Gajoji Srikanth v. 1. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of wrtt of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 't and 3 in not evaluating the questron Number 67 (question 1.D.No. 630680120673), question Number 97 (question l.D.No. 630680103226), question Number 100 (question l.D.No. 63068093720), question Number 109 (question l.D.No. 6306807950B) of the question paper preview dated. 02-08-2024 issued on 26-09-2024 issued by the respondents with correct answers to be evaluated by subject experts and reference books and not considering the representations dated. 28-09-2024 ' 17- 10-2024 and 1B-10-2024 to respondent No. 3 and 1 respectively and issue fresh question paper preview and include petitioner at serial No. 55 in the selected candidates list of the written test for the post of Executive Cadre serial No.1, Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade for the vacancy posts of 42 covered under employment notification No. 0212024, dated. 15-05-2024 of respondents is illegal, arbitrary, null and void and in violation article 14 of constitution of lndia conseqi.rently direct the respondents to evaluate the question Number 67 (question l.D.No. 630680120673), question Number 97 (question l.D.No. 630680103226)' question Number 100 (question l.D.No. 63068093720), question Number 109 (question l.D.No. 63068079508) of the question paper preview daled.02-08-2024 issued on 26-09-2024 issued by the respondents with correct answers to be evaluated by subject experts and reference books, considering the representations dated. 28-09-2024, 17-10-2024 and 18-10-2024 to respondent No.3 and 1 respectively and issue fresh question paper preview and include petitioner at serial No. 55 in the selected candidates of the written test for the post of Executive Cadre serial No.1, Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade for the vacancy posts of 42 covered under employment notification No. O212O24, dated. 15-05-2024 of respondents. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 direct the Respondents to consider the representations, dated. 1B-1O-2O24, 17-10-2024 and 28-09-2024 to respondent 1 and 3 to evaluate the question Number 67 (question l.D.No. 630680120673), question Number 97 (question l.D.No. 630680,l03226), question Number 100 (question l.D.No. 63068093720), question 4 /, / ( Number 109 (question l.D.No. 63068079508) of the question paper preview dated. 02-08-2024 issued on 26-09-2024 issued by the respondents with correct answers to be evaluated by subject experts and reference books, and issue fresh question paper preview and include petitioner at serial No. 55 in the selected candidates c,f the written test for the post of Executive Cadre serial No.1, Itrlanagement Trainee (E and M), E-2 Grade far the vacancy posts of 42 covered under emplovment notification No. 0212024 dated. 15-05-2024 of respondents, till then stay the selection process, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the:Petitioner: SRI S. MADAN MOHAN RAO Counsel for lhe Respondents: SRI S. RAHUL REDDY, SPL. GP REP. FOR THE ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL / SRI P. SRI HARSHA REDDY (SC FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES CO LTD) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I{ARTHIK WRIT PETITION NOs.2939O AND 29717 OF 2o.24 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same, both the Writ Petitions are being heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order.

2. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not evaluating Question Nos.67 , 97 , 1OO, and I O9 of the question paper preview dated 02.08.2024, issued on 26.O9.2024, with the correct answers to be assessed by subject experts and reference books, and in not considering the petitioners' representations dated 28.O9.2024, 17.70.2024, and 18.10.2024 for inclusion of their names at Serial Nos.26 and 55, respectivelSz, in the list of the selected candidates for the written test for the post of Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade, under Employment Notification No.O2/2O2a dated 15.05.2024, these two Writ Petitions have been filed. It is also to be noted that in Writ Petition No.29390 of 2024, the petitioner is aggrieved by the non-evaluation of Question Nos.67,97 and 109, whereas in Writ 2 PK,.,I wp_29390 &,297t7_2021 Petition No.29717 of 2024, the petitioner is aggrieved by the non-evatuation of Question Nos.6z, gr, 1oo and 109. Except for the additior-ral grievance relating to euestion No. 100 in the latrer petition, the issue involved in both writ petitions is identical.

