objections
on the preliminary key, the candidates were asked to raise the
objections with relevant proof along with source and proper
justification for their stand. The objections so received were
classified subject-wise and were placed before the concerned subject
Expert Committee. Accordingly, the Subject Expert Committee has
verified all the objections with authentic sources in detail and
furnished its recommendations. Based on the said recommenda-
tions, the Commission has approved the final key and hosted the
same on its website on 07.07.2024, duly deleting question Nos.56
and 59 of Master Question Paper and changing the key option from
'2' to '1' in respect of question No.115. For the deleted questions,
marks were awarded to each candidate proportionately and on the
same day Preliminary examination results were released.
23 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
7.f) It is further submitted that as per the records, only petitioner
No.1 in W.P.No.22320 of 2024 viz., Gangula Damodar Reddy has
raised objections online in Commission's website within the
prescribed time whereas the other petitioners have not raised any
objection to any of the questions. Learned Special Government
Pleader has strenuously contended that all the objections raised by
petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.22320 of 2024 were referred to the
Subject Expert Committee, which after detailed consideration of the
issue, has submitted its report holding that all the objections raised
by petitioner No.1 were invalid except question No.59, which was
already deleted. As regards question Nos.56, 68, 112, 113, 114,
125 and 127, it is contended that petitioner No.1 has not raised any
objections on the said questions when an opportunity has been
given to the candidates to raise objections on the preliminary key.
After the final key is published and Preliminary Examination results
were declared on 07.07.2024, petitioner No.1 has approached this
Court along with other petitioners stating that they have issues with
the above questions, for which they never raised objections within
stipulated time, which is not tenable and acceptable as per the
norms and procedure.
24 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
7.g) Insofar as W.P.No.21239 of 2024 is concerned, petitioner
Nos.1 and 2 have not submitted online objections on the
preliminary key within the stipulated time. Petitioner No.3 has only
raised objections in respect of question Nos.41, 35, 56, 59, 66, 68,
79, 105, 106, 112, 116, 119, 127 and 139, within the stipulated
time. All the above objections were rejected by the Subject Expert
Committee stating as invalid, except question No.59. In respect of
question No.59, based on the Subject Expert Committee's report,
the said question was deleted. Thus, it is strenuously contended
that the objections raised have been evaluated by the Subject
Expert Committee and as per its recommendations, the final key
was published and Preliminary Examination results were declared
on 07.07.2024. Therefore, the learned Special Government Pleader
has submitted that both the writ petitions are devoid of merits and
are liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on:
i) Order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos.16134-16135
of 2022;
ii) Madras Institute of Development Studies v. K.Sivasubramaniyan 11;
iii) Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 12;
11 (2016) 1 SCC 454
12 (2018) 2 SCC 357
25 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
iv) Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta (referred supra);
v) Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan 13;
vi) Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar 14; and
vii) Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh 15;
8) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the
respective counsel and perused the material on record.
9) A perusal of the record discloses that in response to the
notification No.02/2024, dated 19.02.2024, all the petitioners have
applied and appeared in the preliminary examination, which was
held on 09.06.2024. Thereafter, the preliminary key was released
on 13.06.2024 inviting objections from the candidates through
online from 13.06.2024 to 17.06.2024, for which, admittedly
petitioner No.3 in W.P. No.21239 of 2024 and petitioner No.1 in
W.P. No.22320 of 2024 only submitted their objections within the
stipulated time. Thereafter, based on the recommendations made
by the Subject Expert Committee, the Commission has hosted the
final key on the website on 07.07.2024. As per the Report of the
Subject Expert Committee, the Commission has made three
13 (2021) 2 SCC 309
14 (2017) 4 SCC 357
15 (2018) 7 SCC 254
26 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
modifications to the preliminary key i.e. deletion of question Nos.56
and 59 of the Master Question Paper and change of the option from
'2' to '1' in respect of question No.115 of the Master Question Paper.
According to the respondents, for the deleted questions, marks were
P
awarded by applying the formula ( P− Q) X R ['P' refers to total
number of questions in the question paper; 'Q' refers to total
number of questions deleted from the question paper; and 'R' refers
to number of questions marked correctly by the candidate].
