Union Of India Counsel & Anr. v. A.S.G.I

Judgment

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ C No. 53877 of 2017 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The writ petition was filed by the appellant-petitioner with the submissions that he was pursuing study in Kashi Hindu Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi and was preparing for UGC-NET 2017. In connection with the same, he applied for UGC-NET and also appeared in examination conducted by Respondent No. 2. In Paper-II of Hindustani Music, a question pertaining to ‘Alapini Veena’ was asked, to which the petitioner gave answer. After the examination was over, answer key was published wherein a wrong answer was indicated, in the final answer key also, the same answer was indicated. As the petitioner secured 0.56% less marks in merit, his selection for J.R.F. was obstructed. He submitted representation along with material to indicate that the answer to Question No. 32 of Paper-II be re- evaluated and the result be declared.

3. Reply to the writ petition was filed questioning the maintainability of the writ petition with the submissions that no objection was raised against the preliminary answer key and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to question the validity of the marks awarded based on the final answer key.

4. Further submissions were made that after filing of the writ petition, the issue was got examined by the expert, who has reiterated 2 that the answer indicated in the preliminary and final answer key is correct and, therefore, petition deserves dismissal.

5. Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that no good ground was made out for interference and

consequently dismissed the writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant made vehement submissions that from the material produced by the appellant along with the writ petition, it is apparent that the answer indicated by the respondents in their preliminary answer key and the final answer key was incorrect and in case the appellant is awarded marks for the correct answer, he would be securing the requisite merit for selection for J.R.F. and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

7. It was sought to be emphasized that once based on the representation made by the petitioner, the respondents have sought response from the experts on the objection raised, the plea raised that as no objection was raised against the preliminary answer key, the objection cannot be raised against the final answer key, apparently has no basis.

8. It was submitted that once it is apparent before the Court that the answer indicated is contrary to the material available on record, there is no reason why the Court should not interfere and as such the appeal be allowed and the order be set aside.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that in terms of the Booklet pertaining to UGC-NET 2017 specific stipulation was made that a candidate can challenge the provisional answer key and that no grievance with regard to answer key (s) after declaration of result will be entertained. Admittedly, no objection was raised by the petitioner against the preliminary answer key and it is only after the final answer key was published that the objection was raised. 3

10. It was submitted that in fact none of the candidates raised any objection against the answer to Question No. 32 and, therefore the answer remained unaltered. It was further emphasized that before publication of the preliminary answer key the same is examined by the experts and, therefore, there is no reason now to seek a change in the answer and consequent changes in the marks of the petitioner. It was also submitted that the plea raised regarding the respondents having entertained the prayer of re-evaluation by seeking experts opinion is also baseless inasmuch as it is only after filing of the petition that the information of the expert was obtained.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents also emphasized that once the expert has opined that the answer indicated is correct, merely on account of petitioner filing some material to raise doubts over the said answer cannot be made a basis for this Court to enter into the field where the experts have already dealt with the matter and, therefore, the appeal deserves dismissal. Reliance was placed on Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. : (2018) 2 SCC 357.

12. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

13. The undisputed facts are that in the booklet published by the respondents pertaining to UGC-NET 2017 examination, it was specifically provided that the challenge of answer keys will be accepted online only through the link available on the website on payment of Rs. 1000/- per question. The CBSE’s decision on the challenges shall be final and the result will be declared on the basis of final answer keys. It was further provided that no grievance with regard to answer key (s) after declaration of result of NET January, 2017 will be entertained.

14. Admittedly, on publication of the preliminary answer key, the appellant did not raise any objection to answer to Question No. 32 and the final answer key along with the result was published by the respondents. It is based on the result wherein the petitioner was short 4 of .56% marks in getting the eligibility for J.R.F. that challenge was laid to answer to Question No. 32. When the same was not entertained, the writ petition was filed wherein in response, it was indicated that besides the fact that the challenge was not maintainable, the answer indicated was correct.

15. Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties and after referring to several judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court laying down non interference in such matters, dismissed the petition.

16. The legal and factual position as noticed herein before, does not admit of any opinion different from what has been found by the learned Single Judge. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly deprecated the practice of re-evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the courts which lack expertise in academic matters and have held that it is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself particularly when the authority has assessed the same. It has also been held that the courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of the Expert Committee who have the expertise to evaluate and make recommendations. In the case of Ran Vijay Singh (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down as under: “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 5 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 in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers.”

17. The said mandate has been reiterated in Vikesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2021 (2) SCC 309.

18. In view of above, no interference is required in the order impugned. The submissions made based on the material produced also cannot be accepted inasmuch as if more than one opinion on a particular aspect is available and the experts have gone with one opinion, there is no occasion for this Court then to come to a contrary conclusion only because the appellant chooses to question the same after he has failed to raise any plea at the relevant time in terms of the notification/booklet.

19. Consequently, there is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 02.08.2024 SK (Vikas Budwar, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)