Amit Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ASGI for the Union of India.

The writ petition seeks re-evaluation of applicant's/ petitioner's answer papers for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for

promotion to the cadre of Inspector post for the year 2015- 2016. The examination was conducted on 22.10.2016 and 23.10.2016. Petitioner had

applied for the Jharkhand Circle where there were 3 vacancies. The examination was on a country wide scale. Petitioner was given question Booklet

Series 'D'. Petitioner noticed error in four questions i.e. question no. 73, 55, 68 and 96 in paper I, II, III & IV respectively. He made representation

before the respondents on 06.01.2017. The result of the examination was declared on 21.06.2017. As per the circle wise merit list, petitioner obtained

786 marks whereas the last selected candidate obtained 792 marks. Petitioner again submitted representation on 18.09.2017 for re-checking of the

errors in the answer scripts of booklet series 'D' and for re-evaluation. This was declined by letter dated 16.10.2017, which was made subject matter

of challenge before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Patna Bench, Circuit Sitting at Ranchi in O.A. /051/00121/18 (Annexure-4).

Learned CAT after considering the submission of the applicant / petitioner in the original application and the stand taken by the respondents through

their written statement, refused to interfere in the matter holding as under:-

The respondents have denied the claim of the applicant in their written statement. They have stated that there were 189 vacancies under the

Department of Posts against which 3 vacancies were in the Jharkhand Circle. Total 65 candidates from Jharkhand Circle were allowed to appear in

the aforesaid examination. However, total 59 candidates from Jharkhand Circle appeared in this examination. Following a number of questions of

provisional answer keys and due to feedback and comments received from the candidates a total 135 questions on all the four papers were disputed.

The objections of the applicant herein were on total 10 questions which were included in this compiled list and it was submitted to an Expert

Committee. The Expert Committee, after examining all these objections, had recommended to drop a total 24 questions and to revise the provisional

answer key of 9 questions after this. Thus, after doing this thorough check including those objections which were raised by the applicant, the answers

were checked through machine with 100% accuracy and cross checked manually with 10% answer scripts. Since such details re-assessment of the

examination process had already been done further request by the applicant on the grounds raised in this OA is not maintainable. It is also because

any discrepancy noticed during the examination should have been raised by the candidate before the room Invigilator. Since the objections raised by

Amit Kumar (applicant herein) including those relating to questions in the 'D' series, were already taken into consideration, new contentions now

raised by the applicant were not found worthy of consideration.

We have gone through the pleadings and heard argument of the learned counsels of both the parties. The reply of the respondents in their WS

explains in detail the corrective action taken by them for correcting the mistakes in the questions and the answer sheet. Though it is true that some

questions might have still escaped the notice of the Committee because of no alarm/ complaint being raised about their accuracy, it needs to be seen

whether these mistakes are sufficiently material to change the whole result. We find it prima facie not to be so. In any case, the obvious mistake in not

printing the correct answer option would have affected all the candidates equally. The remaining three out of 150 would not make material difference

in the assessment to warrant re-assessment and quashing of examination. The OA is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.

Petitioner/ applicant being aggrieved has approached this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that categorical plea was taken in respect of at least 3 questions forming part of Paper-III (IPO) of

question booklet series 'D', which concerns rules and acts, such as the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, these questions were not part of the

scrutiny exercise undertaken by the Expert Committee as per Annexure-A/3 at page 44 dated 21.06.2017. Relying upon the decision of the Apex

Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh & Others Vrs.

State of U.P. and others in Civil Appeal No. 367 of 2017 order dated 11.12.2017 reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357, it is argued that the Court may permit

re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly that answer sheets contains material error, though such an opinion should not be derived

from inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to examine the case of the

petitioner in that light.