3. Heard Sri S.Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General for the responde:nts.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in respoirse to Employment Notification No.o2/2024 datecl

15.05.2024 issued by respondent No.l inviting applications from eligible r:andidates for recruitment to executive and non_ executive posts, the petitioners applied for Executive Cadre post serial Nc.1 i.e., Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade. Subsequently, the petitioners appeared for the computer based test held on 07.08 .2024 with Hail Ticket Nos.22 rLLT 100437 and 22ll12lcro443, respectively. Thereafter, the respondents released the question paper preview dated o2.og.2024 on

26.09.2024. As per the p."ui"*, the petitioners secured BB and 3 PK,J wp_2939o &297t7_2024 85 marks, respectively. However, upon verilication, the petitioners found that the answers to Question Nos.67 (lD No.63068O120673), 97 (lD No.630680103226), 100 (lD No.63O68O9372Ol, and 109 (lD No.63068079508) were incorrect. Consequently, the petitioners are entitled to an additional three and four marks, respectively, thereby enhancing their scores to 9l (88+3) and 89 (85+4). Therefore, the petitioners submitted their objections on 28.09.2024 through e-mail. (b) It is further submitted that on 08. 10.2024, the respondents released the online provisional merit list of quralified candidates pertaining to the aforesaid notification, wherein the petitioners were shown at Serial Nos.66 and 140 with 88 and 85 marks, respectively. It is contended that the petitioners belong to BC-B and BC-A communities and that if three and four marks are added to their respective scores, their totals rvould increase to 91 and 89 marks, thereby piacing their names at Serial Nos.26 and 55 respectively. In such circumstances, the petitioners are fully entitled to be considered for appointment on merit to the post of Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade. r 4 PK,.J wp_29390 &297 17_2024 Therefore, the petitioners submitted representations dated

28.09.21)24, 17.10.2024 and L8.1O.2024 to the respondents, stating that the answers to Question Nos.67 (iD No.630680120673), 97 (lD No.63068O103226), 10O (tD No.63068o9372o) and 109 (lD No.63068079508) in the question paper previes' dated 02.o8.2024 s,ere incorrect and requested to reviern' t re same b1, subject experts, a\,\,ard the correct marks and issue a revised merit list reflecting their placement at Serial Nos.26 and 55 for selection to the post of Executive Cadre serial No.1, Mzrnagement Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade. However, no action krrts been taken by the respondents so far. Therefore, the action of the respondents in not evaluating the questions and not referring the same to the Expert Committee is illegal, arbitrary. unconstitutional and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

5. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the entire recruitment process of Notification No.O212024 dated 15.05.2024 was entrusted to M/s. Educational Consultants (lndia) Limited (EdCIL), a Central 5 PK,J wp_29390 &29717_2024 Public Sector Enterprise that conducts recruitment tests for various Central and State Government organizations, pursuant to the MoU dated 23.03.2024. (b) The petitioners submitted their online applications for the post of Management Trainee (E & M) , E-2 Grade, and were subsequentlv issued call Letters bearing HalI Ticket Nos.22ll17lOO437 and 22IlL2lOO443 to appear for rhe computer based test held on 07.08.2024. The response sheets \ /ere displayed on 13.08.2024 and the objections from candidates regarding the response sheet were accepted up to 15.O8.2024 with 441 objections received for the post of Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade. This includes the objections raised for Question Nos.67 (rD No.630680120673), gT (lD No.630680 tO3226), 100 (lD No.63068093720) and 109 (rD No.63O68079508). (c) In this connection, M/s.EdCIL constituted a Subject Expert committee comprising the following members to examine the objections received from the candidates: r E-\. 6 sl. No. 1 2 3 Designation Experience Le cturer 9 vears Highest Qualification , Post i Graduate Assistant Prcfessor Assistant Prrlfssss. 10 years Doctorate 1 0 years Post Graduate PK,J wp_29390 &,29717_2024 Institution Government Polytechnic College, Pallakad, Kerala Pandit Deendaval Petroleum Universit-y, Gandhinagar, Gujarat SGI Engineering College, affiliated to Bikaner Technical University, Sikar, Tkre above committee \\'as provicled with the preliminary key and the objections received, *,hich were thoroughly examinr:d and revieu,ed. After detailed analysis and reference to relevant literature, textbooks and materials, the committee suggested necessary corrections for the valid objections in the prbliminary key and the finar key was displayed on 26.09.2024, after inr:orporating the corrections suggested by the Expert committee. subsequently, the provisional merit list for the post of Mana;3ement Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade, was published on