Further, on the same day i.e. on 07.07.2024, the results of the
preliminary examination were published. Thereafter, in the month
of August, the present writ petitions are filed seeking multifarious
reliefs, as stated supra.
10) Here, it is pertinent to note relevant events in chronological
order. Notification No.02/2024 was issued on 19.02.2024;
Preliminary examination was held on 09.06.2024; Preliminary Key
was published on 13.06.2024 inviting objections; last date for
submission of objections was 17.06.2024; and W.P.No.21239 of
2024 was filed in the month of August, while the Main Examination
is scheduled on 21.10.2024, as submitted by the parties during the
27 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
course of arguments. Thus, after a lapse of six months from the
date of cancellation of old notification, the petitioners approached
this Court without assigning any reasons for delay, much less, day-
to-day delay. If the petitioners in W.P.No.21239 of 2024 are really
aggrieved by the cancellation of notification No.4/2022, dated
26.04.2022, through web note dated 19.02.2024, they ought to have
approached this Court and challenged the same at the earliest point
of time itself. Though the delay on the part of the petitioners
appears to be only six months, but, in a matter of this nature, the
day-to-day delay matters and further the petitioners failed to
explain even a single reason for the delay in approaching this Court.
Therefore, on this ground alone, this Court is not inclined to
entertain Writ Petition No.21239 of 2024, without adverting to the
other grounds raised therein, except the objections raised by
petitioner No.3 to the preliminary key, since this Court is of the view
that the question of delay does not attract to the objections raised
by petitioner No.3 before the Commission within the stipulated time.
Further, though the learned counsel has strenuously advanced his
arguments on the principle of estoppel and the same was equally
rebutted by the learned Special Government Pleader, it is made
28 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
clear that this Court is not inclined to enter into that aspect of the
matter, in view of delay in filing the writ petition.
11) In W.P.No.21239 of 2024, the petitioners have raised
objections to the Preliminary Key in respect of question Nos.119, 35,
68, 79, 105, 106, 127, 139, 66, 112, 116, 41, 56 and 59. However,
before the Commission, only petitioner No.3 has raised objections,
within the stipulated time, in respect of question Nos.41, 59, 66,
106, 116 and 119. Hence, this Court is inclined to adjudicate only
on the objections raised before the Commission, except question
No.59, which was already deleted in the final key.
12) Insofar as W.P.No.22320 of 2024 is concerned, though the
said writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the
preliminary key disputing 14 questions, at the time of arguments,
learned senior counsel has confined the claim of the petitioners only
in respect of 8 questions i.e. question Nos.41, 66, 79, 106, 112,
113, 114 and 119. However, petitioner No.1 filed objections before
the Commission only in respect of question Nos.41, 66, 79, 106,
116, 119 and 139. Hence, this Court is inclined to adjudicate only
on the objections raised before the Commission.
29 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
13) Since the objections to be adjudicated by this Court in
W.P.No.21239 of 2024 i.e. question Nos.41, 66, 106, 116 and 119
are already covered by the objections to be adjudicated by this
Court in W.P.No.22320 of 2024 i.e. question nos.41, 66, 79, 106,
116, 119 and 139, all the objections are dealt with together in the
preceding paragraphs.
14) For better adjudication, relevant events are recorded
hereunder in a chronological order, at the cost of repetition:
i) Notification No.2/2024 was issued on 19.02.2024.
ii) Preliminary examination was conducted on 09.06.2024.
iii) Preliminary key was published on 13.06.2024 inviting
objections from the candidates through online from 13.06.2024 to
17.06.2024. Here, it is relevant to note that while calling for the
objections on the Preliminary Key, the candidates were asked to
produce relevant material and proper justification for their stand.
iv) In total 6147 objections were received through online from
1721 candidates, including petitioner No.3 in W.P.No.21239 of 2024
and petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.22320 of 2024.
