Rajendra Singh Bhandari vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Lok Pal Singh, J

This Writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the wrong answer of the question no.115 of question booklet SET (C) in UTET -II and also quash the wrong answer of the question no.3 and 39 of question booklet SET (B) in UTET - I so far it relates to the petitioner.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to revise the answer of the question no.115 of the question booklet SET (C) and declared the petitioner qualified in UTET - II as per the correct answer appended by the petitioner.

iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to revise the answer of the question no.3 and 39 of the question booklet SET (B) and declared the petitioner qualified in UTET - I as per the correct answer appended by the petitioner.

Pursuant to an advertisement issued by second respondent, inviting applications for UTET-I and II 2018 Examination, petitioner submitted his application form. Petitioner appeared in the examination; he was given question booklet Set "C" in UTET - II; petitioner gave option 'C' to the question no.115 and marked the same in the OMR sheet. After the examination, answer key was uploaded on the website wherein answer to question no.115 was shown as answer 'B'. Petitioner filed his objection before the respondent no.2 regarding answer to question no.115. In support of his claim, he also filed certain evidences, but the respondent no.2 rejected the objection of the petitioner.

Question No.115 in Booklet Series 'C' is as follows:-

In which among the following years Supreme Court at Calcutta was set up by the East India Company?

(A) 1772            (B) 1773

(C) 1774            (D) 1775

Petitioner has given option 'C' i.e. 1774, however, answer key suggests the answer 'B'.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because of the discrepancy in the evaluation process, petitioner has been disqualified by two marks in UTET-1 and by one mark in UTET-II. Learned counsel would draw attention of this Court to a Book "Indian Polity" (भारत की राज्यव्यवस्था) written by M. Laxmikant. He would contend that as per this book, the right answer of the question no.115 is 'C' i.e. Supreme Court at Calcutta was set up by the East India Company in the year 1774.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent wherein it is stated after the model answer key was uploaded on the department website, objections were invited from the candidates. After receiving the objections, an Expert Committee consisting of subject experts was constituted to decide the objections. It is further stated that the Expert Committee, after due considerations, has decided the objections of the petitioner. The Expert Committee did not find mistake in the answer given in the model answer key and held it to be correct. It is also stated that the Expert Committee has relied on the book approved by NCERT.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the material available. I have also personally searched the answer of Question No.115 and as per the information provided in the Wikipedia, The Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William, Calcutta (Kolkata) was founded in 1774 by the Regulating Act of 1773. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the answer given by the petitioner i.e. 'C' is the correct answer.

Ordinarily, the Court should not sit over the decision of the Expert Committee but when the mistake is apparent on the face of record, the Court should not hesitate in passing any order and in granting relief to the candidate who has suffered because of such mistake.

In the light of aforesaid, a mandamus is issued to the respondents to re-evaluate the answer sheets of all the candidates on the basis of observations made in the body of this judgment and a fresh merit list be prepared accordingly.

Writ petition is disposed of, as above. No order as to costs.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.