Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/336/2022 on 4 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE
04TH JULY, 2022
WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 336 OF 2022
Between:
Soyyab Hussain.
...Petitioner
and
State of Uttarakhand and another.
...Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner. : Mr. Pranav Singh, the learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondent no. 1. : Mr. Vikas Pande, the learned Standing
Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
Counsel for the respondent no. 2. : Mr. N.S. Pundir, the learned counsel.
JUDGMENT : (per Sri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
The primary grievance raised by the
petitioner, and argued before us, is in respect of three
questions, which formed part of the Question Paper in
respect of the Uttarakhand Combined State Civil/Upper
Subordinate Services (Pre) Exam-2021.
2. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is confined to the deletion of Question Nos. 33
and 43, and the change in the answer-key in respect of
Question No. 106. Question No. 33 reads as follows :-
"33. In Mauryan Period 'Pranayam' was -
(a) Emergency Tax (b) Love Marriage
(c) Land Grant (d) Land Tax "
3. The aforesaid question has been deleted by
the respondents, apparently on account of a spelling
mistake inasmuch as instead of "Pranayam", the word
should have been typed as "Pranaya", which is evident
from the text produced by the petitioner himself at
running page no. 85 of the record. In the light of the
aforesaid, we do not find fault with the respondents in
deleting the said Question No. 33.
4. The second question, in respect of which the
petitioner has raised grievance, is Question No. 43,
which reads as follows :-
"43. In which language the famous work of Raja
Rammohan Roy 'Gift to Monotheists' was
written?
(a) Persian (b) English (c) Arabic (d) Bengali"
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that in the government publication,
produced by him before us, namely, "Bharitya
Swatantrata Andolan Ka Itihaas - Vol. 2", at Page No.
236, the book states that the work "rqgQrqg eqokfgnhu" was
first published in "Qkjlh" i.e. "Persian".
2
6. The learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the name of the work/ book was published
as "rqgQrqg eqokfgnhu", and not "Gift to Monotheists", which
was the expression used in the Question No. 43. In the
light of the said confusion, the Expert Committee has
decided to drop the said question. Once again, we do
not find any error in the approach adopted by the
respondents.
7. The third question, in respect of which the
petitioner has raised the grievance, is Question No. 106,
which reads as follows :-
"106.The Uttaranchal (Change of Name) Act, came
into existence in which of the following years ?
(a) 2000 (b) 2003 (c) 2006 (d) None of these"
8. In respect of the said question, the first model
answer, as per the answer-key, was the third option i.e.
"(c) 2006". After the respondents received certain
objections, they re-constituted the Expert Committee,
and the option was changed to "(d) None of these".
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the Uttaranchal (Alteration of Name)
Act, 2006 received the assent of the Governor on 21st
3
December, 2006. However, it was enforced from 1st
January, 2007.
10. We are conscious of the fact that it is not for
this Court to normally sit in judgment over the decision
taken by an Expert Committee. At the same time, we
cannot shut our eyes to something that appears to us to
be incorrect, particularly when the question relates to
law. The Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. M/s
Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd., AIR 2012 SC 2375, has
held that "irrespective of the date of enforcement of a
Parliamentary or State enactment, a Bill becomes an Act
and comes on the Statute Book immediately on
receiving the assent of the President or the Governor, as
the case may be, which assent has got to be published
in the official gazette".
11. The learned counsel for the respondents
submits that, in relation to the same question, which
was Question No. 47 of Book-Series "A" - General
Studies, this Court has already dismissed another Writ
Petition being Writ Petition (S/B) No. 308 of 2022,
Kamlesh Kumar and others v. State of Uttarakhand
4
and Another decided on 20.06.2022, authored by one
of us (R.C. Khulbe, J.).
12. We may observe that the attention of this
Court was not drawn to the aforesaid decision of the
Supreme Court in M/s Mar Appraem Kuri (supra)
when Kamlesh Kumar (supra) was decided. In any
event, we are not interfering with the decision of the
Expert Committee, which has changed the answer-key
of Question No. 106 from "(c) 2006" to "(d) None of
these". In the light of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta & another v. State of
Rajasthan & others, (2021) 2 SCC 309, we are only
directing the Expert Committee of the respondents to re-
examine their decision qua Question No. 106 keeping in
view the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Mar
Appraem Kuri (supra).
13. We, accordingly, dispose of this Writ Petition
while directing the respondents to place the matter with
regard to consideration of the answer-key in respect of
Question No. 106 of Book-Series "D" - Paper-I (General
Studies) for reconsideration in the light of the present
judgment and the judgment of the Supreme Court in
5
M/s Mar Appraem Kuri (supra). The reconsideration
shall take place within two weeks of the date of
production of the certified copy of this judgment.
14. In case the petitioner, and any other
candidate, is found eligible for such reconsideration,
he/she shall be permitted to participate in the main
examination.
15. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
16. In sequel thereto, all pending applications also
stand disposed of.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
_____________
R.C. KHULBE, J.
Dt: 04th July, 2022
Rahul
