Vivek Kumar Devesh @APPELLANT@Hash State Of Rajasthan

The petitioners have instituted the above noted writ applications praying for the following relief(s):

“i) That the impugned Clauses-13(2) of the impugned advertisement dated 12.04.2018 prescribing marks secured in Teachers Eligibility

Examination as sole criteria of selection on the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-I) may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary and therefore same may

kindly be quashed and set aside.

ii) The respondents may kindly be directed by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof:

(a) To adopt the process of normalizing the marks of different examinations of RTET 2011, 2012 and REET 2015 & 2017 before making selection on

the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-I);

(b) To make the selection on the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-I) by correcting the answer key of REET 2017 in respect to following questions as

under:-

(c) To grant weightage to the marks of qualifying examinations like Sr. Secondary and BSTC;

(d) To produce before this Hon’ble Court Result analysis sheet for REET 2015 & REET 2017 and the record of the no. of candidates selected on

the basis of REET 2015 marks in Teacher Grade III (Level-I) Recruitment, 2016;

(e) Or in the alternative to conduct written examination for selection on the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-I) or to make selection solely on the basis of

marks in REET 2017 and with weightage of marks in qualifying examinations

(iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may

kindly also be passed in favour of the petitioner.â€​

Shorn off unnecessary details, the essential skeletal material facts are that the Respondents conducted Rajasthan Teacher Eligibility Test (for short,

RTET), for recruitment on the post of Teacher Grade III (Level-1) for the year of 2011 and 2012. Thereafter, an amendment was made in the

Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short, Rules of 1996) vide notification dated 15 October 2015, wherein the candidates in possession of the

qualifications as per National Council for Teacher Education (for short, NCTE) Notification dated 29 July 2011, were only to be eligible to apply for

the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (for short, REET), earlier known as Rajasthan Teachers Eligibility Test (for short, ‘RTET’),

for the subsequent examinations. After the amendment of the Rules of 1996, as aforesaid, the respondents advertised for REET-2015, wherein the

conditions of eligibility were as per the amendment and result of REET-2015, was declared by the respondent no. 3 on 19 May 2016. The respondents

issued advertisement dated 06 July 2016, as Advertisement No. 1/2016, inviting applications from eligible candidates for Rajasthan Primary and Upper

Primary School Teachers Direct Recruitment Examination-2016, and the result for the same was declared on dated 27 May 2017. The petitioners are

the candidates who acquired their two years Diploma in Elementary Education after 2015 and became eligible to appear in REET-2017. And they

appeared in the REET - 2017 Examination, conducted by the respondent no. 3.

The respondent no. 3, issued model answer key dated 11 April 2018 under the advertisement dated 12 April 2018, for the eligibility examination and

invited objections from participating candidates on the same model answer key. The petitioners submitted objections on several questions of different

subjects including compulsory subjects as well. The list of the disputed questions of REET-2017, is as under: Learned counsel for the petitioners

contended that National Council for Teacher Education (for short, ‘NCTE’), has been designated as ‘Nodal Agency’ to prescribe

minimum qualifications for a candidate to be eligible for appointment as a teacher. Further, NCTE vide its notification dated 23 August 2010, in the

Gazette of India contemplated that it would be compulsory for a candidate to pass a Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate

government in accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE. The Panchayati Raj Department vide notification dated 15 October, 2015,

amended the Rules 1996, contemplating that the authorized agency shall invite applications by advertising vacancies and shall prepare a category wise

select list of the candidates declared successful on the basis of criteria of selection laid down by the State Government from time to time. The

Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), has been conducted only four times since 2011 i.e. RTET (Rajasthan Teachers Eligibility Test) 2011, RTET 2012 and

REET (Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers) 2015 and REET 2017.

After the amendment under the Rules of 1996, vide notification dated 15th October, 2015, the respondents issued advertised for REET-2015, wherein

the condition of eligibility was as per the amendment and the result of the REET-2015, was declared by the respondent no. 3 on 19th May, 2016.

Thereafter, the State-respondents issued advertisement dated 06th July, 2016, as Advertisement No. 1/2016, for Rajasthan Primary and Upper

Primary School Teachers Direct Recruitment Examination-2016, and the result for the same was declared on dated 27th May 2017. The petitioners

are the candidates who acquired their two years Diploma in Elementary Education after 2015, and became eligible to appear in REET-2017. And the

petitioners did appear in REET-2017 Examination conducted by the respondent No. 3. The model answer key dated 11th April, 2018, was issued

under the advertisement dated 12th April, 2018, for the eligibility examination and invited objections from the participating candidates. The petitioners

submitted objections on several questions of different subjects including compulsory subjects as well, which reads thus:

I) Question No.1, Section â€" 1, Child Development and Pedagogy: Ques.No.1. In Paiget’s theory a process which is the balancing act between

the “oldâ€​ and the “newâ€​ between the perception and experience known as

(A) Assimilation (B) Accommodation

(C) Equilibration (D) Knowledge disturbance

Correct answer according to the respondents is-(C) Equilibration. And according to the petitioners-(B) Accommodation

II) Question No.11, Section-1, Child Development and Pedagogy:-Ques. No.11. Howard Gardner says that there many specific types of intelligence

or frames of mind. Which one is a category of the intelligence as suggested by him?

(A) Analytical intelligence (B) Creative intelligence

(C) Naturalist skills (D) Practical Intelligence

Correct answer according to the respondents is- (C) Naturalist skills. And according to the petitioners- (B) or ought to have been deleted.

III) Question No. 17, Section-1, Child Development and Pedagogy:-

Ques. 17. Psychoanalysts believe that there is a primary means by which the ego “keeps the lid on the idâ€​. It is called

(A) Super Ego (B) Pleasure Principle

(C) Conflict (D) Repression

Correct answer according to the respondents is- (D) Repression. And according to the petitioners-or ought to have been deleted.

Ques.22 One of the adjustment mechanism involves thinking logically and socially, in approved reason of past, present and proposed behaviour is

called

(A) Compensation (B) Rationalization

(C) Regression (D) Repression

Correct answer according to the respondents is- (D) Repression. And according to the petitioners or ought to have been deleted.

IV) Question No. 21, Section â€" 1, Child Development and Pedagogy:-

Ques.21 A systematic science which provides Rules, Laws and Principles for achieving adjustment within self and the environment is called

(A) Motivation (B) Mental Hygiene

(C) Learning (D) Conflict

Correct answer according to the respondents is (B) Mental Hygiene And according to the petitioners - (C) Learning

V) Question No. 37, Language-1, Hindi:-

iz’u la[;k 37 ^Qy dks [kwc idk gksuk pkfg,^ okD; esa v’kqf) gS (A) opu laca/kh (B) inØe laca/kh (C) dkjd laca/kh (D) fyax laca/kh

Correct answer according to the respondents is (C) dkjd laca/kh Respondent And according to the petitioners or ought to have been deleted.

VI) Question No. 99, Subject- Mathematics:-

Ques.99 3 litre mixture of water and sugar has 40% sugar. If a litre water is added in this mixture, then sugar percentage in new mixture is equal to

(A) 25% (B) 30%

(C) 35% (D) 40%

Correct answer according to the respondents is-(B) 30%. And according to the petitioners or ought to have been deleted.

VII) Question No. 107, Subject- Mathematics:-

Ques.107 A device for finding out what pupils understand and can do with a purpose of adapting future teaching to the needs of the individual or the

class is known as

(A) Summative Assessment (B) Informative Assessment

(C) Diagnostic Assessment (D) Testing Correct answer according to the respondents is- (C) Diagnostic Assessment. And according to the

petitioners- (A) Summative Assessment

VIII) Question No. 137, Subject â€" Environmental Studies:-Ques. 137 Minamata disease is related to which of the following

(A) Cd pollution (B) SO2 pollution

(C) Hg pollution (D) None of these

Correct answer according to the respondents is-(C) Hg pollution. And according to the petitioners or question ought to have been deleted.

Learned counsel for the petitioners vociferously argued that the result was declared based upon the impugned final answer key due to which the

petitioners could not secure minimum 60 % marks to ‘pass’ the Teachers Eligibility Test. And the respondents now have issued advertisement

dated 12th April 2018, for selection on 20497 posts of Teachers Grade III (Level-1). According to the counsel the petitioners are the candidates who

would have been eligible to apply in pursuance to advertisement dated 12th April 2018, if their REET-2017 result, been declared as per the correct

answer key.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further asserted that the recruitment of primary teachers, by selection, solely based upon RTET/REET marks in

RTET-2011, RTET-2012, REET-2015 and REET-2017; is illegal and arbitrary in the face of judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in

the case of SHER

SINGH V/S DINESH SINGH: D.B. SAW NO. 1464/ 2016 decided on 27th April, 2017. Hence, the State-respondents ought to have followed the

same criteria for the recruitment process involved herein for teachers grade-III (Level-1).

