Tripura High Court

The State Of Tripura vs Smt. Sangita Chakraborty on 4 July, 2022

                                      Page - 1 of 16

                              HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                    AGARTALA

                                 WA No. 31 of 2020
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Secretary cum Commissioner, School Education Department,
Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, PO
Kunjaban, PS New Capital Complex, Sub-Division Sadar, District West Tripura, PIN
799006
2. The Chairman,
Teacher‟s Recruitment Board, Tripura, Education (School) Department, Government
of Tripura, Shiksha Bhavan, Sub-Division Sadar, District West Tripura, PIN 799001
3. The Controller of Examinations,
Teacher‟s Recruitment Board (TRBT), Education (School) Department, Government
of Tripura, Shiksha Bhavan, Sub-Division Agartala, District West Tripura, PIN
799001
                                                                   ----- Appellant(s)
                                      Versus
Smt. Sangita Chakraborty,
Wife of Sri Runu Chakraborty, resident of Village Purva Ramchandraghat, PO
Ramchandraghat, District Khowai Tripura, Pin 799207
                                                          -----Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s)                      :        Mr. D Bhattacharya, GA.
                                               Mr. P. Saha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)                     :        Mr. Kousik Roy, Advocate.
Date of Hearing                       :        21st June, 2022.
Date of Pronouncement                 :        4th July, 2022.
Whether fit for reporting             :        YES

                                   B_E_F_O_R_E_

HON‟BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY

JUDGMENT & ORDER

[Per S.G. Chattopadhyay], J

This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated

22.01.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.1024 of 2019.

[2] The Factual background of the case is as under:

Petitioner Smt. Sangita Chakraborty (respondent herein), after

obtaining a Bachelor degree in Arts (BA) from Kamalpur Government Degree

WA No.31 of 2020 Page - 2 of 16

College in 2006 and 2 years diploma in elementary education appeared in Tripura

Teachers‟ Eligibility Test (T-TET in short) held on 30.12.2018 to qualify for

appointment as a teacher in elementary school. Tentative result of the test was

declared on 01.01.2019 and the candidates were asked to offer feedback. After

obtaining feedback from the candidates, final result of T-TET was published on

14.01.2019. The respondent came out to be unsuccessful because she could not

score minimum 60% marks in the said examination. She scored 88 out of 150

marks which was less than 60%. Respondent challenged the result on the ground

that she wrote correct answers to question Nos.101, 79, 41, 69, 82 and 83 but the

appellant erroneously held that her answers were incorrect. It would be appropriate

to reproduce the answers given by the respondent and the answers which are

correct according to the appellant in a tabular form which are as under:

 Sl. No.               Question                Answer given      by Answer in the final
                                               the petitioner       Result Sheet (Page
                                                                    19)
      1.      Question No.101: The             A. Jharia Mines      B. Gevra Mines
              largest coal mine of India is-
              A. Jharia Mines, B. Gevra
              Mines, C. Singareni Mines, D.
              None of the above.
      2.      Question No.79:‟Hawa‟            C. Tatsham           A. Arabi
              and „Lal‟, both the words
              are-
              A. Arabi, B. Deshi, C.
              Tatsham, D. None of the
              above.
      3.      Question       No.41:      We    A. Upto              C. As far as
              walked_____the edge of
              the desert-
              A. Upto, B. Until, C. As far
              as, D. None of the above.
      4.      Question No.69: When             B. 1912              C. 1910
              was Rabindranath Tagore‟s
              „Gitanjali‟ Novel Published-
              A. 1913, B. 1912, C. 1910,
              D. None of the above.
      5.      Question       No.82:      The
              students       like      those
              teachers, who are-


WA No.31 of 2020
                                          Page - 3 of 16

              A. Who runs as per

Student‟s dictation, B. Who C. Who can tell good allows leave now and then, stories D. None of the above C. Who can tell good stories, D. None of the above.

      6.      Question      No.83:      The B. Hearing attentively A.     Right      voice
              language to be learnt                                pronunciation
              properly for which the
              important thing is that-
              A.         Right         voice
              pronunciation, B. Hearing
              attentively, C. Speaking, D.
              None of the above.

[3]                 Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the result, the respondent

approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.1024 of 2019 claiming that she gave

correct answers on the basis of her knowledge which she gathered from the books

approved by Tripura Board of Secondary Education but the appellant did not give

any mark even for the correct answers given by her. As a result, she was declared

unsuccessful. The respondent claimed the following reliefs:

                   "(a)    Admit this petition,
                   (b)     Call for the records,
                   (c)     Issue notice upon the respondents.
                                                  AND

After hearing would be pleased to set aside/quash/cancel the Letter vide No.F.1(1-15)/TRBT/ESTD/2019/103 issued by the respondent No.2 dated 02.07.2019.

