Sheikh Israz vs AGM (Area General Manager) & others.

Shri Prashant Singh with Shri Saurabh Parmar, counsel for the appellants. Shri Shreyas Pandit, counsel for the respondent.

The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 26.8.2016, whereby the writ petition was allowed and Public Service Commission was directed to delete the marks given all candidates for Question No.100 and thereafter revised mark-sheet be issued.

We find that the order passed by the learned Single Bench is not correct. The entire dispute is in respect of Question No.100, which is given as under:-

"100. In which Section of Human Rights Protection Act, 1993 is ''Public Servant'' defined?

(A) Section 2 (B) Section 3

(C) Section 2(H) (D) Section 2(M)."

The respondent/petitioner opted for Option (A), whereas ''model answer-key'' shows Option (D) to be the correct answer. The correct answer is Section 2(1)(m), of the Human Rights Protection Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act''). In respect of multiple choice questions, the principle is that the answer which is closest to the correct answer is the correct ''answer''. Section 2 of the Act, is a provision dealing with various definitions where section 2(1)(m) is the provision defining ''public servant''. It is only omission of sub-clause (1) in the Option (D), but the closest answer to the correct answer is infact Option (D) only.

The Supreme court in the case of Kanpur University and others Vs. Samir Gupta and others reported as AIR 1983 SC 1230 examined the issue of correctness of answer key in respect of multiple choice questions. The Court held as under:-

"Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University, contended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. We agree that the key-answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The contention of the University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged text-books, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those text- books leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect."

The Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Khushbu Srivastava and others reported as (2014) 14 SCC 523, wherein the Court held that that in the absence of any provision for the re-evaluation of answers books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has any right to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. The Court held as under :-

"We find that a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors. (supra) has clearly held relying on Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Education & Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupenshkumar Sheth & Ors. (supra) that in the absence of any provision for the re-evaluation of answers books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has any right to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. The decision in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors. (supra) was followed by another three-Judge Bench of this Court in Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda & Anr. [(2004) 13 SCC 383] in which the direction of the High Court for re-evaluation of answers books of all the examinees securing 90% or above marks was held to be unsustainable in law because the regulations of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, which conducted the examination, did not make any provision for re-evaluation of answers books in the rules."

Within this Court, the matter has been examined by Division Bench in a judgment reported as (2012) 4 MPLJ 388 - Radhika Vs. Professional Examination Education Board, Bhopal and another, wherein relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur University the Court has held as under :-

"12. Thus, in our considered view, when an expert body has already examined the questions, it is not open for the Courts to interfere into the matter. A Division Bench of this Court at Jabalpur in the case of Ankit Tiwari vs. State of M. P. and another (supra) has already dealt with the matter and has reached to the conclusion that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, All India Pre- Medical/Pre-Dental Examination, C.B.S.E. and others vs. Khushboo Shrivastava and others, Civil Appeal No. 7024 of 2011 decided on 17-8- 2011 no interference is needed in the matter. We find no ground to take a different view. It is now well settled that the Court should not interfere in matters involving academic expertise. It would not be right for the Court to sit in judgment over the decision of the University relating to the academic question because it is not a matter on which the Court possesses any expertise. It is wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally are. See -Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University and another, 1986 (suppl) SCC 740. The University of Mysore vs. C. D. Govinda, AIR 1965 SC 491, Tariq Islam vs. Aligarh Muslim University, 2001(8) SCC 546."

In another judgment a Single Bench in W.P. No.6932/2012 - Rakesh Singh Jadon Vs. State of M.P. decided on 5.8.2013 rejected the contention to seek revaluation of the answer sheets. The Court placed reliance upon Supreme Court judgment reported as (2010) 6 SCC 759 - Himanchal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur, wherein, the Court held as under :-

"20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question paper and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter-se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for respondent no.1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to law. Had it been other subjects like physics, chemistry and mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court."

Therefore, not only the most appropriate answer is the option ''D'', but also in exercise of power under judicial review this Court cannot sit in the armchair of the Public Service Commission and take a decision that the answer key is incorrect and the correct answer is option ''A''. As mentioned above, option ''A'' is not dealing with a "Public Servant", but all the definitions which cannot be treated to be the correct answer.

In view of the above, the order passed by the learned Single Bench cannot be sustained. The same is set aside.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the writ petition is dismissed.