Furthermore, the impugned advertisement dated 12th April 2018, inviting applications for recruitment on the post of Teacher Grade III (Level-1), as

per the marks obtained by the candidates in RTET-2011, RTET-2012, REET-2015 and REET-2017; is also illegal and arbitrary for the State-

respondents ought to have adopted the process of normalization and equalization of the marks secured by the candidates appearing in different TET

Examination of 2011, 2012, 2015 and 2017; as the level of examination for different years (supra), was different which is evident from the difference

of pass percentage in the TET Examinations with minimum 60%, passing marks, as indicated hereunder:

Per contra: Learned senior counsel for the respondents vehemently asserted that the writ petition (SBCWP No.9603/2018), has been filed by 24

candidates jointly but mark sheets of only 17, were annexed to the writ petition. Further, the objections raised by the petitioners are not supported by

any material on record to show whether the remaining 7 candidates have any cause of action for filing the writ petition. The objections of only one

candidate namely, Kanhiya Lal Sharma, have been annexed with the writ petition, who is not even one of the petitioners in the writ petition. That

apart, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 970/2017 GOPAL SINGH V/S RAJASTHAN & ORS., decided on 25th July 2017, a Coordinate Bench of this

Court, at Principal seat, Jodhpur, directed to Re-appraisal Committee comprising of three experts who would review the answer key and view of the

objections ensuring the process to be more transparent and to ward off possible errors and to avoid uncalled for and repeated revision of result. The

directions, reads thus:

“(i) The Board shall constitute a committee of three experts as ‘Reappraisal Committee’. As soon as the examinations are over, the answer

key prepared by the paper setter shall be forwarded to such Committee, which would review the answers suggested by the paper setter;

(ii) The answer key duly reviewed by the ‘Reappraisal Committee’ shall alone be published as ‘final answer key’;

(iii) Cut off marks or list of select candidates shall not be announced at the time of the publication of the ‘final answer key’;

(iv) With the publication of the final answer key, the Board shall give at least 15 days’ notice to the candidates to lodge their objections regarding

the questions and answers;

(v) Such objections shall be decided by an expert committee, which would be comprised of minimum one and maximum two members out of the

members of the ‘Reappraisal Committee’;

(vi) After the resolution of the grievance by the aforesaid expert committee, the revised result, ‘revised answer key’ or ‘final result’ shall

be published and the ‘cut off’ shall be declared.

(vii) The list of selected candidates will thereafter be published or notified in tune with the revised result.â€​

Learned counsel for the respondents further asserted that the respondents constituted subject wise ‘Re-appraisal Committee’ of minimum

three experts and the committees have reviewed the answers suggested by the paper setters and the answer keys have been suggested by the said

‘Re-appraisal committees’ only. It is also pointed out that 15 days’ time to was allowed to submit objections as to the questions and answers

in compliance of the directions by this court in the case of Gopal Singh (supra). Objections to 226 questions out of 510 submitted by the participating

candidates, including those objected by the petitioners, were duly considered by the ‘Re-appraisal Committee’ and the Committee has suggested

either bonus marks for more than one correct answer in respect of 9 questions only. Complying with the suggestions of the ‘Re-appraisal

Committee’, the respondents prepared the final answer keys and declared the result of the Teacher Grade III (Level-1) examination on 11th April,

2018.

Referring the plea of normalization of all the RTET/REET Examinations, learned counsel for the respondents, vehemently argued that REET-2017

Examination and the previous examinations, were conducted on the same syllabus as prescribedand no question of the REET-2017 Examination is out

of that syllabus. Further, the RTE Act, 2009, does not require any such normalization or equalization and the power to decide the issue of clubbing the

TETs of different years is a matter of policy, for which the policy maker is the State. It is also contended that NCTE under Section 23 of RTE Act,

2009, provides for clubbing, without any such equalization, and Clause 11 prescribes TET pass certificate valid for appointment upto 7 years.

It is pointed out that opinion in the case of Sher Singh (supra), would reflect that the Division Bench dealt with the selection of teachers for the

post of Teacher Grade-III-Level-2 (Class VI-VIII) and not the teachers post of Level - 1 (Class I â€" V). The criteria for the Level - 2 is subject

wise whereas for Level - 1 its not as so. And thus, there is no requirement of academic consideration in the matter of selection for the post of

Teacher Grade III (Level - 1).

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the relevant materials available on record as well as gave my

thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar.

In view of the conspicuous facts of the matters at hand as noted hereinabove; it is evident that in the case of Sher Singh And Ors vs Dinesh Singh

And Ors, decided on 27 April, 2017, the Division Bench of this Court dealt with the selection of Teacher Grade-III (Level-2) while the present matters

deal with the selection of Teacher Grade-III (Level-1). Here, it will be relevant to take note of the text of para 35 of the judgement in the case of Sher

Singh (supra), which reads thus:

The question, which arises for consideration of this Court, as noted above, is limited to as to how the merit is to be prepared. We find that as per

the advertisement, which requires a candidate to have a particular minimum educational qualification and also to have REET eligibility, has decided to

prepare merit only on the basis of the marks obtained in the REET which has resulted in (37 of 38) [ SAW-1464/2016] causing ambiguity, confusion

and administrative chaotic situation where a candidate may be able to secure appointment as a Teacher in a particular subject, even though he may

not have studied that subject at all. Such cannot be the purpose of selection and we, therefore, hold that the advertisement condition of preparation of

merit itself being vague and contrary to the purpose sought to be achieved, deserves to be set aside and we accordingly do so. It may also be noted

that a subject Teacher of level-2 is also entitled for further promotion under the relevant educational service rules in that subject to the level of

Teacher Gr. II in order to teach higher classes. If a candidate enters on the lower post, even without having the minimum qualifications in that subject,

would amount to resulting in a chaotic situation.

A glance of para 35 (supra), would reflect that the Division Bench in no uncertain terms clarified the need of academic consideration in the

selection process for the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-2), for the candidate may be selected for a particular subject even though he might not

have studied that subject at all which would indeed be adverse to the quality and education system. Thus, academics are required to be considered for

appointing a Teacher Grade-III (Level-2), along with the TET examination of the candidate. While in the matters at hand, selection for the post of

Teacher Grade-III (Level-1), the applications are not filed for the TET Examination subject wise as the post involved herein is for classes I â€" V.

Hence, there is norequirement of considering academic qualification of the candidate for the said post.

The question whether the High Court can go into the issue of correctness of model key answers; has been examined by the Apex Court of the

land in a catena of judgments. At this juncture, it will be profitable to take note of the opinions referred to and relied upon by the counsel for the parties

in this reference.

In the case of Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor and Ors. Vs. Samir Gupta and Ors.:(1983) 4 SCC 309, the Supreme Court in no

uncertain terms held that the Government in order to avoid a recurrence of lapses, of the nature one at hand, in the system of examinations, should

compile under its own auspices a text-book which should be prescribed for students desirous of appearing for the relevant combined test. In this

reference, the relevant text of the judgment reads thus:

“15. The findings of the High Court raise a question of great importance to the student community. Normally, one would be inclined to the view,

especially if one has been a paper setter and an examiner, that the key answer furnished be the paper setter and accepted by the University as

correct, should not be allowed to be challenged. One way of achieving it is not to publish the key answer at all. If the University had not published the

key answer along with the result of the test, no controversy would have arisen in this case. But that is not a correct way of looking at these matters

which involve the future of hundreds of students who are aspirants for admission to professional courses. If the key answer were kept secret in this

case, the remedy would have been worse than the disease because, so many students would have had to suffer the injustice in silence. The publication

of the key answer has unravelled an happy state of affairs to which the University and the State Government must find a solution. Their sense of

fairness in publishing the key answer has given them an opportunity to have a closer look at the system of examinations which they conduct. What has

failed is not the computer but the human system.

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.

Students who have passed their Intermediate Board Examination are eligible to appear for the entrance Test for admission to the Medical Colleges

in U.P. Certain books are prescribed for the Intermediate Board Examination and such knowledge of the subjects as the students have is derived from

what is contained in those text-books. Those text-books support the case of the students fully. If this were a case of doubt, we would have

unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an

answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong.

