Uzma Nazneen v. Asia Tabassum

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the order and judgment passed inWP 479612O20, dated 214124. i i I I I I I I t I l Counsel for the Appellant : SRI DR.K.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI RAMESH CHILLA Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR ENERGY c o u n s e I f o r th e Re s p o o " " l#J*'; ;.tt?yf JA, :$t fSffs., o ". The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL TTIE TION,BLE SMT' JUSTICE RENUKA YARA AND T No.3 L4o 2o24 f T (Per Hon 'ble Smt' Justice Renuka Yara) JUDG Heard Dr' the aPPellant, respondent No' 1 Lakshmi Narasimha' learned counsel appearing for Sri Ramesh Chilla' learned counsel appearing for and Sri G'Vidya Sagar' learned Senior Counsel for Smt' K. Udaya Sri' learned Standing Counsel appea-fmg appearing for resPondent No'3' 2. This is an Intra-Cou rt appeal arising out of the common order dated, O2'O4'2O24 passedby a learned Single Judge in I'A'No'3 of whereby' a direction was issued of 2O2O ' to respondent Nos'2 and 3 to give one mark to respondent No' 1 for option 'A' given bY her to question No'27 of Booklet-C and to for the post of Junior Personnel Offrcer' 2O2O rnlatdW'P'No'4796 consider her appointrnent 3. The facts of the case reveal that respondent No'3-TSSPDCL conducted written examination ot 15'12 '2019 for recruitment to the post of Junior Personnel Offrcer' The written examination Paper Boolldet containing 1O0 Multiple choice consisted of Question 2 W.A.No 314 of 2024 questions in English, each question followed by a translation in Telugu. In the instructions to the candidates printed in the said booklet, it is specifrcally mentioned that in case' there is any discrepancy in t:ranslation, the English version of the qtrestion will be considerecl as correct and final' The said instructi'rn No'3 is extracted and reProduced below: "ln this que.stion paper for aII questions the coresponding Telugu uers;i<'tn is also prouided' In case of ang discrepa ncy in the translation, the English uersion of tle question u'ill be considered a.s cofiect and final" '

4. In the said Question Paper Booklet provided in written examination, O uestion No.27 in English carried exa<:t opposite meaning as plrr Teiugu translation' As per English version' the question was atrout the date of payment of wages by aL factory or Industrial Esta.blishment where there are less than looc' employees and the corre'ct answer is Option 'C' i'e' 7t' of evr:ry month' Whereas, as per Telugu translation, the question was about the date of paymenl of wages by a factory where there are more than 1O00 employe,:s and the correct answer is Option. 'A' i'e' lotr of every month. l'tre writ appellant gave correct answer as per English version i.e. Option 'C' and secured 69 marks out of 1O0 marks' Per contra, respondent No.1/writ petitioner gave correct answer to the Telugu transialion i.e. Option 'A' and secured 68 marks' (' // 3 W.A.No.3 t4 of 2024

5. In that backdrop, respondent No' 1 frled a writ petition vide W.P.No.4796 of 2O2O with a prayer to direct respondent No'3 to consider both the answers of option 'c' for the question in English ald option 'A' for the question in Telugu and award one mark for her and to consider her appointment in case she comes within the zone of consideration for the post of Junior Personnel offrcer as per recruitment notihcation. when there are equal ma'rks secured by two candidates, the candidate who is older would have to be considered for appointment' In that case' respondent No' I lwrit petitioner being older, she has to be selected for the said post' Vide order dated O5.O5-2O2O in W'P'No'4796 of 2O2O' an interim stay was granted on the recruitment of the appellant till 26'05'2020' After the said order got vacated in view of lapse of time period, during the pendency of the said writ petition' the appellant hled a writ petition vide W.P'No 323a1 of 2O2l seeking a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to appoint her as Junior Personal Officer' since she secured 69 marks ' Vide order dated O7'O6 '2022' a learned Single Judge while observing that there was no further extension of aforesaid interim order dated O5'O5'202O passed in W.P.No.4796 of 2O2O, the appellant was directed to be immediately appointed as Junior Personnel Ofircer pending disposal of the 4 W.A.N :.3 I 4 of 2024 W.P.No.323B I cf 2021. Further, it was made cleal that any selection made sha1l be subject to further orders in ttLe said writ petitions.

6. Having considered the case of the appellant arrd rospondents, the learned Single Judge observed that the entire corttroversy is about one qur:stion where the discrepancy is abrlut simple translation ard simple words. Consequently, the lealned Single Judge held tha-t there is no need for expert opinion as the questions in both Englisl-r and Telugu versions and their answers are clear. Finally, the learned Single .Judge proceeded to hold r-hat in the booklet, there is no instruction of choosing of medium rlf language by the candidates to ailswer the question paper leaving option to the candidate:; and therefore, the correct option ch'rsen to in versions have to be considered and thus, respondent No.1 has to be given one mark. With the said frndings, the learned Single Judge vide impugne,:1 order allowed W.P.No.4796 ol 2O2t) frled by respondent No. 1 while dismissing I.A.No.3 of 2O2O filed by the appellant.