08.10,2024. Thereafter, the selected candidates were called for certificate verification on os.1 1.2024 and the candidates, within the zorir.\ of selection, were issued appointment orders on 06.1 1.2024. The petitioners had secured gg and gs marks 7 PK,J wp_29390 &,29717_2024 respectively in the computer based test held on 07.08.2024 and were placed 21 [$trt and 140tr, ranks in the provisional merit list, rn hich fell short of the marks necessary for selection. It is also submitted that the ansrvers to Question Nos.67, 97, 100, and 109 were duly revised in the final key only after a detailed review b),the Expert Committee constituted by M/s. EdCIL. Therefore, there are no merits in these Writ Petitions. Hence, learned Special Government Pleader prays this Court to dismiss these tr,r,o Writ Petitions.

6. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the material available on record.

7. A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioners had applied for the post of Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade, pursuant to Employment Notification No.O2l2024 dated

15.05.2024 and were subsequently issued Call Letters bearing Hall Ticket Nos.22 1lt7lOO437 and. 221112100443 to appear for the computer based test held on 07.08.2024. The response sheets for the said test wbre displayed on 13.O8.2024 and the 8 PK,J wp-29390 &,297 t7 _2024 candidates were given an opportunitl,' to submit objections regardirLg the preliminan' ans\ver kev up to 15.08.2024. A total of 441 objections were received for the post of Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade, which includes euestion Nos.67 (lD No.63068O120673), 97 (lD No.63068OtO3226), 10O (tD No.63068093720) and 109 (lD No.63068079508).

8. In this regard, M/s. EdcIL, a central public Sector Enterpri;se entrusted u,ith conducting the entire recruitment process lllrrsuant to the MoU dated 23.03.2024, had constituted a Subject Expert committee to examine the objections raised by the cancidates. The Expert committee was provided with the preliminerry ans\\,er ke5, and all the objections received from the candidatt:s. The committee undertook a detailed examination and revit:w of the objections, referring to relevant iiterature, textbooks, and study materials to ensure accuracy. Based on its thorough analysis, the committee suggested necessary corrections to the valid objections identified in the preliminary key. The details of the objections received on the preliminary 9 PK,J wp_29390 &29717.2024 key and the action taken in respect of Question Nos.67,97, lOO, and 1O9 are as follows: Ques No. Question ID Answer in Prellminary Key 67 630680 l 20673 630680467667 (2t Rec d .) 97 630680 t03226 630680401 r63 (l) 24 100 63068093720 630680363576 ( 2l 109 63068030807 r 63068030807 r (3) 5 3 Action Taken Answer in F'laal Key Reference Answer changed An swer ke_v changed An swer ke)' changed Answer changed I I I I 630680467669 (4) 63068040 I 165 (3) Control Syslenrs Engineeing, Author: Norman S. Nise, Pr"rblication: Wilev Engineering, Author: Norman S. Nise, i'rr blication: 630680363575 (l) Erqineering, Author: Norman S. Nise, 630680308072 (4) A Course in Electrical and Electronic Meo.surements and. hEtrumentation, A.K. Sawhney, l9th Edition- Pase 352

9. Thereafter, the final answer key incorporating the corrections recommended by the Expert Committee was pubtished on 26.09.2024. Following this, the provisional merit list for the post of Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade, was published on 08.10.2024 and the candidates who fell within the zone of selection were called for certificate verification on

05.11 .2024, and the appointment orders were subsequently issued on 06.11.2024. 10 PK,J 1W-29390 &" 297 t7 _2024

10. Hr:re, this court deems it appropriate to refer to certain judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme court laying dou,n the larv on the role of Expert Committees in examination and recruitment matters:

11. In Rcrn vijag singh a. state of tlttar prad.esht , the Hon'ble lSupreme Court has held as under:

30. The law on the sublect is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlighr a lew signihczrnt conclusions. 'fhey are: 3O.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an exirmination permits the re-e'aluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an arlswer sheet as a matter of right, then the au -hority conducting the examination may permit it; 3O.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an exernination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an a-nsiwer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-eva_luation or scrutiny only if it is derronstrated 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 conrmitted; '1zors; 2 scc 3s7 11 PK,J wp_29390 &,297 17 _2024

30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise 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 3O.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. (emphasis supplied) (ii) In Uttar Prq.desh Public Seruice Comtnission a. Rahul Singh2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the .candidate to not only demonslrate that Lhe key answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally appaient and no inferentia-l process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The constitutional courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers. ln Kanpur Uniaersitg case (supro/, the Court recommended a system of: (1) moderation; (2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions; 2 (2018) 7 SCC 2s4 t2 PK,J wp_29390 &,29717_2024 (3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions and no marks be assigned to such questions.