If the State Government wants to avoid a recurrence of such lapses, it should compile under its own auspices a text-book which should be

prescribed for students desirous of appearing for the combined Pre-Medical Test. Education has more than its fair share of politics, which is the bane

of our Universities. Numerous problem are bound to arise in the compilation of such a text-book for, various applicants will come forward for doing

the job and forces and counter-forces will wage a battle on the question as to who should be commissioned to do the work. If the State can succeed in

overcoming those difficulties, the argument will not be open to the students that the answer contained in the text-book which is prescribed for the test

is not the correct answer.

Secondly, a system should be devised by the State Government for moderating the key answers furnished by the paper setters. Thirdly, if English

questions have to be translated into Hindi, it is not enough to appoint an expert in the Hindi language as a translator. The translator must know the

meaning of the scientific terminology and the art of translation. Fourthly, in a system of 'Multiple Choice Objective-type test', care must be taken to

see that questions having an ambiguous import are not set in the papers That kind of system of examination involves merely the tick-marking of the

correct answer, It leaves no scope for reasoning or argument. The answer is 'yes' or 'no'. That is why the questions have to be clear and unequivocal.

Lastly, if the attention of the University is drawn to any defect in a key answer or any ambiguity in a question set in the examination, prompt and

timely decision must be taken by the University to declare that the suspect question will be excluded from the paper and no marks assigned to it.

Twenty-seven students in all were concerned with these proceedings, out of whom 8 were admitted to the B.D.S. course, 3 were admitted to the

M.B.B.S. course last year itself in place of the students who dropped out and 5 have succeeded in getting admission this year. Omitting 8 of the

respondents who have been already admitted to the M.B.B.S. course, the remaining 19 shall have to be given admission as directed by the High

Court. If the key answer was not wrong as it has turned out to be, they would have succeeded in getting admission. In view of the findings of the High

Court, -the question naturally arose as to how the marks were to be allotted to the respondents for the three questions answered by them and which

were wrongly assessed by the University. The High Court has held that the respondents would be entitled to be given 3 marks for each of the

questions correctly ticked by them, and in addition they would be entitled to 1 mark for those very questions, since 1 mark was deducted from their

total for each of the questions wrongly answered by them. Putting it briefly, such of the respondents as are found to have attempted the three

questions or any of them would be entitled to an addition of 4 marks per question. If the answer-books are reassessed in accordance with this formula,

the respondents would be entitled to be admitted to the M.B.B.S. course, about which there is no dispute. Accordingly, we confirm the directions

given by the High Court in regard to the reassessment of the particular questions and the admission of the respondents to the M.B.B.S. course.â€​

In the case of State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak:AIR 2017 SC 3612, the Apex Court of the land in no uncertain terms observed that

Appropriate Government may in its own wisdom decide as to the eligibility of the candidates on the basis of Teachers Eligibility Test (TET). Here, it

will be relevant to take note of the text of paragraph 12 to 17, which reads thus:

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Main contention raised on behalf of State of Uttar Pradesh is that while it was permissible for the

Central Government to lay down eligibility qualifications for appointment of a teacher for elementary education by virtue of Section 23 of the RTE

Act, the NCTE could not lay down any guideline so as to affect the power of a State to prescribe norms for selection of a teacher consistent with the

qualifications Under Section 23 of the RTE Act.

On the other hand, the stand of the original writ Petitioners is that the subject of education falls under Entry 25 of List III of 7th Schedule of the

Constitution after the 42nd Amendment. Thus, by virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution, the law made by the Parliament prevails over any law made

by the State. It was submitted that The NCTE Act has been enacted by the Parliament to achieve 'planned and coordinated development of the

teacher education system'. The Council constituted under the Act is empowered to issue guidelines Under Sections 12 and 12A for ensuring planned

and coordinated development of teacher education and also to lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as

a teacher. Further, vide Notification dated 31st March, 2010 Under Section 23 of the RTE Act, the Central Government has authorized the NCTE as

the 'academic authority' to lay down minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher.

Learned Counsel for the NCTE submitted that notification dated 11th February, 2011 suggesting weightage to TET marks was merely a guideline

and was not intended to be binding on the States. While TET was a mandatory requirement, weightage to the marks in the TET was merely a

suggestion. This stand has also been taken by some of the learned Counsel in connected matters. Reliance was placed on the stand of the NCTE in its

affidavit dated 1st May, 2014 in CWP 346 of 2013 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court as follows:

That in view of the said recommendations of the Committee, it is stated that the guidelines contained in Clause 10 and 11 of NCTE guidelines dated

11th February, 2011 are directory in nature. Appropriate Government may in its own wisdom decide as to the eligible candidates on the basis of having

qualified the Central Teachers Eligibility Test. However, education being the subject matter of concurrent list of the power to frame appropriate

legislation/Regulations/rules works with the appropriate legislature of the State Government and as such State Government is well within as rights to

prescribe the qualification of eligibility in the form that the candidates wanting to apply for the said post must necessarily qualify the Teachers

Eligibility Test of said State. There would be no legality in the same and merely because a state government had failed to conduct the State Teachers

Eligibility Test (STET) in a given year would not amount to taking a decision not to hold the exams and to hold the candidates having qualified Central

Teacher Eligibility Test as eligible.

Reliance was also placed on clarification dated 2nd September, 2016 by NCTE in reply to a question under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (at

page No. 733 of the SLP paper book in SLP(Civil) No. 1121 of 2017) as follows:

CTET/TET is an examination to qualify to become eligible for appointment as a teacher from classes I to VIII.

There is no binding to State/Central Government to select the candidate as a teacher basis on TET marks. TET is just eligibility for the appointment

of teachers.

There is no manner of doubt that the NCTE, acting as an 'academic authority' Under Section 23 of the RTE Act, under the Notification dated 31st

March, 2010 issued by the Central Government as well as Under Sections 12 and 12A of the NCTE Act, was competent to issue Notifications dated

23rd August, 2010 and 11th February, 2011. The State Government was under obligation to act as per the said notifications and not to give effect to

any contrary rule. However, since NCTE itself has taken the stand that notification dated 11th February, 2011 with regard to the weightage to be

given to the marks obtained in TET is not mandatory which is also a possible interpretation, the view of the High Court in quashing the 15th

Amendment to the 1981 Rules has to be interfered with. Accordingly, while we uphold the view that qualifications prescribed by the NCTE are

binding, requirement of weightage to TET marks is not a mandatory requirement.

As a result of above, in normal course the State would have been at liberty to proceed with the selection in terms of advertisement dated 7th

December, 2012 in accordance with the amended Rules by way of 15th amendment, in view of developments which have taken place during

pendency of these appeals, the said advertisement cannot proceed and while upholding the said advertisement, relief has to be moulded in the light of

developments that have taken place in the interregnum.

In the case of State of Kerala and Ors. Vs. Kumari T.P. Roshana and Ors.: (1979) 1 SCC 572, Supreme Court held that Article 14, is not a

voodoo which visits with invalidation every executive or legislative fusion of things or categories where there are no pronounced inequalities. In this

reference, the relevant text, reads thus:

The Malabar area has been regarded as notoriously backward from the point of view of collegiate education so much so, the number of colleges

which provide pre-degree courses necessary by way of qualification for entrance into the medical colleges, are relatively fewer and, on the contrary,

the remaining part of the State thanks to many factors, has been on a higher level, with colleges more numerous and pre-degree students more prolific.

Geographic justice, a component of social justice, has to take note of these comparative imbalances. Rightly, therefore, the State Government, based

on certain reports of Commissions, considered the two territorial divisions as separate units and regulated seat allocations to medical colleges in the

State on an equitable basis. The social thrust of the classification, based on geographical dissimilarities, was the core factor in formulation of that

scheme of admissions. This principle found favour with the High Court in its Full Bench ruling in Rafia Rahim's State of Kerala v. Rafia Rahim, 1978

KLT 369 case. While over the years, amelioration produced by State Plans has reduced the degree of backwardness, the fact remains that substantial

equalisation of opportunities between the two areas is a ""consummation devoutly to be wished."" We agree with the High Court that in considering the

question of the educational backwardness of a particular class of people, or a particular tract of territory of this State, we cannot forget that the

evolution of human society and its march from backwardness to progress must essentially be a slow and gradual process. It is not as if, by a

Government or executive fiat, a class of people or a bit of territory has been condemned to backwardness, and with the lifting of the ban by efflux of

time or otherwise, they automatically spring back into a progressive or forward class of people or tract. It is useful to recall the observations made by

this Court in State of Kerala v. Jacob Mathew:

The principle of reservation with weightage for the geographical area of the Malabar District has our approval in endorsement of the view of the

High Court. An earlier decision of the Kerala High Court 1964 KLT 298 gave rise to a Commission appointed to recommend which sections of the

people required special treatment under Article 15(4) of the Constitution, having regard to their social and educational conditions. That Commission,

inter alia accepted the educational backwardness of the Malabar area and recommended equitable allocation of seats on that footing. Substantially

founding itself on these recommendations but modifying them in some measure Government hammered out a formula, a basic feature of which was

pooling together the applications for admission to the four medical colleges in the State in one consolidated list and selecting students for medical

courses strictly according to the marl secured-of course, making allowance for seats reserved for a limit percentage of students from outside and the

customary bonus of reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward classes. This part of the 'selection calculus' is beyond

cavil before u as the nation with all its social engineering boasts and all its tumultuous bungling, is distances away from human justice through human

lav The rough and tumble of academic life, based on the Pooling System seemed to run smooth for some years when a new attack was mounted on it

in the High Court with constitutional artillery from the in exhaust able armoury of Article 14. A Full Bench hit the scheme fatally this time not with the

familiar but fruitless archery of geographical discrimination but with the weaponry of 'reverse discrimination' in a different manifestation.