30 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
v) On receipt of the objections, the Commission has constituted
subject-wise Committees with experienced Professors from reputed
Institutions throughout India to scrutinize the online objections
received from the candidates on the preliminary key. Further, the
objections received from the candidates were categorized subject-
wise and were placed before the concerned Expert Committee.
vi) Accordingly, the objections received on preliminary key were
examined in detail by the Subject Expert Committee. Thereafter,
the Committee has furnished its recommendations on the objections
received by the Commission. Based on the recommendations of the
Subject Expert Committee, the Commission has deleted question
Nos.56 and 59 of the Master Question Paper and changed the
option from '2' to '1' in respect of question No.115.
vii) The Commission has approved the final key and hosted on its
website on 07.07.2024 duly awarding marks for the deleted
P
questions by adopting the formula (P− Q ) X R ['P' refers to total
number of questions in the question paper; 'Q' refers to total
number of questions deleted from the question paper; and 'R' refers
to number of questions marked correctly by the candidate].
31 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
15) The case of the petitioners herein is that the respondents have
released the final key without considering their objections to the
preliminary key. At the cost of repetition, it is pertinent to mention
that only petitioner No.3 in W.P. No.21239 of 2024 raised objections
before the Commission in respect of Question Nos.41, 59, 66, 106,
116 and 119 while petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.22320 of 2024 raised
objections in respect of Question Nos.41, 66, 79, 106, 116, 119 and
139, within the time stipulated by the Commission vide web note
dated 13.06.2024 prescribing the last date for submission of
objections through online as 17.06.2024.
16) According to the respondents all the objections, which were
raised by petitioner No.3 in W.P. No.21239 of 2024 and petitioner
No.1 in W.P. No.22320 of 2024, have been presented before the
Expert Committee at the time of finalization of final key and are
once again presented before the Subject Expert Committee for
re-check as to whether those objections are valid or not. The
following are the complete details of the objections raised by these
petitioners and detailed comments received from the Subject Expert
Committee in regard thereof.
32 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
(a) Question No.41 of the Master Question Paper:
Match the following Acts/Rules in India with respect to their year of
passing:
Act/Rule in India Year of Passing
A. Forest (Conservation) Act I. 2010
B. National Green Tribunal Act II. 2016
C. Wild Life (Protection) Act III. 2002
D. Hazardous Wastes (Management IV. 1972
Handlilng and Transboundary
Movement) First Amendment Rules
E. Biological Diversity Act V. 1980
VI. 2020
Choose the correct answer.
(1) A-V; B-I; C-IV; D-III; E-VI
(2) A-I; B-IV; C-V; D-III; E-II
(3) A-VI; B-V; C-IV; D-II; E-III
(4) A-V; B-I; C-IV; D-II; E-III
Learned senior counsel has contended that the question was
about 'Hazardous Wastes' and not about 'Hazardous and Other
Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement)
Rules' and therefore the answer i.e. the year of passing of Rules
should have been 2009 and not 2016 as claimed by the Commission
in the Final Key. Disputing the same, learned Special Government
Pleader has contended that in suppression of Hazardous Waste
(Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules,
2008, the Government of India has issued Hazardous and Other
33 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement)
Rules, 2016 and therefore the question relates to Rules 2016. As
such, the correct answer is '2016' only.
(b) Question No.66 of the Master Question Paper:
Consider the following statements related to the Mumbai Trans Harbour
Link (MTHL)
A. It is a Road Bridge connecting Mumbai city with
Navi Mumbai.
B. It begins in Parel, South Mumbai and crosses Thane
Creek and terminates at Chirle Village, near Nhava Sheva
Which of the above statements is/are correct?
(1) A only (2) B only
(3) Both A and B (4) Neither A nor B
Learned senior counsel has contended that a casual look at
the statement would make it clear that the said Harbour link is not
a Road Bridge. Therefore, the correct option should have been '4'
i.e. 'neither A nor B' as both statements are incorrect and not '1' as
claimed by the Commission in the Final Key. Disputing the same,
learned Special Government Pleader has contended that The
Mumbai Trance Harbour Link is a 21.8 km Road Bridge connecting
the Indian city of Mumbai with Navi Mumbai and same is evident
from the website of The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development
34 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
Authority (MMRDA), which has taken up the said project. Therefore
the Commission has issued the final key correctly.
