High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 10.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Review Application filed in Writ-A No. 10053 of

2. An advertisement dated 17.06.2016 was issued for recruitment of Sub Inspectors in the Civil Police for the female candidates. Out of total vacancies of 600 Sub Inspectors, 300 posts were meant for General Category, 162 posts for Other Backward Classes, 126 posts for Scheduled Caste and 12 posts for Schedules Tribes.

3. The process of selection involved on-line written/computer-based examination in four subjects of 100 marks each, wherein candidates were required to obtain minimum 50 marks in each subject, those declared successful were required to undergo document verification and physical measurement.

4. It is indicated that the appellant appeared for written/computer based test, which was held on 21.12.2017 and consisted of four subjects of 100 marks each, namely Hindi, Reasoning, Maths and General Studies (Basic Law and Constitution) and each question was of 2.5 marks. It is claimed that as question no. 16 of Basic Law and Constitution had all the four options incorrect, she marked option ‘A’ as her answer. Model answer key was released by the Board on 02.01.2018 wherein option ‘B’ was indicated as the correct answer for question no. 16 to which the appellant objected by filing her objection on the web-site of the Board. In the final answer key, the correct option pertaining to question no. 16 was maintained at option ‘B’. The appellant was awarded 47.5 marks in the Basic Law and Constitution and as she failed to obtain minimum 50 marks in each subject, she was held ineligible to further participate in the selection process.

5. The appellant-petitioner filed Writ-A No. 10053 of 2018. When the matter came before the learned Single Judge, by order dated 17.04.2018, it directed the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions in the matter qua two questions for which objections were raised, i.e. question nos. 16 and 21. Instructions were produced before the Court on

01.05.2018. Whereafter on 09.05.2018, the writ petition was disposed of wherein the learned Single Judge qua question no.21 observed that the challenge made by the appellant was rejected and for question no. 16, it was indicated that the objections taken by the appellant have been sustained and answer given by her has been found to be correct.

6. Based on the above result in the writ petition, when the order was purportedly not complied with, the appellant filed Contempt Application No. 7119 of 2018, which led to filing of the present review application by the State-respondents which was registered as Review Application (I.A.) No. 4 of 2019.

7. The review application was filed inter alia claiming that the instructions produced by the Standing Counsel were not properly considered by the learned Single Judge wherein the said objections raised by the appellant had been rejected, whereas learned Single Judge had observed that the same had been sustained.

8. Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, by the order impugned, examined the issue on merit and came to the conclusion that in terms of the report dated 24.04.2018 and provisions as applicable, the correct answer was ‘B’ and consequently allowed the review application and dismissed the writ petition. 2 of 5

9. Learned counsel for the appellant made vehement submissions that the action of the respondents, in insisting on option no. ‘B’ as the correct answer is on its face incorrect. Submissions have been made that even as per their own assertion, option ‘B’, according to the experts, was closest to the correct answer and in fact was not the correct answer and, therefore, the question itself was liable to be deleted and once the same was deleted, the appellant would be eligible as only on account of her failure to obtain minimum marks prescribed for each subject, she has been deprived of her selection and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. Submissions have been made that the order dated 09.05.2018 was an outcome of the wrong reading of the instructions and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in reviewing the order and dismissing the writ petition. Submissions have been made that it is well settled that Courts should not interfere with the opinion of experts with regard to the correctness of the answers and as the experts have clearly opined that option ‘B’ was the correct option, no interference in the order impugned is required.

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

12. It is not in dispute that when the order dated 09.05.2018 was passed, the same was based on incorrect reading of the instructions produced by the State wherein qua question no.16 it was clearly indicated that the final answer i.e. option ‘B’ was correct and it was sought to be justified that the option which was indicated in the English version at ‘B’ was absolutely correct, however, the translation in the Hindi version though may not be most appropriate, the same was nearest to the correct answer and none of the other options were anywhere near to the correct answer and, therefore, the objections had no substance. 3 of 5

13. The law pertaining to non interference in matters of present nature is well settled. In the case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. : (2018) 2 SCC 357, 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 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.

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

15. In view of the above law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, no interference is required in the determination made by the experts. So far as the submissions made by counsel for the appellant based on the material produced is concerned, the same also cannot be accepted inasmuch as if more than one option on a particular aspect is available and 4 of 5 the experts have gone with the nearest option, there is no occasion for this Court then to come to a contrary conclusion.