13. As far as the present case is conccrned, even befor.e publis;hing thc first list ol key ansrvers the commission had got the lie-y zulsr'ers moderated b.v two Expert committees. Therefter, objections were invited and a 26-member committee was constituted to verify the objections and after this exercise the committec recommended that 5 questions be deleted and in 2 quer;tions, key answers be changed. It can be presumed that these committees consisted of experts in 'arious subjects for which the examinees were tested. Judges cannot take on thc role o[ experts in academic matters. Uniess, the candidate demorstrates that the key ansu'ers are patently wrong on the face ol it, the courts cannot enter into the academic field, weigh the prrrs and cons of the arguments given by both sides and then come lo the conclusion as to which of the a.nswers is better or more correct.

14. In the present case, we find that all the three questions needed a long process of reasoning and the High court itself has noticed that the stand of the commission is also supported by certain textbooks. when there are conflicting views, then the court nrust bou'down to the opinion of the experts. Jud.ges are not q.nd cannot be experts in alt Jield.s and, therefore, theg rnust exercise great restraint and should not oaerstep their jurisdi':tion to upset the opinion of the experts.,, (emphasis supplied) -EA I 1 13 PK,J wp_29390 &297 17_2024 (iii) In Richql a, Rajo.stho,n htblic Sentice Commission3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Expert Committee, constituted for validation of the answer kev, had examined all the objections raised by the appellants and had provided satisfactory clarifications. The Commission accepted the Report of the Expert Committee and revised the results accordingly. The Court held that the recommendations of the Expert Committee, once accepted by the Commission, are to be implemented L2. [n view of the foregoing discussion, in the instant case, it is evident that the issues raised in respect of Question Nos.6"i,97, 100 and 109 were thoroughly examined and addressed by the Expert Committee constituted for the purpose. The final answer key and provisional merit list were published only after careful scrutiny and correction by the experts, strictly in accordance with the rules, regulations and procedures governing the examination. The petitioners, having secured 88 and 85 marks respectively in the computer-based test, were placed at 66th and 140th ranks in the provisional merit list, which were insufficient 3 (2018) 8 SCC 81 I l--) t4 PK,J u'p _29390 & 297 t7 _2024 for selection. Therefore, this court is of the vieu, that the recruitment process \\ras conducted follon,ing all the prescribed procedures and under expert scrutiny, ensuring fairness and transparency.

13. As consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Ran Vijag liingh's case (1 supra) , Rq.hul Stngh,s ccrse (2 supra). and Rir:hcl's ccse (3 supra), the courts must exercise restraint in interfering u'ith expert opinion in academic matters and should intervene only in cases of patent, glaring or material errors, ivhich are not present in the instant case. In viern, of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that there are no merits in these t'*,o writ Petitions and are liable to be dismissed. L4. Accordinglv, these two Writ Petitions are dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if &fly, pending in these Writ Petitionr; shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To, td.

1. Onb Ctl to SRI S. IVADAN N/OHAN RAO, Advocate tOpUCl 2. Two C()s to ADVOCATE GENERAL, High Court for the State of Telangana. 3. Two cos to sRl s. RAHUL REDDY, spL. Gp, High court for the state of Telangana. [OUT] 4. One CC to SRI P. SRI HARSHA REDDY (SC foT SINGARENI COLLIERIES co LTD) [OPUC] 5. Two Ct) Copies BN -t>1r, HIGH COURT DATED:2111112025 COMMOI\ ORDER WP.No.29390 & 29717 of 2024 I0 It:t 2[?[ *

4., Yt DISMISSING BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS \#a