(c) Question No.79 of the Master Question Paper:
Consider the following statements about religious conditions under
Kakatiyas:
A. Shaivism flourished.
B. Jain Temples were destroyed.
C. No Vaishnavacharya was mentioned in any of the
inscriptions of the Kakatiya rulers.
D. There was no rivalry between Shaivism and Vaishnavism in general.
Which one of the above statements are correct.
(1) A and B only (2) A. B and C only
(3) A, B, C and D (4) B and D only
Learned senior counsel has contended that as the fourth
statement i.e. 'there was no rivalry between Shaivism and
Vaishnavism in general' is incorrect, the correct option should be '2'
but not '3' as claimed by the Commission. Disputing the same,
learned Special Government Pleader has contended that as seen
from the standard work written by G.Yazdani, there is no evidence
to show that there was any rivalry between Shaivism and
Vaishnavism in Kakatiya Kingdom.
35 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
(d) Question No.106 of the Master Question Paper:
Which of the following was the Mahasanghika centre during the
Vishnukundin period in Telangana?
A. Bavapuri B. Keesara
C. Kallavheruvu D. Indrapalanagaram.
Learned senior counsel has contended that the correct answer
for the said question is option '2' and not '4' as claimed by the
Commission. Disputing the same, learned Special Government
Pleader has contended that Keesara was the Mahayaana Centre and
not Mahasanghika Centre and therefore the correct option is '4' and
not '2' as claimed by the petitioners.
(e) Question No.116 of the Master Question Paper:
Identify the correct pair of the following:
(1) Suravaram Pratapa Reddy - Golconda Panditula Sanchika
(2) Kodati Narayana Rao - Bala Sundair
(3) Punna Anjaiah - Neelagiri Kavula Sanchika
(4) Rallapalli Anantha Krishna Sastry - Palle Patalu
Learned senior counsel has contended that as per the
Commission option (3) is the correct answer. In other words, as per
the Commission, 'Punna Anjaiah' wrote the book 'Neelagiri Kavula
Sanchika', but, in fact, 'Punna Anjaiah' wrote the book 'Neelagiri
36 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
Kavula Charitra'. Since the very book authored by Punna Anjaiah is
wrongly mentioned, the question itself is wrong and the answer is
also bound to be wrong. Disputing the same, learned Special
Government Pleader has contended that as per the Subject Expert
Committee, Punna Anjaiah wrote the book 'Nilagiri Kavula
Sanchika' in the year 1990 in addition to 'Neelagiri Kavula
Charithra'. Therefore, the key is correct.
(f) Question No.119 of the Master Question Paper:
Which of the following Article of the Indian Constitution is not related to
economic safeguards provided to the Scheduled Castes?
(1) Article 23 (2) Article 46
(3) Article 24 (4) Article 34
Learned senior counsel has contended that as Article 23 and
Article 24 never speak of economic safeguards provided to the
Scheduled Castes, the question itself suffers from ambiguity.
Disputing the same, learned Special Government Pleader has
contended that as per the Subject Expert Committee, Articles 23, 24
and 46 form part of the economic safeguards for the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes. As Article 34 is completely unrelated
to the expected answer to the question, both in its text and context,
the correct option is '4'.
37 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
(g) Question No.139 of the Master Question Paper:
Is y > x?
Statements:
I. x ≠ 0, xy > xq => y<q II. Y ≠ 0, l/y<x/y => l<x
Choose the right option among the following:
(1) Only I is sufficient to answer the question.
(2) Only II is sufficient to answer the question.
(3) Both I and II together are sufficient to answer the question.
(4) Neither I nor II is sufficient to answer the question.
Learned senior counsel has contended that since the date
given was insufficient for arriving at the conclusion, the option
ought to have been (4), but the answer was shown as option (3).
Disputing the same, learned Special Government Pleader while
referring to certain mathematical calculations has contended that
as per the Subject Expert Committee, the correct option is '3'.
17) This Court has also analysed the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases as well as the
learned Special Government Pleader based on the material filed by
both the parties.