The strategy of attack was neatly expressed by the learned Single Judge whose judgment on this point was endorsed by the Full Bench

Discrimination was discovered by the Court in attributing parity to the marks of examinees in pre-degree and degree courses of the Calicut University

with those of the candidates of the Kerala University. The Full Bench framed the question, tell-tale fashion:

The question is not whether one University is superior to the other or maintains higher standards in the matter of syllabus, examination and evaluation

than the other, but whether the operation of different Universities with varying standards of their own is productive of inequality.

The descriptive presentation of this discriminatory facet was given by the learned single Judge in the same case:

To compare the marks obtained by students of two different Universities valued by different examiners on answer papers of different patterns may

not be the proper mode of determining comparative merit. Even in the case of candidates appearing for the same examination in the same university

there may be a cause for complaint in the matter of marks awarded to the candidates. Quite often revaluation has shown that at least in some cases

there is justification for the plea for such revaluation. Different examiners value the answer papers and though there is a Chief Examiner his role is

quite limited. But these are inevitable and the marginal errors may have to be ignored. By and large the comparative merits of the candidates will be

reflected in the marks they obtain in the examination to which all candidates are uniformly subjected to. But the same could not be said in the case of

examinations conducted by two or more Universities. It is well-known that sometimes question papers are tough and sometimes valuation is liberal.

Quite often valuation is guided by the percentage of pass expected in an examination. Moderation is also resorted to. While all these may work

uniformly on all the candidates appearing for the same examination in the same University that could not be the case with regard to the Candidates

appearing for the same qualifying examination from another University writing different papers, which are valued by a different set of examiners.

When comparison is between two candidates passing out from two Universities taking respective examinations of the Universities the equation of

candidates in matters where near-accuracy is called for becomes difficult. May be the examinations are similar and the valuation also is similar, but

the other factors cannot be ruled out. If admissions to courses like medicine and engineering is to be on the basis that the best talent is to be preferred,

where students from more than one University passing the qualifying examination have to compete some method other than comparing their marks

should be devised to determine their comparative talent.

The Full Bench agreed with this anathematization of equal treatment of 'unequals' and voided the Selection Process. The Court, with helpful realism,

concluded by adding a positive guideline to the declaration of nullification:

As a result of our discussion, we are of the opinion, that the scheme of selection for admission to the Medical Colleges on an assessment of merit of

students drawn from different Universities with no uniformity of standards is objectionable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. We grant a

declaration to the writ-petitioner to that effect. We deny effective relief to the writ- petitioner on account of non-joinder of the selected candidates,

and the futility and ineffectiveness of upsetting the selections and directing fresh admission at this stage. We consider that the best scheme of

selection in the circumstances would be the method of selection of candidates by holding a uniform Entrance Examination to secure uniformity of

standards, as recommended by the Indian Medical Council-vide Exts. P5 and P8-and as endorsed by the University authorities (vide Ex. P7). We

direct the State Government to forthwith devise a scheme of selection by holding such an Entrance Examination and publish the same within three

months from today so that the candidates wishing to apply for selection to the Medical Colleges of this State for the next academic year, have due

notice of the scheme of selection. The object being to secure uniformity of standards for assessment and evaluation of students drawn from different

Universities, our direction should not be understood as unalterably and inelastically fixing the limits for Governmental action. Methods for securing

uniformity of syllabus, pattern of examination, and mode of evaluation in the different Universities, would well be within the province of the

Government to undertake. We allow this writ appeal to the limited extent indicated above.

In the end, the writ petitioner won the battle but lost the war, for she got an abstract declaration that her exclusion was invalid but was denied the

concrete direction to be admitted into the college.

We are not impressed much with the surmise which colours the reasoning of the Full Bench and the learned Single Judge that there is such

substantial difference in the pre-degree courses and evaluations between the sister universities within the same State that the breach of Article 14 by

equal treatment of the marks unequally secured by examinees in the two universities may be spelt out. It is trite law that every inconsequential

differentiation between two things does not constitute the vice of discrimination, if law clubs them together ignoring venial variances. Article 14 is not

a voodoo which visits with invalidation every executive or legislative fusion of things or categories where there are no pronounced inequalities.

Mathematical equality is not the touchstone of constitutionality.

Mini-classifications based on micro- distinctions are false to our egalitarian faith and only substantial and straightforward cassifications plainly

promoting relevant goals can have constitutional validity. To overdo classification is to undo equality.

In the same ruling there was a caveat entered by Chandrachud, J. (as he then was) against ""a charter for making minute and microcosmic

classifications."" What is more, a large latitude is allowed in this area to the State to classify or declassify based on diverse considerations of relevant

pragmatism, and the judiciary should not ""rush in"" where the executive warily treads. The core question is whether there is such substantial

differentiation between the two universities in regard to the pre-degree or degree courses and system of examinations as too glaring to imperil the

equal protection clause. The presumption is in favour of the vires of legislative and executive action where Article 14 is the basis of challenge. We see

no factual disparities disclosed in the Full Bench ruling to reach the result of substantial difference in the syllabi, in the pattern of examinations, in the

marking systems or in the choice of the examiners so as to warrant invalidation on account of equal regard being accorded to the marks secured by

the examinees from the two universities. We cannot forget that many colleges are run by the State or institutional managements where pre-degree or

degree courses are undertaken. The teachers move from one university jurisdiction to the other, the teaching material is inevitably of a like nature; the

subjects taught must ordinarily be alike. The examiners are usually drawn from within the State or neighbouring States. Even the composition of the

academic bodies in the two universities may have common members. The University Acts themselves are substantially similar. To surmise

discrimination from possibilities is alien to the forensic process in the absence of hard facts. We are aware that there are Universities and Universities,

that gross divergences among them exist affecting the quality of the teaching and the marking, the anomalies of grading and the absurdity or equating

the end products on the blind assumption that the same marks mean the same excellence. But not glib surmises but solid facts supply the sinews of

discriminatory inequality or equality. Going by vague reports, some backward universities and colleges have degenerated into degree-dealers bringing

rapid discredit to Indian academic status.

The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 has constituted the Medical Council of India as an expert body to control the minimum standards of medical

education and to regulate their observance. Obviously, this high-powered Council has power to prescribe the minimum standards of medical education.

It has implicit power to supervise the qualifications or eligibility standards for admission into medical institutions. Thus there is an overall invigilation by

the Medical Council to prevent sub-standard entrance qualifications for medical courses.

The vagarious element in marking and moderation of marks may be a fact of life, but too marginal to qualify for substantial difference unless

otherwise made out. Indeed, there may be differences among the colleges under the same University, among the examiners in the same university.

Such fleeting factors or ephemeral differences cannot be the solid foundation for a substantial differentiation which is the necessary pre-condition for

quashing an executive or legislative act as too discriminatory to satisfy the egalitarian essence of Article 14. The functional validation of the writ

jurisdiction is an appropriate examination of the substantiality of the alleged disparity. We do not, however, proceed finally to pronounce on this point

with reference to the two universities since nothing is available before us, or, for that matter, was before the High Court to warrant a fair conclusion

on the issue. We are persuaded to make these observations for future guidance, so that academic schemes may not be struck down as arbitrary or

irrational save where some sound basis has been laid.â€​

In the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Ors. Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Ors.:

(1984) 4 SCC 27, dealing with the issue of public interest and fair play, it has been held thus:

In our opinion, the aforesaid approach made by the High Court is wholly incorrect and fallacious. The Court cannot sit in judgment over the

wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the

purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy

incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or

prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act. The legislature and its delegate are the

sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there is no scope for interference

by the Court unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity, in the sense of its being wholly beyond

the scope of the regulation-making power or its being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the

limitations imposed by the Constitution. None of these vitiating factors are shown to exist in the present case and hence there was no scope at all for

the High Court to invalidate the provision contained in Clause (3) of Regulation 104 as ultra vires on the grounds of its being in excess of the

regulation-making power conferred on the Board. Equally untenable, in our opinion is the next and last ground by the High Court for striking down

Clause (3) of Regulation 104 as unreasonable, namely, that it is in the nature of a bye-law and is ultra vires on the ground of its being an unreasonable

provision.