16. Besides the above, it would be seen that the appellant was required to obtain 50 marks out of 100 for qualifying to participate in further selection process but she obtained 47.5 marks only. If the plea as raised is accepted, if the question is deleted, total marks of Basic Law and Constitution subject would be reduced to 97.5 i.e. by reducing 2.5 marks for question no.16 and 50% of the same would be 48.75 marks. However, as the appellant has obtained 47.5 marks only, she would still fall short of 50% of 97.5 total marks.

17. Even if on deleting the question, 2.5 marks pertaining to question no.16 are distributed to correct questions, the marks of each 39 questions would be 2.56 and as such the appellant has attempted 19 correct questions (19x2.5=47.5), 2.56x19 would also be 48.64 only, i.e. less than 50 as minimum required. As such, the entire exercise sought to be undertaken by the appellant has no substance.

18. In view of above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal.

19. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 RK (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 5 of 5

01.05.2018. Whereafter on 09.05.2018, the writ petition was disposed of wherein the learned Single Judge qua question no.21 observed that the challenge made by the appellant was rejected and for question no. 16, it was indicated that the objections taken by the appellant have been sustained and answer given by her has been found to be correct.

6. Based on the above result in the writ petition, when the order was purportedly not complied with, the appellant filed Contempt Application No. 7119 of 2018, which led to filing of the present review application by the State-respondents which was registered as Review Application (I.A.) No. 4 of 2019.

7. The review application was filed inter alia claiming that the instructions produced by the Standing Counsel were not properly considered by the learned Single Judge wherein the said objections raised by the appellant had been rejected, whereas learned Single Judge had observed that the same had been sustained.

8. Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, by the order impugned, examined the issue on merit and came to the conclusion that in terms of the report dated 24.04.2018 and provisions as applicable, the correct answer was ‘B’ and consequently allowed the review application and dismissed the writ petition. 2 of 5

9. Learned counsel for the appellant made vehement submissions that the action of the respondents, in insisting on option no. ‘B’ as the correct answer is on its face incorrect. Submissions have been made that even as per their own assertion, option ‘B’, according to the experts, was closest to the correct answer and in fact was not the correct answer and, therefore, the question itself was liable to be deleted and once the same was deleted, the appellant would be eligible as only on account of her failure to obtain minimum marks prescribed for each subject, she has been deprived of her selection and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. Submissions have been made that the order dated 09.05.2018 was an outcome of the wrong reading of the instructions and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in reviewing the order and dismissing the writ petition. Submissions have been made that it is well settled that Courts should not interfere with the opinion of experts with regard to the correctness of the answers and as the experts have clearly opined that option ‘B’ was the correct option, no interference in the order impugned is required.

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

12. It is not in dispute that when the order dated 09.05.2018 was passed, the same was based on incorrect reading of the instructions produced by the State wherein qua question no.16 it was clearly indicated that the final answer i.e. option ‘B’ was correct and it was sought to be justified that the option which was indicated in the English version at ‘B’ was absolutely correct, however, the translation in the Hindi version though may not be most appropriate, the same was nearest to the correct answer and none of the other options were anywhere near to the correct answer and, therefore, the objections had no substance. 3 of 5

13. The law pertaining to non interference in matters of present nature is well settled. In the case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. : (2018) 2 SCC 357, 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 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.

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

15. In view of the above law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, no interference is required in the determination made by the experts. So far as the submissions made by counsel for the appellant based on the material produced is concerned, the same also cannot be accepted inasmuch as if more than one option on a particular aspect is available and 4 of 5 the experts have gone with the nearest option, there is no occasion for this Court then to come to a contrary conclusion.

16. Besides the above, it would be seen that the appellant was required to obtain 50 marks out of 100 for qualifying to participate in further selection process but she obtained 47.5 marks only. If the plea as raised is accepted, if the question is deleted, total marks of Basic Law and Constitution subject would be reduced to 97.5 i.e. by reducing 2.5 marks for question no.16 and 50% of the same would be 48.75 marks. However, as the appellant has obtained 47.5 marks only, she would still fall short of 50% of 97.5 total marks.

17. Even if on deleting the question, 2.5 marks pertaining to question no.16 are distributed to correct questions, the marks of each 39 questions would be 2.56 and as such the appellant has attempted 19 correct questions (19x2.5=47.5), 2.56x19 would also be 48.64 only, i.e. less than 50 as minimum required. As such, the entire exercise sought to be undertaken by the appellant has no substance.

18. In view of above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal.

19. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 RK (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 5 of 5