The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 287 of 2024 ---------- 1. Nityanand Das, aged about 47 years, son of Tanik Das, Resident of House No. 5, Ward No. 7, Block Madhupur, P.O. and P.S. Madhupur, District- Deoghar – 2. Sushila Devi, aged about 33 years, Wife of Radheshayam Mahto, Resident of Village Tirla, P.O. Tirla, P.S. Bokaro, District- Bokaro 3. Gobind Saw, aged about 46 years, son of Janki Saw, Resident of 50, Village Purandih, Tundi, P.O. Purandih, P.S. Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad 4. Kartik Prasad Yadav, aged about 41, son of Kailash Prasad Yadav, Resident of village Undro, P.O. Handadih, P.S. Giridih, District- Giridih 5. Rohan Ravidas, aged about 53, son of Late Ganesh Ravidas, Resident of Panchayat Simarardhab, Block Birin, Village Gongara, P.O. Palounjia, P.S. Birni, District- Giridih. 6. Jageshwar Yadav, aged about 35, son of Rudo Mahto, Resident of Panchayat Makhmargo, Block- Birni, P.O. Manjhiladih, P.S. Birni, District- Giridih. 7. Arun Mahato, aged about 50 years, son of Amin Mahato, Resident of Bengnaria, P.O. Tundi, P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad 8. Subal Rout, aged about 46 years, son of Gopal Raut, Resident of House No. 36, Pahadpur, P.O. P.S. Deoghar Town, District Deoghar 9. Nageshwar Yadav, aged about 48 years, son of Jhandu Mahto, Resident of Panchayat Birni, Village Purnanagar, P.O. Palounjiy, P.S. Birni, District Giridih 1 10. Trilochan Pandey, aged about 51 years, son of Saryu Pandey, Resident of 23, Thethatand, Dhanbad, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad. 11. Yugal Kishor Pandit, aged about 56 years, son of Late Chowa Pandit, Resident of Panchayat Gadi, Gram Gadi, P.O. Pesham, P.S. Birni, District-Giridih. 12. Indira Kumari, aged about 45 years, daughter of Basudev Prasad
Legal Reasoning
Yadav, Resident of U.P.S.,Bishunpur, Khijuri, Tisri, P.O. and P.S. Giridih, District Giridih. Appellants Versus … … 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Jharkhand Academic Council through its Chairman, having its office at Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, Namkum, P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District- Ranchi 3. The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Office at Bargawan, P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi 4. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Academic Council, Office at Bargawan, P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi. Respondents ------- … … CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI For the Appellant For the Resp. State For the Resp. J.A.C. ------- : Ms. Ankit Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Sunita Kumari, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II : Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate : Mrs. Pinky Shaw, Advocate ---------------------------- ORAL ORDER 04/Dated: 06th August, 2024 2 IA. No.7827 of 2024: 1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 19 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal. 2. No counter to the delay condonation application has been filed. 3. Heard the parties 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the statements made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in preferring this appeal within time. 5. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of 19 days in preferring this appeal is hereby condoned. L.P.A. No. 287 of 2024: Prayer: 1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 18.03.2024 passed by the learned
Decision
Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 7162 of 2023 wherein the writ petitioner prayed for direction upon the respondent as to why the respondent No. 4 had relied upon wrong answer to the Question No. 135 in Further direction was sought upon respondent to publish the Language II Khortha language in “Para Teacher Aaklan Examination, correct answer for Question No. 137 and amend the result published 2022”. with respect to petitioners and to declare them Pass, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Factual Matrix: 2. The brief facts as per the pleadings is required to be enumerated as hereinunder: The Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi has issued an advertisement for Honorarium increment of para teacher being The appellants found themselves eligible, had applied for the same. “Para Teacher Aaklan Examination, 2022”. 3 wherein the scheme of examinations was that there was a The appellants had applied in “Hindi Assistant Teacher”, compulsory paper followed by Language I paper and Language II paper. The grievance of the appellants are limited to Language Paper II (Khortha), wherein at Question No. 137, the Jharkhand rather the right answer as indicated in different books being Academic Council had relied upon the wrong answer in Option ‘D’ Option ‘B’. According to the appellants the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi had issued OMR sheet of the appellants, wherein it Question No. 137 in Language II paper (Khortha) which is the has been indicated that the appellants had marked Option ‘B’ for correct answer and the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi has published the wrong answer being Option ‘D’. Thereafter, per contrary to the answer relied by the respondent authorities, the Jharkhand Academic Council had published the answer key on 05.08.2023 wherein they had relied Language II (Khortha). upon right answer being Option ‘B’ for Question No. 137 of Further, the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi had come up with 2nd Answer Key on 06.09.2023, wherein they had relied Language II (Khortha). upon wrong answer being Option ‘D’ for Question No. 137 of 3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioners had participated in process of selection in the “Para Teacher Aaklan raised question regarding the answer which has been furnished by Examination, 2022”, they after being declared unsuccessful has them for question No. 137 which according to the writ petitioner has correctly been answered since according to the writ petitioner, the correct answer is Option ‘B’ and not Option ‘D’. 