It is clear from the scheme of the Act and more particularly, Section 18, 19 and 34 that the legislature has laid down in broad terms its policy to

provide for the establishment of a State Board and Divisional Boards to regulate matters pertaining to secondary and higher secondary education and

it has authorised the State Government in the first instance and subsequently the Board to enunciate the details for carrying into effect the purposes of

the Act by framing regulations. It is a common legislative practice that the legislature may choose to lay down only the general policy and leave to its

delegate to make detailed provisions for carrying into effect the said policy and effectuate the purposes of the Statute by framing rules/regulations

which are in the nature of subordinate legislation. Section 3(39) of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, which defines the 'rule' states: Rule shall

mean a rule made in exercise of the power under any enactment and shall include any regulation made under a rule or under any enactment."" It is

important to notice that a distinct power of making bye-laws has been conferred by the Act on the State Board Under Section 38. The legislature has

thus maintained in the Statute in question a clear distinction between 'bye-laws' and 'regulations'. The bye-laws to be framed Under Section 38 are to

relate only to procedural matters concerning the holding of meetings of State Board, Divisional Boards and the Committee, the quorum required, etc

More important matters affecting the rights of parties and laying down the manner in which the provisions of the Act are to be carried into effect have

been reserved to be provided for by regulations made Under Section 36. The legislature, while enacting Sections 36 and 38, must be assumed to have

been fully aware of the niceties of the legal position governing the distinction between rules/regulations properly so called and bye- laws. When the

statute contains a clear indication that the distinct regulation-making power conferred Under Section 36 was not intended as a power merely to frame

bye-laws, it is not open to the Court to ignore the same and treat the regulations made Under Section 36 as mere bye-laws in order to bring them

within the scope of justiciability by applying the test of reasonableness.

As already noticed, one of the principal factors which appears to have weighed with the High Court is that in certain stray instances (specific

instances referred to in the Judgment are only about three in number), errors or irregularities had gone unnoticed in the past even after verification of

the concerned answer books had been conducted according to the existing procedure and it was only after further scrutiny made either on orders of

court or in the wake of contentions raised in petitions filed before a court that such errors or irregularities were ultimately discovered. In this

connection we consider it necessary to recall the observations made by Krishna Iyer, J in R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills that ""a law has to be adjudged for its

constitutionality by the generality of cases it covers, not by the freaks and exceptions it martyrs"". It is seen from the affidavits that form part of the

record of this case that the three Divisional Boards conduct the H.S.C. examinations twice every year, i.e. in March and October every year. The

number of candidates who appeared for the H.S.C. examination in March 1980 was 1, 15, 364. Likewise, the S.S.C. Public examination is also

conducted by the Divisional Boards twice during the year, and the number of candidates appearing in the said examination is very much larger than

the number appearing in the H.S.C. examination. From the figures furnished by the Board, it is seen that there is a progressive increase from year to

year in the number of candidates appearing in both these public examinations. In March 1980, a total number of 2, 99, 267 had appeared in the S.S.C.

examination. Considering the enormity of the task of evaluation discharged by the Board through the examiners appointed by it, it is really a matter for

satisfaction that proved instances of errors and irregularities have been so few as to be counted on one's fingers. Instead of viewing the matter from

this correct perspective, we regret to find the fact that the High Court laid undue and exaggerated stress on some stray instance and made it a basis

for reaching the conclusion that reasonable fair play to the candidates can be assured only if the right of disclosure and personal inspection is allowed

to the candidates as part of the process of verification. This approach does not appeal to us as legally correct or soud. We do not find it possible to

uphold the view expressed by the High Court that Clause (3) of Regulation 104 which disentitles the examinees to claim disclosure and inspection of

the answer books and declares those documents to be confidential is ""defeasive of the corrective powers of the Board under Regulations 102 and 104

and the right of verification under Regulation 104 (1) as also destructive of the confidence of public in the efficacy of the system."" The reasons which

prompted the High Court to reach the afore- mentioned conclusion are to be found in the following observations occurring in para 33 of the Judgment

of Deshpande, J :

Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly

defensive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this court, 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 will 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 a pragmatic one were to be

propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or

bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately

kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case.

In the result, both the Judgments of the High Court are set aside and the two groups of Writ Petitions which were allowed under those judgments

will now stand dismissed. These appeals are accordingly allowed. The appellant will get its costs from the respondents.â€​

In the case of V. Lavanya and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu: (2017) 1 SCC 332, dealing with the issue of equivalence and normalization, the Apex

Court of the land, held thus:

“40. The Appellants have maintained that while prescribing the marks for performance in Higher Secondary Examination, the Respondents have

failed to take into account different Education Boards (CBSE, ICSE, State Boards etc.) conducting Higher Secondary Examination and difference in

their marks awarding patterns. As also, the Appellants have alleged that Respondents failed to consider different streams of education while

formulating the grading pattern. It is submitted that unless and until the Respondents take note of difference in marking scheme of Education boards,

as also the marking scheme of different streams such as Arts, Science etc. a valid grading system cannot be formulated. Equivalence of academic

qualifications is a matter for experts and courts normally do not interfere with the decisions of the Government based on the recommendations of the

experts (vide University of Mysore v. CD Govinda Rao and Mohd. Sujat Ali v. Union of India. We hold that it is the prerogative of State-Authorities

to formulate a system whereby weightage marks is decided with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate. In the present case, as no

arbitrariness is proved on the part of the Respondents, in formulating the grading system we cannot interfere with the same. We cannot be expected

to go into every minute technicalities of decision taken by the experts and perform the job of the Respondent-State. Moreover, the High Court has also

noted that submission of learned Advocate General that almost all the Appellants have completed their High Secondary examination from the State

Boards.

The contention that different Boards of Examination have different standards and the examiners who evaluate the scripts are in some places more

liberal than others and that the candidates who acquired qualifications decades back had to suffer strict evaluation as compared to the candidates who

have qualified in the recent past facing liberal evaluation criteria, are all hypothetical arguments without any pleading and supporting material disclosed

in the Writ Petitions. As noted earlier, weightage of marks for academic performance and TET fixed vide G.O.(Ms.) No. 252 dated 05.10.2012

continues to be the same even after issuing G.O.(Ms.) No. 71 dated 30.05.2014. Having taken up the examination as per G.O.(Ms.) No. 252, the

Appellants cannot challenge the award of weightage for the distribution of marks for academic performance with reference to actual marks secured

by each candidate. The Appellants are not justified in challenging every rational decision taken by the Respondents to make the selection process

more fair and reasonable merely because the outcome does not favour the limited individual interests of the Appellants.â€​

In the case of Ran Vijay Singh and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.: (2018) 2 SCC 357, while dealing with the issue of re-evaluation and holding

that it is not permissible for High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, observed thus:

More than 36,000 candidates took the written examination held pursuant to the advertisement and the result of the written examination was

declared by the Board on 18th June, 2010. It may be mentioned that the written examination was based on multiple choice answers which were to be

scanned on OMR sheets.

Some candidates who were not successful in the written examination or in the interview filed writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court between

2010 and 2011. All these writ petitions were dismissed by a learned Single Judge. The reasons for dismissal of these writ petitions were that there was

no provision for re-evaluation of the answer sheets in the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 or the Rules

framed thereunder. Reliance was also placed by the learned Single Judge for dismissing writ petitions on the decision of this Court in Himachal

Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur in which this Court considered a large number of its earlier decisions and held:

“26. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that in the absence of any provision under the statute or statutory rules/Regulations, the

Court should not generally direct revaluation.

In must be recorded that the learned Single Judge did refer to and cite several decisions of this Court on the subject or re-evaluation but

unfortunately did not appreciate the law laid down. The learned Single Judge relied on Manish Ujwal v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University but

failed to appreciate that the six disputed answers under consideration in that case were demonstrably wrong and this was not in dispute and even the

learned Counsel appearing for the University did not question this fact. The decision is clearly distinguishable on facts.

