Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ritik Kumar Son Of Shri Bhagwat Singh vs Union Of India on 10 July, 2019
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10881/2019
Ritik Kumar Son Of Shri Bhagwat Singh, Aged About 20 Years,
By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Bamboli, Tahasil Ramgarh,
District Alwar, (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Human Resource Development, Government Of India, 1,
West Block, Rama Krishna Puram, New Delhi- 110066.
2. The Officer In Charge Concern/senior Director, National
Testing Agency, C-20 1 A/8, Sector 62, Iitk Outreach
Centre, Noida- 201309
3. Medical Council Of India, Pocket 14, Secror 8, Dwarka
Phase I, New Delhi 110077, India.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10283/2019
Shruti Srivastava D/o Shri Sanjay Srivastava, Aged About 19
Years, Resident Of 26, Mahaveer Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Ministry Of Human Resource
Development, Registered Address 1, West Block, Rama
Krishna Puram, New Delhi, Delhi 110066.
2. National Testing Agency Through Director
(Administration), Registered Address C-20, 1A/8, Sector-
62, Iitk, Outreach Centre, Noida-201309.
3. Medical Council Of India Through Secretary General,
Registered Address Dada Dev Mandir Road Dwarka
Phase-1, Pocket-14, Sector 8 Dwarka, New Delhi Delhi
110077.
4. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Medical Education
Department, Registered Address Rajasthan Secretariat,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10288/2019
Shubham Vashistha S/o Shri Ashutosh Vashistha, Aged About 17
(Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 11:44:32 PM)
(2 of 24) [CW-10881/2019]
Years, Minor Through His Natural Guardian Father Ashutosh
Vashistha S/o Shri Radhey Mohan, Aged About 48 Years R/o 72,
Moti Nagar, Near Iti College, Alwar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Human
Resource Development, Govt. Of India, New Delhi.
2. Senior Director, National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test
(Ug)-2019, National Testing Agency, C-20, 1A/8, Sector-
62, Iitk Outreach Centre, Gautam Buddh Nagar Noida-
201309 (Up).
3. Chairman, Ug Admission Board, Neet-2019 And Principal
And Controller, Sms Medical College And Attached
Hospitals, Jaipur
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10442/2019
Miss Bhavya Sharma Daughter Of Shri Dayal Prasad Sharma,
Aged About 18 Years, Resident Of 60, Shakti Nagar, Niwaru
Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Human
Resource Development, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi
2. Senior Director, National Eligibility Cum Entrance
Test(Ug)-2019, IITK Outreach Centre, C-20, 1A/8, C
Block, Sector 62, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harishpal Singh, Ms. Aradhana
Sharma, Mr. Ambrish Vashistha, Mr.
DP Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Raghav, Mr. Angad Mirdha,
Mr. Gaurav Jain, Mr. Ashish Kumar, Mr.
Harshal Tholia for Dr. VB Sharma,
AAG
(Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 11:44:32 PM)
(3 of 24) [CW-10881/2019]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Order
Date of Order :: 10/07/2019
REPORTABLE
The National Testing Agency (hereafter 'the NTA')
conducted the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (UG) 2019
(hereafter the 'NEET UG, 2019) on 5.5.2019, result whereof was
declared on 5.6.2019. The petitioners in all the connected
petitions which are being disposed of by this common order as the
issue agitated is identical, participated in the said examination,
but were not successful. Not unusually they are before
this Court questioning the evaluation of their answer
sheets at the examination in issue alleging that
their answers to certain questions at the NEET UG
2019 examination have not been appropriately
evaluated entailing their failure thereat. Appointment of
(Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 11:44:32 PM)
(4 of 24) [CW-10881/2019]
an expert panel to ascertain the correctness of the NTA's view on
the disputed questions is sought - with its necessary
consequences.
An information booklet was issued by NTA for the
students writing the NEET UG 2019 examination. For transparency
at the said examination, Chapter 7 of the Information Booklet
detailed the post examination activities and declaration of result.
It was provided thereunder that the NTA would display on its
website answer key of the questions of the NEET UG 2019
examination, giving opportunity to the candidates to challenge on
payment of requisite fee any dispute to the answer key.
Challenges so made were to be evaluated / verified by the NTA
with the help of subject experts and if found incorrect, the answer
key was to be revised accordingly. Based on the revised answer
key, the result of NEET UG 2019 was to be prepared and declared.
It was provided that "the answer key finalized after the challenge
would be final".
(Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 11:44:32 PM)
(5 of 24) [CW-10881/2019]
It is apparent that the post examination activities and
declaration of result detailed by NTA in the information booklet for
NEET UG 2019 examination expressed an intent only to ensure
fairness and transparency to the extent humanly possible. No
provision as of an appeal against the decision of the experts
evaluating challenges of the draft answer key was intended.