7. During arl+rments in appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted thzrt the learned Single Judge erred in applicalion of ratio 5 W.A.No.3l4 of 2024 in Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor and others vs' Samir Gupta and othersr to the present case as in the said case' the controversy arose with regard to some questions' wherein the key answers for those questions were not correct and there was no bilingual question paper' The discrepancy arose in the correctness of the answer, not in translation and also there was no pre-notified rule that trnglish would prevail over regional languages' In the instant case, there is a clear instruction conveyed to the candidates writing examination by way of Instruction No'3 of Question faper Booklet that in case of any discrepancy in translation to Telugu version, the English version would prevail' g. Learned counsel for the appellant further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh public sergice commission, through its chairman and another vs. Rahul Singh arld another2, wherein, at paragraph Nos. 12 and 14, it is held as under: "12. ..... The Constitutionol Courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea chollenging the correctness of the key ansuters' In {{anpur [lniuersitg case (supra)' the Court recommended a ' ( tgst) + scc log ' 1zo t t; z scc zs+ 6 W.A.r.'o.314of2024 sAstem of (1) moderatiot'L; (2) auoiding ambiguity in the questions; (.3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude sus,oected questions tnd no morks be assigned to such questions. . 14. .....Vhen there are conflicting uieuts, then the court must bou-t doutn. t'.o the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot Lte experts in aII ftelds and, therefore, theA must exercise qreat restraint and should not ouerstep their jurisdictiort to upset the opinion of tLrc experts" -

9. Learned counsel for the appellant further placed reliance on State of Tamil Nadu vs. Hemalatha3, wherein, it isr treld that where instruct-ions explicitly state that a particular language will prevail, candi,Cretes cannot claim advantage due to translation issues and suc:h exam instructions are binding and cannot be ignored. He lurther referred to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education vs. T.K.Rangaraja.na. It was a case where the students a.ppeared in National Eligitriltty-cum Entrance Test - UG, 2O18, which was in English, conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education. Therein bi-iingual questions were set in English with an option of regional language Tamil. The instnrction C (vi) in that case provided '(?paoftq sct--t:o ' (2019) ll sc(, ('74 7 W.A.No.3l4 of 2024 that in case of any ambiguity in translation of any of the questions' its English version shall be treated as final'

10. Arguing on the basis of equity, learned counsel for the appellant referred to theludgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sivananda C.T. vs. High Court of Keralas, wherein it addresses critical issues surrounding the selection process for District Judges in Kerala. The central legal contention revolves around whether such a procedural shift violates the doctrine of legitimate and non-arbitrariness expectation and the principles of fairness enshrined in Article l4 of the Constitution' 1 1 . In this particular case of recruitment for the post of Junior Personnel Oflicer, earlier Writ Appeals vide Nos' 126' 133 and 4O6 of 2O2l were lrled against Common Order dated 03 'O3 '2021 in W.P.Nos.1181oand18335of202o,wherebythelearnedSingle Judge disposed of the writ petitions directing the offrcial respondents to refer the disputed Question No'58 in Booklet Code- B, to an Expert Committee. On receiving Expert Committee opinion' the respondents were directed to act as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bihar Staff Selection Commission v' Arun .\ \ 5 2023 SCC Online sc 994 8 W.A.\o.3 I4 of 2024 Kumar l(2O2O) 6 SCC 362]. The said appeals were dismissed on

29.10.2021 and the matters were carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP |1os.2011l-2oll3 of 2O2l and the same were also dismissed on 1 3;.12.2021.

12. On the tlasis of the aforesaid orders passed with respect to the present recruitment, it is urged by the learned cour sel for the appellant that the Revised Merit List, which includes the name of appellant published in December, 2O2l alter getting the opinion of Expert Committee has attained finality and the learned Single Judge cannot review the same vide impugned order.

13. Learned ,lounsel for respondent No. 1 would srrbmit that Instruction No.!i would not come in the way of awardin,g one mark to respondent No.1 since there is no discrepancy/error in the question No.2i' between English and Telugu version, ins;tead, there is complete clarity in the question posed in both English and Telugu versions thoug,h they are diametrically opposite. Since there is no discrepancv in the English and Telugu versions, accor'ling to the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, both alswers need to be given one mark for choosing the correct option in the respectivr: version. 9 W.A.No.314 of 2024

14. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that when there was issue about the examination questions and answers raised by 436 candidates in the present selection process, the same were referred to the Expert Committee of Osmania University and valuation was done as per the direction given by the Expert Committee and accordingly, the recruitment process was completed and pubtished the Select List vide notification dated 28.O9.2OI9 ar.d subsequently, revised list was published in December, 2O2l after disposal of a-foresaid SLPs.

15. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge shows that reliance was placed primarily bn Kanpur University case { I suPra), wherein, the question that arose for consideration was "when 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". Such is not the issue involved in the present case. In the present case, there is no error committed by the paper-setter in giving correct answer, rather, there are two correct questions in English and vernacular lamguage and two correct answers. Further, a 10 W-A.No.3 l4 o12024 in the said caser, the candidates had option to answer the question paper as set in Jlnglish or in Hindi. In the said case, it wrls held that if the key was not wrong as it turned out to be, they would have succeeded in getting admission. In the instant case, thr: key is not wrong. The key is given on the basis of English questions but not the translated 'lelugu questions and therefore, marks were awarded to the candidates who have given correct answers as J)er English questions. Lastlv, in the said case, there was no such insrtr-uction to the students about langrrage to be opted for answering qrLeition and also, in case, there was any discrepalcy in the questions, which langtage woulcii Prevail. 16- The learnecl Single Judge referred to the case of UppSC 12 supral, w-herein, it is held that judges cannot lake on the role of experts in academic matters and the . same shall be left to the experts In varlous subjects. The legal ratio laid dorvn in said judgment was not considered on the premise that the present case deals with simprir: interpretation and simple words whicLr does not require expert opinion. But the fact remains that when tht: question posed in the r:>ramination conducted by respondent No.3 was cha,llenged, this Court referred the matter to experts r.r.hich was even conhrmed i:n appeals and SLPs. Thereafter, on the, ba sis of r'r/ W.A.No-314 of 2024 guidance given by the experts, revised hnal list including the name of appellant has been prepared. Hence, the said Revised Merit List prepared by respondent Nos.2 and 3 with the aid of Osmania University which attained finality could not have been challenged by filing a writ petition before a learned Single Judge of this Court'

17. The main issue involved is discrepancy in translation which led to the litigation between the appellant and respondent No.1. In this regard, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBIT case 14 supraf is clear. In the said case, there were errors/discrepalcies in questions between English and Tamil Versions. In the said case, the Hon,ble Supreme court has held that the questions in Tamil version contained errors, the English language was primar5r al1d therefore, marks could not be awarded on the basis of Tamil version' In the instant case, the examination was conducted on the basis of English version. The inclusion of Telugu translation was a mere formality meant for facilitating certain candidates who were more comfortable writing the examination in Telugu language as the instruction No.(iii) in the Question paper booklet make it clear that when there is a discrepancy, the English version would prevail but not Telugu version. Hence, the decision of the learned Single Judge to give one mark to the respondent No.1 is clearly an error' I l I I I I I I I I t J I i 12 W-A.No.i l4 of 2024 '.qt-

18. Lastll,,, in terms of equit5z as well, the appr:llant has been recruited rn the post of Junior personnel Officer on 20.06.2022 and has alread.y put 2y2 years, service. The writ appellant has secured 69 marks as compared to 6g marks by respondent No. 1. The marking of ius\ 'er by writ appellant is as per instructions which were issued along with euestion paper llooklet prior to the commence[](:nt of examination. Once the examinat ion process is completed, nrles cannot be changed to accommodal e respondent No.1 in such manner that instructions issued ,;.. to' ,;. examination can be overruled/ changed. When responcLent No. t has not secured higher or equal marks as compared to the appellant as per the instnrctions issued prior to commencement or as per revisecl final list prepared on the basis e.r experts of Osmania Unir.ersity, there can be no legitimate expectation to consider the respondent No. 1 for recruitment tr qrlrrent to the exch-rsion of the appellaxt. of examination

19. In view of the above discussion, viewed liom arry angle, the case of responclent No.l is not sustainable. T ro sum up' we are of the considered op,ini6n thrf rh--- ---_*"**" tntt" was erroneous application of ratio laid down in Kanpur urtn"t riversity case (l supra) to the present case /- Hi l3 WA.No.314 of 2024 by the learned Single Judge with complete disregard to Instruction No.3 of Question Paper Booklet in the instant case, which was issued to the carrdidates while writing the examination. Moreover, the factum of the orders of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 126, 133 and 4O6 of 2021 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLp Nos.2O1l1- 2O113 of 2027 were not considered while passing the impugned order.

19. For the reasons stated above, order dated O2.O4.2O24 in I.A.No.3 of 2O2O inland W.P.No.4796 of 2O2O is set aside. The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, stand disposed of. i \ To, //TRUE COPYII SD/. K. SRINIVAS RAO JOINT REGISTRAR ECTION OFF]CER i Hyd erabad, stare of r6t'a n g;;?, iJri",igliii' 6oooo:s.

1. The Principal Secretarv, Energy Government of Telangana, BRK Bhavan. 2. The Chairman and Managing Director, Telangana State Southem power Distribution Com oa nv ltd Cioipo riie bni"-",''o:i _to, Mini ail;,;;il,' "' Hyderabad, Telahgana SOb063:

3. One CC to SRt DR.K.LAKSHM| NARASTMHA, Advocate. tOpUCl 4. One CC to SRt RAMESH CH|LLA, Advocate. [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to Gp FOR ENERGY, High Court for the State of Telangana at 6. One CC to SII/T.K.UDAYA SRI, SC FOR TGSPDCL. tOpUCl 7. Two CD Copies Hyderabad. [OUTJ s BSK GJP HIGH COURT' DATED:2810212025 JUDGMENT WA.No.314 of 2024 6 z I i iiirri Zt}'E o t !):::-:o/i:le,*( * o ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS @on'' W