We are pained that an examination for recruitment of Trained Graduate Teachers advertised in January, 2009 has still not attained finality even

after the passage of more than eight years. The system of holding public examinations needs to be carefully scrutinised and reviewed so that selected

candidates are not drawn into litigation which could go on for several years. Be that as it may, we have still to tackle the issues before us.

It was submitted by learned Counsel for the Appellants that the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and the

Rules framed thereunder do not provide for any re-evaluation of the answer sheets and, therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have

undertaken that exercise at all. Reference was made to the following passage from Mukesh Thakur which considered several decisions on the subject

and held:

“20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers 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 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.

A complete hands-off or no-interference approach was neither suggested in Mukesh Thakur nor has it been suggested in any other decision of this

Court-the case law developed over the years admits of interference in the results of an examination but in rare and exceptional situations and to a very

limited extent.

In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, this Court took the view that ""16.... 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.

In other words, the onus is on the candidate to clearly demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect and that too without any inferential process or

reasoning. The burden on the candidate is therefore rather heavy and the constitutional courts must be extremely cautious in entertaining a plea

challenging the correctness of a key answer. To prevent such challenges, this Court recommended a few steps to be taken by the examination

authorities and among them are: (i) Establishing a system of moderation; (ii) Avoid any ambiguity in the questions, including those that might be caused

by translation; and (iii) Prompt decision be taken to exclude the suspect question and no marks be assigned to it.

On the validity of the Regulations, this Court held that they were not illegal or unreasonable or ultra vires the Rule making power conferred by

statute. It was then said:

“16....The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the Legislature and the subordinate Regulation -making body. It

may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and

improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a Rule or Regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on

the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of

the Act. The Legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered

by the Act and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal

infirmity, in the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope of the Regulation-making power or its being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the

parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitations imposed by the Constitution. None of these vitiating factors are shown to exist in the present

case.....

It was also noted by this Court that:

“22........the High Court has ignored the cardinal principle that it is not within the legitimate domain of the Court to determine whether the purpose

of a statute can be served better by adopting any policy different from what has been laid down by the Legislature or its delegate and to strike down

as unreasonable a bye-law (assuming for the purpose of discussion that the impugned Regulation is a bye-law) merely on the ground that the policy

enunciated therein does not meet with the approval of the Court in regard to its efficaciousness for implementation of the object and purposes of the

Act.â€​

The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:

30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a

matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it;

30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from

prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any ""inferential process of reasoning

or by a process of rationalisation"" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;

30.3. The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate-it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are

best left to academics;

30.4. The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and

30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.

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.â€​

In the case of U.P.P.S.C., Through its Chairman & Anr. Vs. Rahul Singh & Anr.:Civil Appeal No. 5838/18, while considering the ambit of

jurisdiction and scope of judicial review available in such cases, held thus:

These appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of one judgment delivered by the High Court of Allahabad on 30.

03.2018.

It is not disputed before us that the Commission initially constituted two separate expert committees; one comprising of 15 experts and the other

comprising of 18 experts. This was done even before the key answers were displayed on the official website of the Commission. After these two

committees gave their expert opinion the key answers were uploaded on the official website of the Commission during the period

11.2017 to 23.11.2017. Objections to the key answers were to be submitted by 24.11.2017.

In the appeal filed by the Commission it has been urged that the High Court transgressed its jurisdiction and went beyond the scope of judicial

review available in such cases and it should not have overruled the view of the Commission which was based on the report of two committees of

experts. On the other hand one of the original writ Petitioners in his appeal claims that as far as the question where the High Court has held more than

one answer is correct, the same should be deleted and in respect of another question it is urged that the High Court wrongly accepted the answer of

the Commission.

What is the extent and power of the Court to interfere in matters of academic nature has been the subject matter of a number of cases. We shall

deal with the two main cases cited before us.

In Ran Vijay Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., this Court after referring to a catena of judicial pronouncements summarized the

legal position in the following terms:

The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:

30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a

matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it;

30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from

prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any ""inferential process of reasoning or

by a process of rationalisation"" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;

3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate-- it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters

are best left to academics;

30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and

30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.

We may also refer to the following observations in Paras 31 and 32 which show why the Constitutional Courts must exercise restraint in such matters:

“31. 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 -- 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.

The law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake

which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The Constitutional Courts must

exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers. In Kanpur

University case (supra), the Court recommended a system of-(1) moderation; (2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions; (3) prompt decisions be taken to

exclude suspected questions and no marks be assigned to such questions.

As far as the present case is concerned even before publishing the first list of key answers the Commission had got the key answers moderated

by two expert committees. Thereafter, objections were invited and a 26 member committee was constituted to verify the objections and after this

exercise the Committee recommended that 5 questions be deleted and in 2 questions, key answers be changed. It can be presumed that these

committees consisted of experts in various subjects for which the examinees were tested. Judges cannot take on the role of experts in academic

matters. Unless, the candidate demonstrates that the key answers are patently wrong on the face of it, the courts cannot enter into the academic field,

weigh the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides and then come to the conclusion as to which of the answer is better or more correct.â€​

In the case of Manish Ujwal and Others Vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraawati University and Others.: (2005) 13 SCC 744, applying the principles

enunciated in the case of Kanpur University (supra), the Apex Court of the land, observed that once the key answer(s) being demonstrably wrong, the

participating candidates cannot be made suffer for the fault and negligence of the University. Here, it will be relevant to take note of the text relevant,

which reads thus:

On the aforesaid three dates, examinations were held for Physics, Chemistry and Biology subjects respectively. The results were declared on 2nd

May, 2005 on internet and published in the newspapers on 23rd May, 2005. The total marks allotted to each subject were 300, i.e., 900 in total. Each

paper had 100 questions of trade marks each. The marking system provided for reducing one mark for each wrong answer, which means that

negative marking system was adopted. The answers were objective giving multiple choices to the students, i.e., A/B/C/D. The controversy before the

High Court and again agitated before this Court by the students after being unsuccessful before the High Court is the wrong key answers pertaining to

various answers in all the three subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology. The learned Single Judge sought for the expert opinion of Jodhpur

University and Udaipur University. For the present purpose, we are not noticing and considering those key answers in respect/whereof there is a

difference of opinion. We are considering only those key answers or which there is unanimity. Admittedly, six key answers; one in relation to Physics;

two in relation to Chemistry; and three in relation to Biology were incorrect and erroneous. The opinion of the experts of both Jodhpur and Udaipur

Universities as regards the said questions was same, according to which the key answers, as provided by the respondent-University, were erroneous.

The question as to whether in respect of these questions, the key answers provided by the University were erroneous and wrong has not presented

any difficulty to this Court in view of a fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the University before us. The learned counsel, has admitted that the

key answers Were wrong. The said six questions and the key answer's, as provided, and the correct answers are as under:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

S.No. Question Subject Answer as per Correct University key answer Â

P54, Q 18, R7, S82 Physics A D

P39, Q 26, R92, S27 Chemistry A B

P40, Q 27, R93, S28 Chemistry C B

P6, Q 26, R46, S31 Biology D B

P80, Q 90, R85, S55 Biology B D

P81, Q 91, R86, S56 Biology A D

We are not referring to the answers given by the experts from the Jodhpur and Udaipur Universities in respect of other questions in view of the

difference of opinion and are proceeding only on the basis of the erroneous key answers in relation of the aforesaid six questions. As to the impact of

evaluating answers by feeding incorrect keys, at present, it may not be exactly possible to comment, also keeping in view the adopting of negative

marking system and a very tough cut-throat competition amongst the students.

In Kanpur University, through vice-Chancellor and Ors. v. Samir Gupta and Ors., considering similar problem, this Court held that there is an

assumption about the key answers being correct and in case of doubt, the court would unquestionably prefer the key answer. It as for this reason that

we have not referred to those key answers in respect whereof there is a doubt as a result of difference of opinion between experts. Regarding the

key answers in respect whereof the matter, is beyond the realm of doubt, this. Court has held that it would be unfair to penalise the students for not

giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong. There is No dispute about the

aforesaid six key answers being demonstrably wrong and this fact has rightly not been questioned by the learned counsel for the University. In this

view, students cannot be made to suffer for the fault and negligence of the University.

The High Court has committed a serious illegality in coming to the conclusion that ""it cannot be said with certainty that answers to six questions

given in the key answers were erroneous and incorrect"". As already noticed, the key answers are palpably and demonstrably erroneous. In that view

of the matter, the student community, whether the appellants or interveners or even those who did not approach the High Court or this Court, cannot

be mace to suffer on account of errors committed by the University.

