Uttarakhand High Court
Hemant Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 6 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA
AND
JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
Writ Petition (SB) No.279 of 2022
Dated: 6th June, 2022
Hemant Singh ...... Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another ...... Respondents.
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel.
Counsel for the State : Mr. J.C. Pandey, learned Standing
Counsel.
Counsel for respondent no.2 : Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel.
Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the
following
Judgment: (per the Justice Shri R.C. Khulbe)
In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed
for the following relief:
I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandamus directing the respondent no.2/
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, Haridwar to
treat the Question No.32, 33, 42, 118 and 128 of the
Question Booklet Series-D of the written examination
for the selection process of post of Uttarakhand
Judicial Services Civil Judge (Junior Division)
(Preliminary) Examination, 2021, as correctly
attempted by the petitioner as per the options
exercised by him and accordingly award these marks
to the petitioner.
II. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondent no.2 / Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission, Haridwar to revise the result of the
petitioner of the Uttarakhand Judicial Services Civil
Judge (Junior Division) (Preliminary) Examination,
2021 after awarding marks to the petitioner and
include his name in the select list and call him for
Mains examination for post of Uttarakhand Judicial
Services Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination,
2021.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent,
however, submits that validity of answers cannot be
gone into in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution. He further submits that Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that in academic matters, Courts should
lay their hands off, as these are matters to be dealt with
by domain Experts.
4. It is also argued by learned counsel appearing
for respondent no.2/ Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission that the representation submitted by the
petitioner was sent to the expert committee and the
expert committee has already given its findings. Thus,
the matter has already been settled by an expert
committee.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Vikesh Kumar Gupta & another vs. State of Rajasthan &
others, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 309 has held that:-
"13. The point that arises for the
consideration of this Court is whether the revised
select list dated 21-5-2019 ought to have been
2
prepared on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key.
The appellants contend that the wait list also
should be prepared on the basis of the 3rd
Answer Key and not on the basis of the 2nd
Answer Key. The 2nd Answer Key was released
by RPSC on the basis of the recommendations
made by the expert committee constituted
pursuant to the directions issued by the High
Court. Not being satisfied with the revised select
list which included only a few candidates, certain
unsuccessful candidates filed appeals before the
Division Bench which were disposed of on 12-3-
2019. When the Division Bench was informed
that the selections have been finalised on the
basis of the 2nd Answer Key, it refused to
interfere with the select list prepared on 17-9-
2018. However, the Division Bench examined
the correctness of the questions and the answer
keys pointed by the appellants therein and
arrived at a conclusion that the answer key to 5
questions was erroneous. On the basis of the
said findings, the Division Bench directed RPSC
to prepare the revised select list and apply it
only to the appellants before it.
14. Though re-evaluation can be directed
if rules permit, this Court has deprecated the
practice of re-evaluation and scrutiny of the
questions by the courts which lack expertise in
academic matters. It is not permissible for the
High Court to examine the question papers and
answer sheets itself, particularly when the
Commission has assessed the inter se merit of
the candidates (H.P. Public Service Commission
v. Mukesh Thakur). Courts have to show
deference and consideration to the
recommendation of the expert committee who
have the expertise to evaluate and make
recommendations (see Basavaiah v. H.L.
Ramesh).
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
3
academic matters are best left to academics.
This Court in the said judgment further held as
follows: (Ran Vijay Singh case, SCC pp. 369-70,
paras 31-32)
"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 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
4
in confusion being worse confounded. The overall
and larger impact of all this is that public interest
suffers."
6. In view of the above law laid down by the
Apex Court, it is not open to us to have examined the
correctness of the questions and the answer key to
come to a conclusion different from that of the expert
committee.
7. In view of the factual and legal position, as
discussed above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in
the matter.
8. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is hereby
dismissed. No order as to costs.
_________________________
SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J.
__ _______________
RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.
Dated: 6th June, 2022
SS