AND Would further be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner, as a selected one in the Examination held on 30.12.2018.

AND To pass any other Order/Orders as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper."

[4] The appellants who were the respondents before the learned Single

Judge filed counter affidavit asserting that feedbacks received from the candidates

after publication of the tentative answer key on 01.01.2019 were examined by the

subject experts and only thereafter the final answer sheet was prepared and

published on 14.01.2019 by the Teachers‟ Recruitment Board, Tripura (TRBT)

WA No.31 of 2020 Page - 4 of 16

completely on the basis of expert opinion. The relevant extract of the counter

affidavit of the State respondents filed before the learned Single Judge is as under:

"7. That, in reply to the contentions or averments made in Para 2.3 of the Writ Petition, It is stated that the Tentative Answer Key was published on 01.01.2019 inviting feedback from candidates. The Feedbacks were examined by Subject expert. After that the Final Answer Key was prepared and published on 14.01.2019 by Teachers‟ Recruitment Board, Tripura (TRBT) based on the opinion given by experts on feedbacks submitted by candidates. TRBT Published the result based on final answer key on 08.02.2019.

The copy of Tentative Answer Key and Final Answer Key is marked as Annexure-R/2 & Annexure-R/3 respectively.

Notice of Tentative Answer Key is marked as Annexure R/4.

8. That, in reply to the contentions or averments made in Para 2.4 of the Writ Petition, It is submitted that the petitioner got 88 out of 150 which is 2 marks short of pass mark i.e. 90. The result was prepared and published on 08.02.2019 based on the final answer key. T-TET certificate is given to all candidates who obtained pass mark fulfilling all eligibility criteria.

I deny and dispute the other contentions except the matter of record.

9. That in regard to the statements made in Para 2.5 of the Writ Petition it is stated that the SPIO of Teachers Recruitment Board has replied to the petitioner. TRBT prepared the final Answer key only after the challenges/feedbacks are examined by subject experts. The opinion of Expert is treated as final. The Board can not alter the opinion of the expert. The same is written in the Prospectus cum Instructions also."

[5] The State respondents filed an additional counter affidavit on

20.01.2020 claiming as under:

"3. That, I humbly submit that one of the essential qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in elementary stage is that he/she should pass Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). TET is conducted in two papers, viz. Paper-I for the teachers for classes I-V and Paper-II for the teachers for the classes VI-VIII. Total marks for each paper is 150 in 5(five)/4(four) subjects. A candidate who secures 60% marks in TET will be declared as pass. Relaxation of 5% marks has been allowed for SC/ST/PH candidates in Tripura. The validity of the TET pass Certificate shall remain for seven years. Due weightage is given to TET pass candidates during recruitment of teachers in elementary stage. However, appearing/qualifying in Teacher Eligibility Test will not confer the right to claim for appointment/engagement for any post of teachers.

WA No.31 of 2020 Page - 5 of 16

In any schools as referred to above. In Tripura T-TET is being conducted every year through Teachers Recruitment Board, Tripura (TRBT). During 2018 T-TET were conducted in two sessions. First session was conducted on 9th August, 2018 and after verification of documents T-TET pass certificates were issued to qualified candidates. The second session Teacher Eligibility Test (T-TET) 2018 was conducted on 30.12.2018 by the Teachers Recruitment Board, Tripura. The results of the test were published on 08.02.2019. After verification of relevant documents of qualified candidates T-TET pas Certificates have been issued on 06.09.2019 to 95 candidates in Paper-I and 182 candidates in Paper-II who have obtained at least 60% marks by General category candidates and 55% marks by SC/ST candidates i.e. scoring of 90 marks out of 150 for general candidates and 83 marks for SC/ST/PH candidates as per guidelines framed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). Thus, the process for the 2nd session T-TET 2018 held in December 2018 has been completed in August 2019. Regarding appointment of teachers I humbly submit that it is being done as per the availability of vacant posts in Govt./Govt. aided schools. The Directorate of Elementary Education has issued offers of appointment to 141 eligible candidates for primary stage and 269 candidates for upper primary stage in January 2020 as per the recommendation of the Teachers Recruitment Board, Tripura in pursuant to the advertisement issued on 2nd March 2019. The candidates who have appeared & passed TET up to August 2018 could not apply for these posts. It is to be mentioned here that the T-TET 2019 has also been conducted in October 2019 and results of the TET 2019 has been published in December 2019. The recruitment of teachers from T-TET qualified candidates is under process.