For the present, we say no more because there is nothing on record as to how this error crept up in giving the erroneous key answers and who was

negligent. At the same time, however, it is necessary to note that the University and those who prepare the key answers have to be very careful and

abundant caution is necessary in these matters for more than one reasons. We mention few of those; first and paramount reason being the welfare of

the student and a wrong key answer can result in the merit being made a casualty. One can well understand the predicament of a young student at the

threshold of his or her career if despite giving correct answer, the student suffers as a result of wrong and demonstrably erroneous key answer; the

second reason is that the courts are slow in interfering in education matters which, in turn, casts a higher responsibility on the University while

preparing the key answers; and thirdly, in cases of doubt, benefit goes in favour of the University and not in favour of the students. If this attitude of

casual approach in providing key answer is adopted by concerned persons, directions may have to be issued for taking appropriate action, including the

disciplinary action, against those responsible for wrong and demonstrably erroneous key answers but we refrain from issuing such directions in the

present case.â€​

Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor and Ors. Vs. Samir Gupta and Ors. (no mention of paragraph but I take 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 according

to judgment)

“15. The findings of the High Court raise a question of great importance to the student community. Normally, one would be inclined to the view,

especially if one has been a paper setter and an examiner, that the key answer furnished be the paper setter and accepted by the University as

correct, should not be allowed to be challenged. One way of achieving it is not to publish the key answer at all. If the University had not published the

key answer along with the result of the test, no controversy would have arisen in this case. But that is not a correct way of looking at these matters

which involve the future of hundreds of students who are aspirants for admission to professional courses. If the key answer were kept secret in this

case, the remedy would have been worse than the disease because, so many students would have had to suffer the injustice in silence. The publication

of the key answer has unravelled an happy state of affairs to which the University and the State Government must find a solution. Their sense of

fairness in publishing the key answer has given them an opportunity to have a closer look at the system of examinations which they conduct. What has

failed is not the computer but the human system.

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.

Students who have passed their Intermediate Board Examination are eligible to appear for the entrance Test for admission to the Medical Colleges

in U.P. Certain books are prescribed for the Intermediate Board Examination and such knowledge of the subjects as the students have is derived from

what is contained in those text-books. Those text-books support the case of the students fully. If this were a case of doubt, we would have

unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an

answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong.

If the State Government wants to avoid a recurrence of such lapses, it should compile under its own auspices a text-book which should be

prescribed for students desirous of appearing for the combined Pre-Medical Test. Education has more than its fair share of politics, which is the bane

of our Universities. Numerous problem are bound to arise in the compilation of such a text-book for, various applicants will come forward for doing

the job and forces and counter-forces will wage a battle on the question as to who should be commissioned to do the work. If the State can succeed in

overcoming those difficulties, the argument will not be open to the students that the answer contained in the text-book which is prescribed for the test

is not the correct answer. Secondly, a system should be devised by the State Government for moderating the key answers furnished by the paper

setters. Thirdly, if English questions have to be translated into Hindi, it is not enough to appoint an expert in the Hindi language as a translator. The

translator must know the meaning of the scientific terminology and the art of translation. Fourthly, in a system of 'Multiple Choice Objective-type test',

care must be taken to see that questions having an ambiguous import are not set in the papers That kind of system of examination involves merely the

tick-marking of the correct answer, It leaves no scope for reasoning or argument. The answer is 'yes' or 'no'. That is why the questions have to be

clear and unequivocal. Lastly, if the attention of the University is drawn to any defect in a key answer or any ambiguity in a question set in the

examination, prompt and timely decision must be taken by the University to declare that the suspect question will be excluded from the paper and no

marks assigned to it.

Twenty-seven students in all were concerned with these proceedings, out of whom 8 were admitted to the B.D.S. course, 3 were admitted to the

M.B.B.S. course last year itself in place of the students who dropped out and 5 have succeeded in getting admission this year. Omitting 8 of the

respondents who have been already admitted to the M.B.B.S. course, the remaining 19 shall have to be given admission as directed by the High

Court. If the key answer was not wrong as it has turned out to be, they would have succeeded in getting admission. In view of the findings of the High

Court, -the question naturally arose as to how the marks were to be allotted to the respondents for the three questions answered by them and which

were wrongly assessed by the University. The High Court has held that the respondents would be entitled to be given 3 marks for each of the

questions correctly ticked by them, and in addition they would be entitled to 1 mark for those very questions, since 1 mark was deducted from their

total for each of the questions wrongly answered by them. Putting it briefly, such of the respondents as are found to have attempted the three

questions or any of them would be entitled to an addition of 4 marks per question. If the answer-books are reassessed in accordance with this formula,

the respondents would be entitled to be admitted to the M.B.B.S. course, about which there is no dispute. Accordingly, we confirm the directions

given by the High Court in regard to the reassessment of the particular questions and the admission of the respondents to the M.B.B.S. course.â€​

In the case of Sanjay Singh and Ors. vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Ors. :(2007) 3 SCC 720, the Apex Court of the land,

observed thus:

“23. When a large number of candidates appear for an examination, it is necessary to have uniformity and consistency in valuation of the answer-

scripts. Where the number of candidates taking the examination are limited and only one examiner (preferably the paper-setter himself) evaluates the

answer-scripts, it is to be assumed that there will be uniformity in the valuation. But where a large number of candidates take the examination, it will

not be possible to get all the answer-scripts evaluated by the same examiner. It, therefore, becomes necessary to distribute the answer- scripts among

several examiners for valuation with the paper-setter (or other senior person) acting as the Head Examiner. When more than one examiner evaluate

the answer-scripts relating to a subject, the subjectivity of the respective examiner will creep into the marks awarded by him to the answer- scripts

allotted to him for valuation. Each examiner will apply his own yardstick to assess the answer-scripts. Inevitably therefore, even when experienced

examiners receive equal batches of answer scripts, there is difference in average marks and the range of marks awarded, thereby affecting the merit

of individual candidates. This apart, there is 'Hawk-Dove' effect. Some examiners are liberal in valuation and tend to award more marks. Some

examiners are strict and tend to give less marks. Some may be moderate and balanced in awarding marks. Even among those who are liberal or those

who are strict, there may be variance in the degree of strictness or liberality. This means that if the same answer-script is given to different

examiners, there is all likelihood of different marks being assigned. If a very well written answer-script goes to a strict examiner and a mediocre

answer-script goes to a liberal examiner, the mediocre answer-script may be awarded more marks than the excellent answer- script. In other words,

there is 'reduced valuation' by a strict examiner and 'enhanced valuation' by a liberal examiner. This is known as 'examiner variability' or 'Hawk-Dove

effect'. Therefore, there is a need to evolve a procedure to ensure uniformity inter se the Examiners so that the effect of 'examiner subjectivity' or

'examiner variability' is minimised. The procedure adopted to reduce examiner subjectivity or variability is known as moderation. The classic method of

moderation is as follows:

(i) The paper-setter of the subject normally acts as the Head Examiner for the subject. He is selected from amongst senior

academicians/scholars/senior civil servants/Judges. Where the case of a large number of candidates, more than one examiner is appointed and each of

them is allotted around 300 answer-scripts for valuation.

(ii) To achieve uniformity in valuation, where more than one examiner is involved, a meeting of the Head Examiner with all the examiners is held soon

after the examination. They discuss thoroughly the question paper, the possible answers and the weightage to be given to various aspects of the

answers. They also carry out a sample valuation in the light of their discussions. The sample valuation of scripts by each of them is reviewed by the

Head Examiner and variations in assigning marks are further discussed. After such discussions, a consensus is arrived at in regard to the norms of

valuation to be adopted. On that basis, the examiners are required to complete the valuation of answer scripts. But this by itself, does not bring about

uniformity of assessment inter se the examiners. In spite of the norms agreed, many examiners tend to deviate from the expected or agreed norms, as

their caution is overtaken by their propensity for strictness or liberality or eroticism or carelessness during the course of valuation. Therefore, certain

further corrective steps become necessary.

(iii) After the valuation is completed by the examiners, the Head Examiner conducts a random sample survey of the corrected answer scripts to verify

whether the norms evolved in the meetings of examiner have actually been followed by the examiners. The process of random sampling usually

consists of scrutiny of some top level answer scripts and some answer books selected at random from the batches of answer scripts valued by each

examiner. The top level answer books of each examiner are revalued by the Head Examiner who carries out such corrections or alterations in the

award of marks as he, in his judgment, considers best, to achieve uniformity. (For this purpose, if necessary certain statistics like distribution of

candidates in various marks ranges, the average percentage of marks, the highest and lowest award of marks etc. may also be prepared in respect of

the valuation of each examiner.)

