Vishnu Deo Son Of Pravunath Shankar Pal v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court CWJC No.5652 of 2013 (3) dt.19-07-2013 2 candidate of Bihar Elementary Teacher Eligibility Test

2011.”

3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had secured 81 marks the Teachers Test Examination(T.E.T.) conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board and after getting his mark-sheet when he had obtained his answer O.M.R. sheet and model answer he was of the impression that he has been wrongly given such marks. This writ application in fact has been filed with the same grievance that there should be re-evaluation of the answer sheet.

4. By-now it is well settled that re-evaluation can only be allowed by the Court if there is provision in the Rules governing examination. Infact there is no provision for re-evaluation in the prospectus of T.E.T. The Court, therefore, cannot direct for re- evaluation,

5. Learned counsel however in order to satisfy this Court that re-evaluation is necessary had referred to questions no. 114 and 134. This Court has carefully perused the model answer and the explanation given by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court does not find the model answer to be incorrect. The reason for the same is very clear. Question No.114 was: 114- nks igkM+ ds chp [kkyh LFkku dks D;k dgrs gS\ A,A ?kkVh AchA miL;dk AlhA tehu AMhA buesa ls dksbZ ugha

6. Counsel has submitted that the answer given in the Patna High Court CWJC No.5652 of 2013 (3) dt.19-07-2013 3 model answer as „B‟ i.e. Upsayaka is incorrect and in this regard he has referred to a publication of Himalaya Atlas published by Pustak Bhandar Publishing House, Patna wherein „Ghati‟ has been defined as follows: ^^?kkVh igkM+ksa ;k igkfM+;ksa ds chp dk fuEuHkw[kaM gS ftlls gksdj lkekU;r% unh cgrh gSA**

7. As would be apparent from the text book relied by the petitioner himself, neither the same revolves round the question nor the answer on which the petitioner relies is anywhere near to it. In that view of the matter, this Court cannot become expert of experts and start making roving enquiry with regard to correctness of the answer given at by the experts in the model answer.

8. For the similar reason this Court also would not find the explanation of the petitioner as putforward by his counsel in respect of question No.134 which reads as follows: ^^134- touk ’kCn ls douks dke ds gks[ks ds cks/k gks[ks vksdjk ds dgy (A) laKk (B) loZuke (C) fdz;k (D) fo’ks"k.k**

9. Counsel is of the view that the answer of the said question will be only a Verb (Kriya) and not adjective as has been given in the model answer. This Court would again find it difficult now to go into the same that too on the basis of some private publication book „Sahaj Bal Hindi Bayakaran and Rachana‟, inasmuch as the same is not in the Bhojpuri Vernacular in which Patna High Court CWJC No.5652 of 2013 (3) dt.19-07-2013 4 the question was framed.

10. The restraint on exercise of such power by the courts has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kanpur University Vs. Samir Gupta reported in AIR (1983) 4 SCC 309, Abhijit Sen and others Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in AIR 1984 SC 1402, Convener MBBS/BDS Selection Board & Ors. Vs. Chandan Mishra and others reported in 1995 Supl.(3) SCC 77, State of Orissa and others Vs. Prajana Paramita Samanta and others reported in (1996) 7 SCC 106 and Pankaj Sharma Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir reported in (2008) 4 SCC 273. In all these cases limits within which the constitutional courts can exercise their extraordinary powers have indicated. It has also been held in all there cases that the court would proceed to allow the challenge to be made to the correctness of question or the key answer if only on the face of it, the said key question or answer is wrong. The Apex Court in this regard has clarified that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and it should not be held to be wrong by inferential process of reasoning or a process of rationalization. Infact it must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, that it must be such as no reasonable body of men well vested in the particular subject would regard as correct.

11. The law thus can be summed up is that the courts cannot take on the role of examiner or the evaluator or that of the Patna High Court CWJC No.5652 of 2013 (3) dt.19-07-2013 5 selection Board to examine discrepancies either in the question papers or the answer sheets. Courts can not also examine the question paper or answer sheet itself. Obviously, if the court would start doing so, they would assume the role of examiner, paper setter or evaluator which is to be left to the expert body. It with reason and purpose that the Courts are to assume the answer given in the 'key answer' to be correct. Any interference in this regard would tend to take on the role of the paper setter, which would be beyond judicial review. As is well understood, the judicial review generally speaking is not directed against a decision, but is directed against 'decision making process'. Any exercise to observe that a particular question is discrepant or the answer in the key answer is not correct would tend to be beyond the permissible ground of judicial review.

12. In any view of the matter, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the question and answer approved by the expert and therefore, this Court will refuse to indulge into such exercise.

13. Thus in the light of aforesaid discussion it has to be this application is wholly misconceived. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) surendra/-