Smt. Sangita Chakraborty, the petitioner appeared in second session T- TET (Paper-II) held on 30.12.2018 but could not pass as she secured 88 marks (pass mark-90) out of 150. So, she cannot claim to have passed without getting the pass marks and she is not eligible to apply for the post of teacher in elementary stage."

[6] Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner (respondent herein)

argued before the learned Single Judge that the petitioner gave correct answers to

question Nos.101,79,41,69,82 and 83 supported by the authentic publications

approved by the State authority. Despite giving correct answers, she was not given

any mark for those answers and she was wrongly declared unsuccessful. Counsel

contended before the learned Single Judge that even though the scope of judicial

review of the matter was very limited, the decision of the Board was amenable to

WA No.31 of 2020 Page - 6 of 16

judicial review. Counsel of the petitioner (respondent herein) relied on two

decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court before the learned Single Judge which are

as under:

[1] Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor & Ors. vs.

Samir Gupta & Ors. reported in (1983) 4 SCC 309;

[2] Naba Gopal Mandal vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. decided

on 13.02.2019 in WP 3476 (W) of 2018.

[7] The State counsel opposed the contentions raised by the counsel of

the petitioner and contended before the learned Single Judge that the answer key

was published with the opinion of experts. The feedbacks received from the

candidates were also examined by the Committee of experts before final publication

of the result. The State counsel, therefore, argued that there was no scope of

judicial review in the matter. In support of his contentions, the State counsel relied

on the following decisions:

[1] Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357;

[2] Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, through its

Chairman & Anr. vs. Rahul Singh & Anr. reported in (2018) 7 SCC 254.

[8] Learned Single Judge was of the view that unless there was a

glaring error which emerges ex-facie from the record, role of the Court in dissecting

the correctness or otherwise of the decision of an expert body in such cases would

be extremely limited. The learned Single Judge also held that situation emerges

where such expert bodies also make an error in the questions or sometimes in the

keys to the answers and scope of judicial review in such cases is not totally shut

out. In this background, the learned Single Judge examined the questions and the

WA No.31 of 2020 Page - 7 of 16

conflicting answers and came to the conclusion that marks awarded for question

Nos. 79,41 and 69 call for no interference. Insofar as, question Nos. 82 and 83 are

concerned, learned Single Judge was of the view that there were ambiguity and

imperfection in those questions and there were possibility of more answers than

one being correct which destroyed the validity of the question itself. The learned

Single Judge, therefore, held that both the questions must be discarded for

evaluation. In respect of question No. 101, it was held by the learned Single Judge

that the petitioner gathered the information from multiple sources in public domain

and some of the publications, she consulted, were also approved by the school

Board of the State. Therefore, she cannot be blamed for giving an answer which is

so widely publicized by various publishers for the purpose of preparation for such

competitive examinations. The learned Single Judge held that the petitioner should

have been awarded 1 (one) mark for the answer given by her to question No. 101.

It was decided by the learned Single Judge that question Nos.82 and 83 would be

discarded for the purpose of evaluation and respondent should be judged on the

basis of total 148 marks instead of 150 and she would be given 1 (one) mark

instead of 0 (zero) for question No. 101. Petitioner would, thus, get 89 out of 148

marks which would work out to be more than 60% and thus she would be declared

passed T-TET. The appellants were directed to issue pass certificate to the

petitioner within a period of one month. The relevant extract of the judgment of the

learned Single Judge is as under:

"11. However, the questions at Sl. Nos.1, 5 and 6 (Questions No.101, 82 and 83 respectively in the question paper) stand on a different footing. I may first deal with questions at Sl. Nos.5 and 6. For convenience one may reproduce the question with the multiple choices indicated in the examination paper:

Question No.82: The students like those teachers, who are-

A. Who runs as per student‟s dictation,

WA No.31 of 2020 Page - 8 of 16

B. Who allows leave now and then, C. Who can tell good stories, D. None of the above.

If one reads the question, it immediately becomes clear that the same is not possible of any comprehension. Even the question itself "The students like those teachers, who are-" makes no meaning in ordinary grammatical English language. The multiple choices offered by the examiner only compounds this confusion. By merely stating that the correct answer in such a question would be none of the above, the inherent ambiguity and fallacy of the question itself would not disappear. Multiple choice questions or MCQ as is popularly referred to are questions where one or several choices indicated, only one is correct. Such method of testing knowledge of the examinee with precision also requires great precision at the hands of examiner. Any ambiguity, imperfection in the question or possibility of more answers than one being correct would destroy the validity of the question itself. This question must therefore be discarded.