The petitioners' case in the petitions is as follows:
(i) That subsequent to the revision of the answer key
following the representations by the aggrieved
candidates on the declaration of the provisional answer
key in the first instance, the revised final answer key
also suffers from certain errors, allegedly
demonstrable, which have entailed prejudice to the
petitioners (as in the case of Ritik Kumar Versus Union
of India & Ors. - SBCWP No.10881/2019). Such
candidates at NEET UG 2019 have thus been denied an
opportunity to submit objections even on one occasion.
(Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 11:44:32 PM)
(6 of 24) [CW-10881/2019]
Hence the questions to which answers stand altered for
the first time in the revised / final answer key be
referred to a panel of experts.
(ii) That the revised answers, based on which the final
answer key has been notified by the NTA, cannot
sustain for the reason several of the answers are not in
consonance with the answers to the questions in issue,
as culled out from the National Council of Educational
Research and Training (hereafter 'the NCERT') books -
as had been prescribed and hence demonstrably
wrong.
(iii) That the pattern of the entrance test in issue i.e. NEET
UG 2019 as notified in the information booklet
published by NTA provided that there would be a single
correct answer to the four options in each of the 180
objective type questions in the subject of physics,
chemistry and Biology (Botany and Zoology) and yet as
(Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 11:44:32 PM)
(7 of 24) [CW-10881/2019]
per the revised final answer key, more than one option
was allowed by NTA in respect to certain questions to
be treated as the correct answer. It has been submitted
that the duality entailed in two correct answers in the
revised final answer key to certain questions indicates
that the pattern on which result of the NEET UG
examination, 2019 was declared was not in consonance
with the notified pattern. That vitiates the final revised
answer key to the extent to such questions.
An affidavit in opposition to the petition has been filed
on behalf of the NTA by Dr. Vikas Gupta, Sr. Director (Admn.)
National Testing Agency. A preliminary objection has been taken
that the petitions are liable to be dismissed at the threshold for no
cause of action within the parameters of scope of judicial review to
warrant judicial interference with the final revised result at NEET
PG examination, 2019 has been made out. It has been submitted
that NTA adopted an elaborate process for taking into account the
(Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 11:44:32 PM)
(8 of 24) [CW-10881/2019]
challenges to the answer key, which was first uploaded on
29.5.2019 on the NEET (UG) website. After due consideration of
the challenges by subject experts, appropriate changes / revisions
were made in the answer key and the final answer key was
uploaded on NEET (UG) website on 5.6.2019. It has been
submitted that it is well settled that it is for the experts /
academic bodies alone and not for the courts to go into the
correctness of answers contained in the answer key as such
experts are the best evaluators of the subject / academic issues.
Not only from the petitioners but 40,510 challenges were
received. They were all appropriately segregated subject wise and
placed before subject experts who were Professors from IITs and
other reputed Universities. Each and every aspect of the challenge
set up in each of the objection was gone into and thereafter, as
advised by the subject experts, where warranted corrections were
made and the revised answer key accordingly issued on 5.6.2019
as was the result based thereon. It has been submitted that the
(Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 11:44:32 PM)
(9 of 24) [CW-10881/2019]
petitioners have woefully failed to show that the answers to the
model question paper put to question in the petitions were / are
ex-facie demonstrably wrong. It has been submitted that no
malafides or breach of any rule or regulation has been even
alleged in the petitions and in terms of the decided cases of the
Apex Court as also this Court, no interference at the instance of
the petitioners merely disappointed at their failure is warranted.
It has been further submitted that the processes
generally warranted by judicial pronouncements and more
particularly the information booklet of NTA for the NEET UG 2019
to ensure transparency and fairness in evaluation of answer key of
the candidates writing the examination in issue having been
religiously adhered to, nothing remains to be contended and it
cannot be at all the function of a Court exercising equitable
extraordinary jurisdiction to sit over the decision of NTA in
publishing the final answer key and result based thereon, as if in
an appeal. It has been submitted that in the circumstance, the
(Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 11:44:32 PM)
(10 of 24) [CW-10881/2019]
petitioners cannot even remotely make out a case of
contravention of their legal or fundamental rights such as safety
from arbitrariness and the petitions deserve dismissal.
Heard. Considered.
The seven questions in Book Code P2 which the
petitioners, put together, have challenged are as under:
1. Question no. 1. (chemistry)
Under isothermal condition, a gas at 300 K expands from 0.1 L to 0.25 L
against a constant external pressure of 2 bar. The work done by the gas
is
(Given that 1 L bar = 100 J)
(1) -30 J (2) 5 kJ
(3) 25 kJ (4) 30 J
2. Question No. 68 (Physics)
In which of the following devices, the eddy current effect is not used?