18) Here, it is pertinent to note that on OMR sheet, the
Commission has printed certain instructions to be followed by the
38 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
candidates and the following instruction is relevant in the present
context:
"(i) While answering, choose the BEST alternative
answer from the 4 choices given below the question and
darken the same in the corresponding circle in the OMR
sheet."
19) Having given conscious consideration to the objections raised
by the learned counsel and rebuttal by the learned Special
Government Pleader including the material produced by the parties
analysed the answers mainly keeping in view the instructions of the
Commission issued to the candidates, referred supra, and being
satisfied with the same, this Court is of the view that the contention
of the Commission that in an examination for recruitment to the top
Executive posts in the State Government, the candidates cannot
expect a direct question for answering, cannot be brushed aside and
the action of the respondents in posing twisted questions for
making the most qualified persons to be eligible for the further
selection process cannot be faulted with. Further, it is to be noted
that Preliminary examination is not the only criteria for selection to
Group-I Service rather it is only qualifying in nature and candidates
39 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
to be admitted to the main examination would be fifty (50) times to
the total number of vacancies available in each multizone.
20) This Court deems it appropriate to refer some of the
judgments holding the field on the law of 'Expert Opinion'.
20.1) Further, while dealing with similar issue, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in SLP No.16134-16135 of 2022 has held as under:
"Courts will have to be cautious and therefore slow in
dealing with recruitment process adopted by the recruitment
agency. A lot of thought process has gone into applying the rules
and regulations. Merely because a recruitment agency is not in a
position to satisfy the Court, a relief cannot be extended to a
candidate deprived as it will have a cascading effect not only on
the said recruitment of Respondent No.1, but also to numerous
others as well. In such view of the matter, courts are duty bound
to take into consideration the relevant orders, rules and
enactments before finally deciding the case."
20.2) Further, in Ran Vijay Singh's case (referred supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
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
40 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
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.
(emphasis supplied)
20.3) Similarly, in Vikesh Kumar Gupta's case (referred supra),
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
"15. Examining the scope of judicial review with regards to re-
evaluation of answer sheets, this Court in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of
U.P. held that the court should not re-evaluate or scrutinise the
answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matters
and the academic matters are best left to academics. This Court in
the said judgment further held as follows:
41 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
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.
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 large 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
42 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
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."
16. In view of the above law laid down by this Court, it was not
open to the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of the
questions and the answer key to come to a conclusion different from
that of the expert committee in its judgment dated 12-3-2019.
Reliance was placed by the appellants on Ricahl v. Rajasthan Public
Service Commission. In the said judgment, this Court interfered with
the selection process only after obtaining the opinion of an expert
committee but did not enter into the correctness of the questions and
answers by itself. Therefore, the said judgment is not relevant for
adjudication of the dispute in this case.
17. A perusal of the above judgments would make it clear
that courts should be very slow in interfering with expert
opinion in academic matters. In any event, assessment of the
questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not
permissible. The delay in finalisation of appointments to public
posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging
selections pending in courts for a long period of time. The
cascading effect of delay in appointments is the continuance of
those appointed on temporary basis and their claims for
regularisation. The other consequence resulting from delayed
43 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
appointments to public posts is the serious damage caused to
administration due to lack of sufficient personnel.
(emphasis supplied)
20.4) Further, in Ashok Kumar's case (referred supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paras 1, 11, 12, 19, 21, stated as under:
"1. This appeal arises from a judgment and order of a Division
Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 16-12-2011
which allowed a letters patent appeal instituted by the ninth to
fourteenth respondent. The Division Bench set aside the judgment
and order of the learned Single Judge dated 9-11-2010 by which
selections made by promotion from Class IV posts to Class III posts
in the District Court of Muzaffarpur were quashed. The Division
Bench has held that the original petitioners who succeeded before
the learned Single Judge in challenging the process of promotion
were estopped from doing so, having unsuccessfully participated in
the selection process.
