Kundan Singh Malara vs Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission And Others

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

The present Special Appeal is directed against the order dated 14.07.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in four writ petitions, including WPSS No. 3622 of 2018 preferred by the appellant.

The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions, wherein the petitioners, including the appellant herein, had challenged the model answer in respect of Question No. 50 of Question Booklet Series ‘B’. The said question was as follows:-

“50. The origin of Sarda (Kali) is:-

(A) Pindari

(B) Kafni

(C) Milam

(D) None of the above”

The correct answer, according to the respondent No.1, was option (C), i.e. ‘Milam’. According to the petitioner / appellant and other writ petitioners, the correct answer was (D) i.e. ‘None of the above’, as according to the appellant and other writ petitioners, river ‘Sarda’ (Kali) originates from ‘Kalapani’ and not from either ‘Pindari’ or ‘Kafni’ or ‘Milam’.

The learned Single Judge refused to go into the examination of the issue as to which is the correct option, since an Expert Committee had been constituted to deal with the thirty-six objections received to the draft model answers, and the Expert Committee had maintained that the correct answer for the aforesaid question is ‘(C) Milam’.

The learned Single Judge, while refusing to interfere in writ jurisdiction with the decision of the Expert Committee, placed reliance on several decisions, including the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan (2021) 2 SCC 309.

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge should have, at least, called for the record of the Expert Committee to examine as to whether the Expert Committee had applied its mind and the material on the basis of which the Expert Committee had concluded that the correct answer was option ‘(C) Milam’ and not option ‘(D) None of the above’.

The aforesaid limited examination, no doubt, could have been undertaken by the learned Single Judge. However, we are not inclined to undertake the said examination even at this appellate stage for the reason that the two other candidates, who had secured 68.75 marks, which was the cut-off marks, whereas the petitioner / appellant had secured 67.75 marks, had also answered the same question in the same way as the petitioner / appellant and, therefore, even if for the sake of argument, it were to be accepted that the correct option for the aforesaid question was ‘(D) None of the above’, respondent Nos. 2 & 3, namely Vishal Arora and Tribhuwan Bhatt, who had secured 68.75 marks, would also be entitled to be awarded 1.25 additional marks, and the result would have been that the petitioner / appellant would secure 69 marks, and they would secure 70 marks. Consequently, the position would remain the same as the cut-off marks would have raised to 70, whereas the petitioner / appellant would remain at 69 marks, and it would not alter the fate of the petitioner/ appellant.

We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

In sequel thereto, pending application, if any, also stands dismissed.