(1) Induction furnace
(2) Magnetic braking in train
(3) Electromagnet
(4) Electric heater
3. Question no. 13 (Chemistry)
(Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 11:44:32 PM)
(11 of 24) [CW-10881/2019]
4. Question no. 70(Physics)
5. Question NO. 157 (Biology)
Consider the following statement :
(A) Coenzyme or metal ion that is tightly bound to enzyme
protein is called prosthetic group.
(B) A complete catalytic active enzyme with its bound prosthetic
group is called apoenzyme. Select the correct option.
(1) Both (A) and (B) are true.
(2) (A) is true but (B) is false.
(3) Both (A) and (B) are false.
(4) (A) is false but (B) is true.
6. Question no. 163 (Biology)
Cell in G0 phase :
(1) exit the cell cycle
(2) enter the cell cycle
(Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 11:44:32 PM)
(12 of 24) [CW-10881/2019]
(3) suspend the cell cycle
(4) terminate the cell cycle
7. Question no. 155 (Biology)
Which of the following statements is correct?
(1) Cornea is an external, transparent and protective
proteinacious covering of the eye-ball.
(2) Cornea consists of dense connective tissue of elastin and can
repair itself.
(3) Cornea is convex, transparent layer which is highly
vascularised.
(4) Cornea consists of dense matrix of collagen and is the most
sensitive portion of the eye.
It is an admitted fact that objections / representations
of the petitioners qua the aforesaid seven questions, as per
prescribed procedure notified in the information booklet for NEET
UG examination, 2019, were put before the subject experts and
examined. The subject experts have taken a view on each of the
seven questions - contrary to the petitioners' assertion - as
under:
1.Question no.1 (Chemistry)
Work done W= -Pext(V1-V1)
x
= -2 bar (0.25L-0.1L)
x
= -2 0.15 L-bar
= -30 J
Work done on the gas= -30J
(Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 11:44:32 PM)
(13 of 24) [CW-10881/2019]
Work done by the gas= 30J
Therefore, the correct option is "30J", and final published NEET
Key is correct.
This is also because, in the case of expansion of the work done by
the gas has to be positive.
Correct option is (4)
2. Question no. 68 (Physics)
Question is about device that does not use eddy current-
• Induction furnace and magnetic brake use eddy current.
• Electromagnet has but does not use
• Elec heater works on Joules Heating Principle.
So electromagnet and electric heater both are correct option.
Correct Options are (3) & (4)
3. Question no. 13 (Chemistry)
In both options 1 and 2, moles of l -ions are greater than Ag+
ions. So in both cases excess amount of l- will cause formation of
negatively charged colloidal [Agll]- solution.
Correct options are (1) & (2)
4. Question no. 70 (Physics)
Option 1 and 4 are not possible as two dip angles have
opposite signs sign
As per NCERT Class 12 textbook, in northern hemisphere dip
-
angle is taken as +
ve and in southern hemisphere as ve.
Therefore A is in northern hemisphere and B in southern.
Correct option is (3)
5. Question no. 157 (Biology) (Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 11:44:32 PM) (14 of 24) [CW-10881/2019] Prosthetic groups are non-proteinaceous and are distinguish from other cofactors that they are tightly bound to protein part of anzyme that the apoenzyme.
Correct Option is (2)
6. Question no. 163 (Biology) Go phase is the arrest phase or suspended phase of the cell cycle. Cells remain inactive or in non-dividing resting stage during this phase for days to years before resuming cell division. Example- nerve cells remain in Go Phase.
Hence, Published NEET Ans Key i.e. Cells in G o phase of cell cycle suspend the cell cycle - is correct and other options i.e. Terminate the cell cycle, Exit the cell cycle, Enter the cell cycle are not correct.
Correct Option is (3)
7. Question no. 155 (Biology) The Spherical eye ball is covered by an external layer 'Sclera' which is a protective covering of eyeball, unlike cornea which is meant for the focusing power of the eye. The cornea has superficial covering of epithelial cells. Cornea is composed of strands of connective tissues called 'collagen fibers'. The cornea has no blood vessels and cannot repair itself. The cornea has numerous free nerve endings, and is the most sensitive portion of the eye. Hence Published NEET key i.e. Cornea consists of dense matrix of collagen and is the most sensitive portion the eye, is most appropriate option and is correct.