12. Question at Sl. No.6 with multiple choices presented was as under: Question No.83: The language to be learnt properly for which the important thing is that-

A. Right voice pronunciation, B. Hearing attentively, C. Speaking, D. None of the above.

Even this question in my opinion like in case of the previous one, simply makes no sense and defies all logic. What does "The language to be learnt properly for which the important thing is that-" mean is difficult to comprehend. Even if that question is accepted as it is, any of the choices presented by the examiner would fit the answer. All in all both the questions are simply beyond any logical comprehension. This is not to suggest that the answers given by the petitioner to such questions were correct or should be treated as correct. This is only to suggest that both the questions must be discarded for evaluation of the petitioner‟s answers.

13. This brings us to the question at Sl. No.1 (No.101 in question paper). The question and the multiple choices presented in the question paper are as under:

Question No.101: The largest coal mine of India is- A. Jharia Mines, B. Gevra Mines, C. Singareni Mines, D. None of the above.

WA No.31 of 2020 Page - 9 of 16

14. The petitioner had given answer (A) as a correct choice meaning Jharia Mines. According to the petitioner this is the largest coal mine in India. The respondents had given answer (B) as a correct answer i.e. Gevra Mines, which according to them is the largest. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in several Government approved books it is stated that the largest coal mine in the country is Jharia Mines. My attention was drawn to the questions on Social Studies (Geography and Economics) for Class-X published by Parul Prakashani Pvt. Ltd. which claimed the basis of its information to Tripura Government Circular dated 10.11.2016, which contained following information:

"Jharkhand: it is the first place which occupies in Coal Drilling (8035356.20 million metric ton). Here the important Coal mines are Jharia, Chandrapura, Bokaro, Ramgar, North & South Kaoapura, Girdi, Jayanti, Daltanganj, Panchwara, etc. The Jharia Coal mine of Damodar Valley is the largest Coal mine of India. Here from the coal mines, the high category bitumen coal is available."

15. Likewise in Modern Social Studies (Geography and Economics) for Class-X published by Goodluck Publishers, following information is provided:

"Jharkhand: In drilling of coal this State has acquired the first place. The main coal mines of the State are Jharia (largest in India), Bokaro, Chandrapura, Karanpura, Ramgar, Hajaribhag, Dhanbad, Rajmahal, Daltanganj etc."

16. In "Geography Tutor" for Class-X published by Goodluck Publishers, following information is provided:

"51. Largest Coal Mine in India-

(i) Talchere (ii) Jamuria

(iii) Jharia (iv) Korbaye Answer:- (iii) Jharia."

17. In "Social Science Teacher" for Class-VIII published by Chaya Prakashani which is approved by Tripura Board of Secondary Education, following information is provided:

"30. Largest Coal Mine in India A. Jharia B. Raniganj C. Bokaro D. Korbaye Answer:- Jharia (30-A)"

18. Thus multiple sources in public domain clearly indicate that Jharia mines are the largest coal mines in India. This information is provided in questions and answers compiled by various publishers specifically for the purpose of preparation in such and similar examinations. Some of these publications are either approved by the School Board of the State or trace

WA No.31 of 2020 Page - 10 of 16

their source of information to Government of Tripura circulars. The respondents cannot lightly discard the information so consistently provided in various such sources and take the shelter of such publications being made by private publishers. Had an isolated publisher and that too unsupported by any Government source, provided such information, it was open for the respondents to ignore the same and insist that the petitioner‟s answer was wrong. However, in the present case the answer is consistently published in several publications. Some of them tracing their source to Government authenticated sources. The petitioner cannot be blamed for giving an answer so widely publicized. Petitioner must, therefore, get 1(one) mark for attempting the said question correctly.

19. Sum total of this discussion would be that the performance of the petitioner shall have to be judged on the basis of the total of 148 marks [discarding the questions No.82 and 83 of the original question paper] and awarding 1(one) mark where 0(zero) was awarded in question No.101. The petitioner would thus get 89 out of the total of 148 marks which would work out to more than 60% which is the minimum pass marks. The respondents shall modify the result of the petitioner and issue necessary certificate of pass which shall be done within a period of one month from today."

[9] Heard Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned GA appearing for the State

appellants along with Mr. P. Saha, learned advocate. Also heard Mr. Kousik Roy,

learned advocate appearing for the respondent (petitioner before the learned Single

Judge).

[10] It is contended by Mr. Bhattacharya, learned GA that the Apex

Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. (Supra) has succinctly held that the

Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate

since it has no expertise in the matter and the academic matters should be left to

the academics. Counsel submits that the Apex Court in the said judgment further

held that the Court should presume the correctness of the answer key and proceed

on that assumption. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Uttar

Pradesh Public Service Commission, through its Chairman & Anr. (Supra),

the State counsel argued that the Apex Court reiterated the law laid down in the

case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. (Supra) and held that where there are conflicting

WA No.31 of 2020 Page - 11 of 16

views, the Court should accept the opinion of the experts. According to the State

counsel, in the instant case, the answer key was prepared by a Committee of

experts and there is, therefore, no scope to interfere with the result. Counsel,

therefore, urges the Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment

rendered by the learned Single Judge.

[11] Mr. Kousik Roy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Smt.

Sangita Chakraborty contends that the learned Single Judge has rightly discarded

question Nos.82 and 83 for the purpose of evaluation on the ground that the

question themselves are ambiguous and imperfect which invite more than one

correct answer. According to Mr. Roy, learned counsel, where the validity of the

questions are in doubt, the petitioner cannot be given lesser marks on the ground

that she gave wrong answers to those questions. Counsel would further contend

that the petitioner produced several publications approved by the State authorities

before the learned Single Judge to establish that the answer given by her to

question No.101 was correct. Learned counsel, therefore, contends that there is no

ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. To nourish his

contention, counsel has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of

Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor (Supra) wherein the Apex Court

has held that in multiple choice objective type tests, questions having an ambiguous

import should not be set in the papers. Under the premises aforesaid, counsel of

the respondent has urged the Court for dismissing the appeal.

[12] We have perused the entire record and considered the submissions

made by learned counsel representing the parties.

[13] In the case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. (Supra) some of the

unsuccessful candidates in the recruitment test conducted by the U.P. Secondary

WA No.31 of 2020 Page - 12 of 16

Education Services Selection Board for recruitment to the post of trained graduate

teachers in social science challenged the recruitment by questioning the correctness

of 7 (seven) questions/answers in the written examination which, according to the

petitioners had incorrect answer key. In the judgment rendered in the case of Ran

Vijay Singh & Ors. (Supra), the Apex Court referred to and discussed a catena of

previous judgments rendered on the issue and came to a few significant

conclusions. One of those conclusions is that the Court should not at all re-evaluate

the answer sheets of a candidate. It was further held by the Apex Court that the

Court should presume the correctness of the answer key and proceed on that

assumption. It was also viewed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that in the event of

doubt, benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.

The Apex Court made the following observations:

"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 scrutinize 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.

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-

WA No.31 of 2020 Page - 13 of 16

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 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."

[14] In the case of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission,

through its Chairman & Anr. (Supra), the Hon‟ble Apex Court reiterated the law

laid down in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. (Supra) and held as under:

"14. In the present case, we find that all the three questions needed a long process of reasoning and the High Court itself has

WA No.31 of 2020 Page - 14 of 16

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 the case of Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor

(Supra) which has been relied on by the counsel of the respondent, the paper-

setter committed wrong and the question which arose before the Hon‟ble Apex

court for consideration was as under:

"1..........................If a paper-setter commits an error while indicating the correct answer to a question set by him, can the students who answer that question correctly be failed for the reason that though their answer is correct, it does not accord with the answer supplied by the paper-setter to the University as the correct answer? .........................."

In the said case, the key answers furnished by the paper-setter for

admission test to medical colleges in U.P. turned out to be wrong demonstrably.

The High Court found fault with the key answers provided by the University. Case

of the University was also demolished by its own expert. In this factual background,

the High Court issued directions in favour of the examination authority which was

confirmed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court.

[16] In the present case, a Committee of experts was consulted by the

TRBT for publishing the answer key and those key answers cannot be said to be

demonstrably wrong. In paragraph 16 of the judgment in the case of Kanpur

University, through Vice-Chancellor (Supra), the Apex Court has held that for

interference by the Court, the key answer must be clearly demonstrated to be

wrong, i.e. to say it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the

particular subject would regard it as correct. Observation of the Apex Court is as

under:

WA No.31 of 2020 Page - 15 of 16

"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 rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be 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 contention of the University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged text- books, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those text- books leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect."

[17] In the instant case, the writ petitioner (respondent herein) could

not establish that the key answers were demonstrably wrong. Therefore, the

present respondent cannot derive any benefit from the judgment rendered by the

Apex Court in the case of Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor

(Supra).

[18] In the case of Naba Gopal Mandal (Supra) referred to by the

counsel of the respondent, the expert report confirmed that the options given in the

key answers were all wrong. The High Court, therefore, directed to award marks to

the petitioners who attempted those wrong options and give them appointment if

they were found eligible after awarding such marks.

[19] It is no case of the writ petitioner (respondent herein) that the

paper-setter gave wrong options in the multiple choice question paper. Therefore,