4 4. The writ petitioners being aggrieved had approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 7162 of 2023. The learned Single Judge had called upon the respondent, Jharkhand Academic Council, the selection body. 5. The respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein a plea was taken that whatever has been demonstrated is based upon the opinion of expert committee. 6. It has further been submitted by the respondent that the objection was invited in connection with the correct answer of Question No. 137, however, subsequently the same query has been sent to the expert committee and as per the expert view, the correction answer to Question No. 137 is Option ‘D’. 7. The Selection Committee, based upon the wrong answer to the Question No. 137 has declared the writ petitioner to be unsuccessful. 8. The learned Single Judge after taken into consideration the factual aspect and due consideration has been given to the grounds on behalf of the respondents and accordingly has dismissed the writ petition which is the subject matter of the present appeal. Submissions of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants: 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioners has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered the issue in right perspective, since, in all the text books, the answer of Question No. 137 is Option ‘B’ and not Option ‘D’. 10. The appellants/writ petitioners have relied upon the judgment Tripura V. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and Ors. reported in (2019) rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of 16 SCC 663 which has followed the judgment of Ran Vijay Singh Versus State of U.P. reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357. High Court of 5 11. It has been submitted that the view of the expert committee has not been corroborated from the text book, rather, based upon the opinion of the expert committee, the answer of the writ petitioner has been assessed to be incorrect, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from error. Submissions of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents: 12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Jharkhand Academic Council has submitted that the expert committee has been constituted to deal with the objection submitted by the writ petitioners with respect to the answer of the Question No. 137. The expert Committee has given its view that the correct answer is Therefore, the learned Single Judge has relied upon the view of the expert committee and based upon that Option ‘D’ and not Option ‘B’. the writ petition has been dismissed and as such the order passed by the learned Single Judge needs no interference. Analysis: 13. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 14. The correct answer of Question No. 137 is the subject matter of the present lis. 15. According to the appellants/writ petitioners Question No. 137 is the correct option while as per the respondent, , Option ‘B’ of the Option ‘D’ is the correct answer of Question No. 137. 16. The ground of the appellants/writ petitioners, in considering the f the aforesaid question, is with respect to the reference made in the text books while on the other hand, the ground of the Option ‘B’ o as correct answer is based upon the expert view. respondent showing that Option ‘D’ 6 17. Therefore, the question of consideration of expert view is the sole consideration made by the learned Single Judge which led to dismissing the writ petition. 18. The law in this regard that the expert view is to be given due consideration has already been settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa and Another [(2008) 9 SCC 284]. The question of eligibility to the post of Reader having qualification in the relevant subject fell for consideration in Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa and Another (supra) wherein the fact as would appear from paragraph 6 thereof that one Dr. Raj Kumar Siwach, who was a Lecturer in Public Administration had also applied for the post of Reader, but he was not selected and instead the appellant was selected. Hence, Respondent 2 filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court being CWP No. 6642 of 2005 in which he alleged that the appellant herein, Dr. Rajbir Singh Dalal, did not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Reader in Public Administration. It was alleged in the writ petition that the appellant was an MA and PhD in Political Science and not in Public Administration. Hence, the appellant was not eligible for being selected and appointed as Reader in Public Administration. The Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the said issue has relied upon the opinion of the academic experts who have regarded Political Science and Public Administration to be one discipline and as such it was opined by the Hon’ble Apex Court that it is not right for this Court to sit in appeal over the opinion of experts (Para 25). Paragraph-25 of the said judgment is quoted as under: 25. In our opinion, in the present case, the anusanga principle of Mimansa should be utilised “ inserted in the qualification for the post of Reader and the expression “relevant subject” should also be we cannot accept the submission of Mr Patwalia in after the words “at the Masters degree level”. Hence, 7 this respect. However, we agree with Mr Patwalia that since academic experts have regarded Political Science and Public Administration to be one discipline, it is not right for this Court to sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts.” Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken into consideration the judgment rendered in. in the case of Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University and Others [(2001) 8 SCC 546] wherein it has been observed that “normally, it is wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally are.” It appears from the observation made at paragraph 29 of the judgment rendered in Rajbir Singh Dalal (Supra) that on a clarification sought from UGC whether a candidate who possesses a Lecturer in Political Science and vice versa, UGC wrote a letter dated Master‟s degree in Public Administration is eligible for the post of 5-3-1992 to the Registrar, M.D. University, Rohtak stating that the subjects of Political Science and Public Administration are interchangeable and interrelated, and a candidate who possesses Political Science and vice versa. Thus, this is the view of UGC, which Master‟s degree in Public Administration is eligible as Lecturer in is an expert in academic matters, and the Court should not sit in appeal over this opinion and take a contrary view. Paragraph 29 of the said judgment is quoted as under :- 29. It may be mentioned that on a clarification sought from UGC whether a candidate who possesses “ a Masters degree in Public Administration is eligible for the post of Lecturer in Political Science and vice versa, UGC wrote a letter dated 5- 3-1992 to the Registrar, M.D. University, Rohtak stating that the subjects Public Administration are interchangeable and interrelated, and a candidate who possesses Masters degree in Public Administration is eligible as Lecturer in Political Science and vice versa. Thus, this is the view of UGC, which is an expert in academic matters, and the Court should not sit in appeal over this opinion Political Science and of and take a contrary view.” 8 The Hon’ble Apex Court in Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Others [(2010) 8 SCC 372] has held that courts should show deference to recommendations of Expert Committee, particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against experts constituting Selection Committee and the courts should not endeavor to sit in appeal over decisions of experts. The facts leading to the said case is that it has been claimed that the appellants were not eligible to be appointed because they had in Zoology and Botany respectively whereas only degrees Respondent 1 was eligible because he was the only one who had the doctorate degree in the subject of Sericulture. Such claim has been in the made after pointing out the qualification stipulated advertisement for appointment as Reader which was a doctorate degree or equivalent published work but the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the concerned respondent on the ground that selection had taken place in 1999 and the appellants were working in their respective teaching posts. The Division Bench has allowed the appeal filed by the concerned respondent on the ground that the appellants herein did not have doctorate degree in Sericulture and thereafter the matter reached to the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the recommendation of an Expert Committee consisting of distinguished experts in the field wherein it had evaluated the qualification, experience and published work of the appellants and thereafter recommendations for their appointments were made and hence, the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court has been criticized on the ground that the High Court ought not to have sat as an appellate court on the recommendations made by the country’s leading experts in the field of Sericulture. 19. The law since is settled that the expert view will prevail the view of the candidate or even the Court of law cannot allowed to be superseded over and above the view taken by the expert committee. 20. The learned Single Judge based upon the aforesaid settled position of law has relied upon the authenticity of the expert view and has dismissed the writ petition. Moreover, the learned Single Judge has dealt with the judgment upon which the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel of the appellants/writ petitioners in the case of High Court of Tripura 9 V. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and Ors. and Ran Vijay Singh Versus State of U.P. (supra). 21. As per the discussion made at Paragraph 12 of the impugned order where it has been held that the onus is on the candidate to clearly demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect and that too without any inferential process or reasoning. The burden on the candidate is therefore rather heavy and the constitutional courts must be extremely cautious in entertaining a plea challenging the correctness of a key answer. To prevent such challenges, this Court recommended a few steps to be taken by the examination authorities which are: (i) establishing a system of moderation; (ii) avoid any ambiguity in the questions, including those that might be caused by translation; and (iii) prompt decision be taken to exclude the suspect question and no marks be assigned to it. 22. Here also the appellants/writ petitioners are giving emphasis that the view of the expert committee be given go by, but the Hon’ble Apex Court has settled the law that the expert view cannot be superseded by the Court of law and by anybody and as such if the aforesaid facts have been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge and thereby the writ petition has been dismissed, which according to our view has suffered from no error, hence there is no need of interference. 23. Accordingly, the instant appeal being L.P.A. No. 287 of 2024 stands disposed of. 24. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Samarth/A.F.R. 10