Sonam Chaudhary vs RPSC and Others

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—The petitioner herein is seeking a direction to the respondents to treat the correct answer of question Nos. 9, 79 and 146 of the question paper Annexure-P/4 replied by the petitioner; with a further direction to provide her 08 marks for the said questions and thereafter to appoint the petitioner on the post of Teacher Gr.II (Maths) after awarding the said marks.

The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court bearing SBCWP No. 6912/2014. The said writ petition was disposed of on 08.10.2014 with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the Secretary, R.P.S.C., Ajmer and directed the Secretary to decide the said representation by passing a speaking order. It is contended that the said representation has been decided without passing a speaking order. Further, the same has been rejected on the ground that she did not approach the authorities in time. However, a perusal of the impugned order shows that same is a speaking order. The dispute regarding question Nos. 9, 79 and 146 of Series ''A'' Subject Maths has been duly considered. The option filled by the petitioner qua question No. 146 was the same as in the final answer key dated 19.09.2014. Hence, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the said question. The objections received with respect to question Nos. 9 and 79 from other candidates were referred to the Commission and same were decided by the Commission after obtaining opinion from the experts.

Moreover, while issuing first answer key, a press note dated 12.3.2014 was also issued and objections were invited from the candidates. Thereafter, the second answer key was issued on 16.5.2014 after consulting the experts. Objections were once again invited with respect to second answer key. Thereafter, a final amended answer key was prepared with the help of experts and the result and final answer key was uploaded on the website on 19.09.2014.

The learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that no objection was filed by her. However, from perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that specific objections qua these questions raised by others candidates have been dealt with and the final answer key was prepared after consulting the experts.

The Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Gurmehtab Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (CWP No. 7570 of 2013) decided on 30.04.2013 while dismissing the writ petition challenging the result of the preliminary examination of the Haryana Civil Services on the ground of alleged wrong answer key after relying on the judgment rendered in the case of The President Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and Another Vs. D. Suvankar and Another, (2006) 4 CPJ 21 : (2006) 10 JT 103 : (2006) 12 SCALE 24 : (2007) 1 SCC 603 : (2006) 8 SCR 1143 Supp observed as under:-

"the court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It was held to the following effect:

The Board is in appeal against the cost imposed. As observed by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth case (supra), it is in the public interest that the results of public examinations when published should have some finality attached to them. If inspection, verification in the presence of the candidates and re-evaluation are to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the CWP No. 7570 of 2013 6 relative ranking, etc. of the candidates, besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process. The court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It would be wholly wrong for the court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to pragmatic one was to be propounded. In the above premises, it is to be considered how far the Board has assured a zero-defect system of evaluation, or a system which is almost foolproof.

This Court in the case of RPSC, Ajmer Vs. Silochna and Anr. (DB Civil Special Appeal No. 493/2014) decided on 7.5.2014 in similar set of circumstances, set aside the order of the learned Single Bench and allowed the appeal filed by the RPSC, Ajmer as under:-

"The Hon''ble Apex Court in Manish Ujwal (supra) though had propounded that the student community cannot be made to suffer on account of the errors committed by the University therein, it enunciated as well that the key answers supplied by it are assumed to be correct and in case of doubt, the court would unquestionably prefer the key answers, given by the University. In the face of the scrutiny already conducted by the expert committee vis-a-vis the objections raised by the candidates at the relevant point of time, we, to reiterate, are of the firm 7 opinion that the direction to the appellant Commission to refer the answer key to question Nos. 39 and 68 to the expert committee for a fresh scrutiny thereof, is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. A recruitment process with public participation having been concluded and appointment on the basis thereof having been made, it ought not to be left in a state of lingering uncertainty. Moreover, the candidates already selected and appointed, though would have been adversely affected in the ultimate analysis, have not been impleaded as respondents."

Applying the test in the present case, the questions have already been re-examined by the Experts after considering the objections raised by the candidates. In fact, the petitioner herself did not raise any objection at the relevant point of time after the objections were invited in pursuance to the first answer key uploaded on 12.3.2014 and the second answer key was uploaded on 16.5.2014. The same plea of the respondent No. 1-writ petitioner in the above mentioned case RPSC, Ajmer (supra) was dealt with and rejected by observing that,-

"The respondent No. 1/writ petitioner having failed to avail the opportunity granted by the appellant Commission to dispute the correctness of the answer key by filing an appropriate representation in time, we are not inclined to entertain her cavil on this count at this distant point of time."

There is no doubt that in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Manish Ujwal and Others Vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University and Others, (2005) 8 JT 382 : (2005) 13 SCC 744 , the student community cannot be made to suffer on account of errors committed by any academic institution but at the same time, it is well settled proposition of law that the Courts should restrain themselves from interfering in case the said questions have already been re-examined by the Expert Committee.

In the present case, the objections were invited after the first answer key was uploaded on the website. Thereafter a second answer key was published. Once again, the objections were invited and after the same being re-examined by the Experts, the final answer key was published. In these circumstances, any further scrutiny by another set of experts or for the Court to substitute its own version of correct answer vis-�-vis the experts opinion is neither proper nor warranted.

The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.