Learned A.S.G.I has countered the submissions by referring to the stand taken by the respondents through their written statements at para 6

(Annexure-2 of the writ petition). He has delineated the sequence of dates related to the LDCE and 3 number of vacancies for the Jharkhand Circle

for which the applicants like the petitioner had applied for. It is pointed out that applicant's objection to the approved answer keys were submitted

through email dated 06.01.2017 in respect of Paper II (Q. No. 50, 55 and 145); Paper III (Q.no. 68, 41,138 & 148) and Paper IV (Q. No.116, 141

&149) of the Booklet Series 'D' along with other such objections received from candidates across the country and were placed before the Expert

Committee (High Level) constituted under the orders of the competent authority. A total 135 questions of all the four papers were disputed as per the

feedback/ comments of the candidates. The Expert Committee carefully examined the contentions of the candidates and recommended to drop the

questions enumerated in the table at Para 6 (x) as there were some ambiguity in the keys or in framing questions i.e., in given options, correct answer

was not available or more than one answer were correct resulting in lack of clarity. The Expert Committee has also recommended for revision of

provisional answer keys options in a table under Para 6 (xi). The High Level Committee recommended to drop 24 questions as described therein from

evaluation and to revise the provisional answer key of total 9 questions. The re-evaluation was done in house under the supervision of a committee of

officers through machines with 100% accuracy which was also cross checked manually for 10% answer scripts. Petitioner again made a

representation on 18.09.2017 after results were published. The Department examined his representation containing objections on other questions, one

from Paper I and second from Paper IV. Upon reexamination it was found that the said questions had already been taken up by the Expert

Committee for final answer options. The answer options adopted for evaluation were duly taken as per the recommendations of the high level

committee and after the approval of the Competent Authority. The objection relating to question no.55 of paper II that the option D was not found

printed in series D (of question paper II) was held to be not entertainable since no such grievance was raised by the candidate / applicant before the

room invigilator. If that had been done so, the invigilator could have raised the same before the higher authority to sort out the issue on the spot. Since

the objection raised by the applicant on question no. 73 of Paper I (D series) 68 of paper III (D series) and question no. 96 of paper IV (D- series)

was already taken into consideration by the high level committee, as such, they were not considered for revision as per the representation of the

petitioner.

Learned ASGI has submitted that the position in law in relation to prayer for re-evaluation in such examination is well settled by the decision of the

Apex Court rendered from time to time, such as in the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vrs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna

and others reported in 2004(6) SCC 714, para 7 and 8 thereof and also followed in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra), relied by the petitioner

himself. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that that the Court should not re-evaluate or scrutinize question papers and answers as it has no expertise in the

matter. Academic matters are best left to academics. It is further submitted that in this LDC examination, the employer himself invited objection

across the country and placed the objections before the Expert Committee, who after due scrutiny chose to recommend dropping of certain questions

and to revise the provisional answer key. The re-evaluation was done after the report of the Expert Committee as approved by the Competent

Authority and only thereafter the final results were published. It is not a case that the employer did not invite any objection on the questions / answer

Booklet Series on its own or had not got it revised after due scrutiny by the Expert Committee. The applicant, after the examination was over, has

again made representation for re-evaluation of the answer sheet which also was examined and declined for the aforesaid reasons. Therefore, the

decision relied upon by the petitioner in fact goes against him.

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the relevant materials on record relied upon by them. We

have also gone through the impugned order and the decisions cited by the parties. From the chronology of facts and events noted above, it appears

that not only the applicant's but objections of candidates across the country who had appeared in the LDC examination were invited after the

examination was over by the employer. A total no. of 135 questions including those raised by the applicant were examined and scrutinized by the

Expert Committee and the Expert Committee also recommended to revise certain questions and the provisional answer keys. After such re-evaluation

done through machine with 100% accuracy and cross checked manually of 10% of the answer scripts, the final result was published on 21.06.2017.

The contention of the petitioner that the respondents have refused to entertain the request for re-evaluation is therefore untenable on facts. Moreover,

petitioner after such re-evaluation got 786 marks whereas the last selected candidate got 792 marks. Even after the result was declared on

21.06.2017, the representation of the petitioner dated 18.09.2017 have been examined by the employer. Since 3 questions raised therein had already

been examined by the Expert Committee earlier, no further revision was undertaken. Petitioner wants this Court to scrutinize one or the other

question.

Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (Supra), we refrain from undertaking such exercise once the employer

had already undertaken the scrutiny and re-evaluation of the result after entertaining objections from candidates, more so, since the Court is not an

expert in such matters. Para 30 of the decision of the Apex Court in the instant case is quoted hereunder:-

The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: 30.1. If a statute, Rule or

Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the

authority conducting the examination may permit it;

30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from

prohibiting it) then the court may permit re- evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated 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 committed;

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 30.5. In the event of

a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.

In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the discussion made herein above, we do not find any case for interference under Article

226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed.