Archana Jha And Another vs Professional Examination Board And Another

V.K.Shukla, J

Heard through Video Conferencing:

The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) To cancel question Nos. 5, 28, 30, 86, 87 and 93 (English ) of High School Teacher Eligibility Test, 2018 in view of the Clause 2.9 (a) (Annexure P-2).

(ii) To adjust and rectify the result for the petitioners for High School Teacher Eligibility Test, 2018 examination and grant appropriate marks and position to the

petitioner by revising his results.

(iii) Grant any other relief as deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.â€​

Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 at the outset submitted that the present petition is liable to be dismissed in view of the judgment passed in

the case of Nidhi Nema and others Vs. The Professional Examination Board and others) passed in W.P.No.1876/2020

.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to certain questions to submit that the questions are out of syllabus. It is pertinent to

mention here that the advertisement for conducting of High School Teacher Eligibility Test, 2018 was issued in August, 2018. The examination was

conducted on 02-02-2019. On 13-02-2019, the respondents published the model answer key. The petitioners submitted their objection for correction in

the question and model answer on 17-02-2019. The respondents published the answer key and rejected all the objections on 28-08-2019. The

petitioners have filed the present petition in February, 2020.

We have perused the order passed in the case of Nidhi Nema(supra) and find that no interference is called for in the

present case also . In the case of Nidhi Nema(supra) this court has held as under :

“This Court has already examined the formula contained in Clause 2.9A and 2.9B in W.P. No.20290/2019 (Pushpendra Burman and others vs. The State of

M.P. and others) decided on 29.11.2019. The model questions and model answers are prepared on the recommendation of Expert Committee and therefore, this Court

cannot examine the correctness of the model questions and answers prescribed by the respondents in the examination.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. We are of the view that in academic matters where question papers and key

answers are set by a body of experts, no interference is called for.

In the case of Nitin Pathak vs. State of M.P. and others 2017(4) M.P.L.J 353 , the Full Bench of this Court has laid down following principles:-

In exercise of power of Judicial Review, the Court should not refer the matter to court appointed expert as the courts have a very limited role particularly when no

mala fides have been alleged against the experts constituted to finalize answer key. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the

decisions to the academicians and experts.

Secondly, this Court does not and should not act as Court of Appeal in the matter of opinion of experts in academic matters as the power of judicial review is

concerned, not with the decision, but with the decision making process. The Court should not under the guise of preventing the abuse of power be itself guilty of

usurping power.

Further, the Apex Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2018) 2 SCC 357 held that :-

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.

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 â€" 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.

In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Â