(iv) After ascertaining or assessing the standards adopted by each examiner, the Head Examiner may confirm the award of marks without any

change if the examiner has followed the agreed norms, or suggest upward or downward moderation, the quantum of moderation varying according to

the degree of liberality or strictness in marking. In regard to the top level answer books revalued by the Head Examiner, his award of marks is

accepted as final. As regards the other answer books below the top level, to achieve maximum measure of uniformity inter se the examiners, the

awards are moderated as per the recommendations made by the Head Examiner.

(v) If in the opinion of the Head Examiner there has been erratic or careless marking by any examiner, for which it is not feasible to have any

standard moderation, the answer scripts valued by such examiner are revalued either by the Head Examiner or any other Examiner who is found to

have followed the agreed norms.

(vi) Where the number of candidates is very large and the examiners are numerous, it may be difficult for one Head Examiner to assess the work of

all the Examiners. In such a situation, one more level of Examiners is introduced. For every ten or twenty examiners, there will be a Head Examiner

who checks the random samples as above. The work of the Head Examiners, in turn, is checked by a Chief Examiner to ensure proper results.

The above procedure of 'moderation' would bring in considerable uniformity and consistency. It should be noted that absolute uniformity or consistency

in valuation is impossible to achieve where there are several examiners and the effort is only to achieve maximum uniformity.

In the Judicial Service Examination, the candidates were required to take the examination in respect of the all five subjects and the candidates did

not have any option in regard to the subjects. In such a situation, moderation appears to be an ideal solution. But there are examinations which have a

competitive situation where candidates have the option of selecting one or few among a variety of heterogeneous subjects and the number of students

taking different options also vary and it becomes necessary to prepare a common merit list in respect of such candidates. Let us assume that some

candidates take Mathematics as an optional subject and some take English as the optional subject. It is well-recognised that a mark of 70 out of 100 in

mathematics does not mean the same thing as 70 out of 100 in English. In English 70 out of 100 may indicate to an outstanding student whereas in

Mathematics, 70 out of 100 may merely indicate an average student. Some optional subjects may be very easy, when compared to others, resulting in

wide disparity in the marks secured by equally capable students. In such a situation, candidates who have opted for the easier subjects may steal an

advantage over those who opted for difficult subjects. There is another possibility. The paper setters in regard to some optional subjects may set

questions which are comparatively easier to answer when compared some paper setters in other subjects who set tougher questions difficult to

answer. This may happens when for example, in a Civil Service examination, where Physics and Chemistry are optional papers, examiner 'A' sets a

paper in Physics appropriate to a degree level and examiner 'B' sets a paper in Chemistry appropriate for matriculate level. In view of these

peculiarities, there is a need to bring the assessment or valuation to a common scale so that the inter se merit of candidates who have opted for

different subjects, can be ascertained. The moderation procedure referred to in the earlier para will solve only the problem of examiner variability,

where the examiners are many, but valuation of answer scripts is in respect of a single subject. Moderation is no answer where the problem is to find

inter se merit across several subjects, that is, where candidates take examination in different subjects. To solve the problem of inter se merit across

different subjects, statistical experts have evolved a method known as scaling, that is creation of scaled score. Scaling places the scores from different

tests or test forms on to a common scale. There are different methods of statistical scoring. Standard score method, linear standard score method,

normalized equipercentile method are some of the recognized methods for scaling.

In the case of Mahinder Kumar and Ors. vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh through Registrar General and Ors.: (2013) 11 SCC 83, the Apex

Court of the land, held thus:

“38. In a situation like this, where nearly 3000 candidates appeared for the written examination and the answer papers were evaluated by several

District Judges, it cannot be held that there was even' scope for variation in the assessment of the answers and the award of marks valued by

different valuers. The High Court in exercise of its authority under Rule 7, read along with para 9(iv) adopted a fair procedure to normalize the marks

of the candidates in order to asses their respective merits. Therefore, the expression evaluation used in para 9(iv), should be held to fully empower the

High Court to even resort to such a step in a case like this, where more number of District Judges evaluated the answer sheets and thereby, it

required the intervention of the High Court in its administrative side, to find a fair method by which the normalization of the marks could be worked

out.â€​

In the case of Dr. Naveen Agarwal and Ors. vs. State and Ors.:2012 (4) WLC (Raj.), a Coordinate Bench of this Court, observed thus:

“16. To obtain expert opinion, assistance of eminent Professor Dr. V. Natarajan was solicited on the methodology of statistical equivalence

percentile procedure be examined to equalize the score marks of the students appeared on 11th & 14th February, 2012. It was suggested by Dr.

Natarajan that using statistical equivalence percentile procedure in the result of such competitive/common entrance tests is universally acceptable and

accordingly the score marks of candidates appeared on 11th & 14th February, 2012 can be equalized by adopting percentile method. However, the

Academic Council, Core Committee and Grievance committee consisted of experts considered all the grievances of individual candidate relating to

their apprehension of inequality of question papers for one & the same entrance test & allocation of marks thereof; and after due deliberations &

interactions on the issues and the expert opinion solicited from Dr. V. Natrajan and taking note of methodology & process of applying statistical

equivalence percentile (for short, ""SEP"") procedure finally approved the same for determination of merit of the candidates appeared on two dates 11th

& 14th February, 2012 at eight centres, and to avoid advantage & disadvantage to any of the candidates, keeping in view fairness & transparency in

the revised result so prepared based on experts report.

From the expert's opinion made available for perusal of the Court, it depicts that equating is a statistical process to make test scores across

different forms of the same test interchangeable and this methodology of equating is being used in numerous standardized assessments/tests like GRE,

GMAT, SAT, and further by Indian Exam bodies/Exams like CAT, SCC, LSAT, NMAT & ICAR. However, for outcome of process, after equating

of marks, all scores are placed on the same scale and any given equated score has the same meaning across any of the test forms that were equated.

Equating is used where many examinations are often held in batches and equi-percentile equating is one of the tested methods for applying statistical

equivalence percentile procedure.â€​

From a survey of the opinions (supra), it would be evident that High Court will be justified to interfere with the key answers supplied by the paper

setter, if it is clearly demonstrated that answers are wrong. Further, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well worsed in the particular

subject would record it as correct for it would be unfair to punish the candidates for which accords as such wrong key answers. For the purpose of

such determination reliance can be placed on the text book from which students/candidates derived the knowledge of the subject. The State

Government in order to avoid recurrence of such lapses, is required to compile under its on auspices a text book which should be prescribed for

candidates desirous to participate in the combined test (vide Kanpur University).

With reference to the claim of the petitioners for normalizing marks of different examination of RTET-2011, RTET-2012 and REET-2015 and

REET-2017, before proceedings with the selection on the teacher grade-III (Level-I), suffice it to say that certificate issued by the State Respondents

in the process of RTET/REET has a validity period of seven years. A candidate, therefore, who participated in the year 2011, is eligible on the

strength of that certificate, to participate in the recruit ent process for next seven years. Thus, a candidate who wrote the same examination thereafter

until 2017 and/or 2018, will not be justified in claiming in normalization/equivalization for equivalence of academic qualification is a matter for experts

and Courts normally do not interfere with the decision of the Government based on the recommendations of the experts as has been held by the apex

court of the land in the case of V. Lavanya and Ors. (supra), on a survey of earlier opinions.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a critical examination of the materials available on the record so also applying the

principles deducible from the opinions referred to and relied; the writ applications seeking a direction for normalization/equalization of marks of

different examinations of RTET/REET for the year 2011, 2012, 2015 and 2017, in the selection process involved herein, cannot be accepted.

The grievance raised as to the disputed questions, suffice it to say that the objections submitted earlier with reference to 226 questions only out of

510 questions, included these very questions. The respondents placed the disputed questions, including those which are subject matter of the instant

writ applications and “Expert Committee†examined and furnished its opinion. Hence, the challenge for the second time on inferential basis,

contrary to the opinion of the “Expert Committeeâ€; is not open for further interference in the factual matrix of the case at hand. That apart, the

recruitment process cannot be made in never ending process. Moreover, there is a presumption as to the correctness of the key-answers and even in

the event of doubt, if any, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.

For the reasons and discussions aforesaid and in view of the materials available on record so also in the factual matrix of the matters at hand; the

writ applications, are devoid of any substance.

In the result, the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.

No costs.

A copy of this order be placed in each of the file.