11. The basic issue that was addressed by the Division bench
was that the appellants having participated in the fresh round of
selection could not be permitted to assail the process once they were
declared unsuccessful. On this aspect, a brief recapitulation of the
facts would be in order. In the original process of selection, following
the issuance of Gneral Order No.204 of 2003 by the District and
Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur on 2-12-2003, a written examination
was held on 20-4-2004 consisting of eighty-five marks followed by an
interview on 7-7-2004 consisting of fifteen marks. The High Court
declined to approve the selection list and issued through its Registrar
(Administration), a communication dated 19-8-2004 requiring the
holding of a fresh written examination carrying ninety marks in
44 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
which the qualifying marks would be regarded as forty-five in terms
of its General Letter No.1 of 1995. Pursuant thereto, a circular was
issued in the form of a new general order bearing No.171 of 2004 on
8-10-2004 which stipulated that in terms of the directions issued by
the High Court on 19-8-2004, a fresh written examination would be
held carrying ninety marks (with qualifying marks as forty-five)
followed by ban interview of ten marks. The candidates who had
applied earlier were not required to apply afresh.
12. The appellants participated in the fresh process of
selection. If the appellants were aggrieved by the decision to hold a
fresh process, they did not espouse their remedy. Instead, they
participated in the fresh process of selection and it was only upon
being unsuccessful that they challenged the result in the writ
petition. This was clearly not open to the appellants. The principle
of estoppel would operate.
19. In the present case, regard must be had to the fact that the
appellants were clearly on notice, when the fresh selection process
took place that written examination would carry ninety marks and
the interview, ten marks. The appellants participated in the
selection process. Moreover, two other considerations weigh in
balance. The High Court noted in the impugned judgment that the
interpretation of Rule 6 was not free from vagueness. There was, in
other words, no glaring or patent illegality in the process adopted by
the High Court. There was an element of vagueness about whether
Rule 6 which dealt with promotion merely incorporated the
requirement of an examination provided in Rule 5 for direct
recruitment to Class III posts of whether the marks and qualifying
marks were also incorporated. Moreover, no prejudice was
established to have been caused to the appellants by the 90 : 10
allocation.
45 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
21. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench cannot held
to be in error in coming to conclusion that it was not open to the
appellants after participating in the selection process to question the
result, once they were declared to be unsuccessful....."
20.5) In Rahul Singh's case (referred supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court while dealing with similar issue, has held as under:
"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 case
(supra), 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
46 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
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."
(emphasis supplied)
21) All the above judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
categorically affirm that the Experts opinion must prevail and the
Courts cannot substitute their wisdom over and above the Expert
opinion. The matters of a technical nature should at best be left to
the decision of the expert bodies and further expert opinions cannot
be pressed into service in order to enable the court to substitute its
own approach to the one which has already been taken by
an expert panel. The findings of expert bodies in technical and
scientific matters would not ordinarily be interfered with by the
Courts in exercise of their power under Article 226 of the
47 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
Constitution. The Courts cannot and shall not ignore or substitute
the opinion given by the experts based upon relevant materials
placed before them. In the case on hand, the Commission has
specifically asserted and affirmed that the Subject Expert
Committee has considered 6417 objections raised by 1721
candidates, including some of the petitioners herein, and only based
on the report of the Subject Expert Committee, the final key has
been published on 07.07.2024. Further, on the same day, based on
the final key Preliminary Examination results were published and
31,382 candidates have been qualified @ 1:50 ratio to the total
number of vacancies, for the main examination, which is scheduled
in October, 2024.
22) Coming to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Richal's case (referred supra), on which, reliance has been placed
by the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.22320 of 2024,
absolutely there is no dispute with the law laid down therein. But,
on facts, the said judgment is distinguishable, as in the present
case, this Court is satisfied with the answers demonstrated by the
respondents, along with relevant material, to the objections raised
by petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.22320 of 2024.
48 PK, J
W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024
23) As stated supra, this Court has adjudicated W.P.No.21239 of
2024 only to the extent of objections raised by petitioner No.3 before
the Commission. Therefore, the judgments relied by the learned
counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.21239 of 2024 are of no avail
to them.
24) In that view of the matter and for the reasons detailed in the
preceding paragraphs, this Court is of the considered view that both
the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
25) Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________
PULLA KARTHIK, J
Date : 15-10-2024.
sur