Correct Option is (4) The final answer key had thereupon been notified by NTA and the result based thereon declared on 5.6.2019. (Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 11:44:32 PM)
(15 of 24) [CW-10881/2019] It needs little reiteration that in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is concerned with the decision making process and not with the decision itself. This principle applies with more rigor where the issue agitated before this Court is one of fact in respect of matters within the domain of experts. It is well settled that this Court, lack as it does domain expertise as in academic matters, cannot until concerned with interpretation of rules or breach thereof or issues of malafide alleged, is not competent to sit as if in an appeal over the decision of experts as to correct answers to questions at an examination. With that proposition ad-nauseam enunciated, there can be no quarrel.
The Delhi High Court in the case of Atul Kumar Verma Versus Union of India & Ors. - WP (C) 5719/2015; decided on 13.7.2015 was also seized of similar challenge to the final result of JEE (mains) examination published subsequent to the objections to the model question paper / model answer key having been invited and revised answer key thereafter at the foundation of (Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 11:44:32 PM) (16 of 24) [CW-10881/2019] final result then published. In para 13 of the aforesaid judgment, the Court noted with concern that it was being inundated with the petitions concerning the academic matters including petitions seeking judicial review of the marking at examinations or of the decision of an examining body on what the correct answers to questions at an examination should be. Referring to the Apex Court judgment in Tata Cellular Versus Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 enunciating the extent of judicial review of decisions bonafide arrived (at in tender cases), the Court noted that "judicial review by a non expert Judge was not permitted over the discretion exercised by an expert / expert body". In the context of the aforesaid judgment in Tata Cellular (supra) on the scope of judicial review, the Delhi Court held that where a final answer key at a public examination had been notified subsequent to the consideration of objections to a draft answer key with the aid of subject experts and such final answer key had been universally applied to all candidates who wrote the examination, judicial review in respect thereof was not maintainable moreso where the (Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 11:44:32 PM) (17 of 24) [CW-10881/2019] process by which the final answer key had been arrived at was not put to challenge. The Court further held that once the objections were invited and considered by subject experts and the final answer key based thereon notified for the purpose of evaluation and declaration of result of the candidates at a public examination, there can be no possibility for the challenges except on traditional parameters of judicial review such as illegality, irregularity, non consideration of material facts, consideration of extraneous matters or lack of bonafide in the decision making process. It was thereafter held that if rash challenges outside the traditional parameters of judicial review were permitted and the court were to address the issue before it as if in an appeal even while lacking in requisite domain expertise, delays in admissions and commencement of academic sessions would result entailing detriment to public interest - i.e. situations where even the remedy may be worse than the disease.
The capacity and ability of the NTA and its experts has not been questioned in this petition and is not in issue before this (Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 11:44:32 PM) (18 of 24) [CW-10881/2019] Court. The NTA evaluates lakhs of examinees on a standardized procedure for their performance. This it did twice over i.e. initially and thereafter on consideration of objection to the draft answer key - in respect of those who wrote the NEET UG 2019 examination. If in the process, assuming even if some injustice is occasioned (and of which there is not the remotest evidence in the instant case), there can be no warrant for judicial intervention as was opined by the Apex Court, albeit in a different context in the case of Sanchit Bansal & Anr. versus Joint Admission Board (JAB) & Ors. reported in (2012) 1 SCC 157. It is beyond cavil that interference with matters of evaluations at examinations (and moreso the view of subject experts as to the correct answers) is very very limited and confined to situations of demonstrable wrong ex-facie evident. A demonstrable wrong would be one without plausible explanation and de-hors analytics and without scope for argumentation and which rings loud and clear to the court on the material before it. Such situation does not present itself to the court in the instant case.
The Apex Court in the case of All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan reported in 2009 (Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 11:44:32 PM) (19 of 24) [CW-10881/2019] (11) SCC 726 held that the courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical and expert bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education. It was held that the role of expert bodies on education and role of courts are well defined by a simple rule that if it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off and only if a provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education or case of malafides agitated on substantial grounds, the courts will step in.
The argument of the counsel for the petitioners, not unusually made, is about the need to do justice by this court in its equitable extraordinary jurisdiction and not permitting any expert opinion to be infallible and final where valuable rights of a citizen are at stake. It has been submitted that a single mark in an increasingly competitive environment can make a difference (Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 11:44:32 PM) (20 of 24) [CW-10881/2019] between success and failure; of careers being made and destroyed. It has been submitted that consequentially when this Court is approached impugning the decision of experts in respect of academic matters on the basis of well known reference books and books prescribed for the examination in issue it would be just and appropriate to appoint an independent expert at least for re- assurance that injustice even if accidental, is not being occasioned to the petitioners.
I am of the considered view that the aforesaid submission of the petitioners' counsel is not tenable in the context of the limited and narrow jurisdiction exercised by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in academic matters. Aside of the untenability of challenge to expert opinion twice considered, there is also a presumption with regard to regularity of official acts further buttressed when there is no allegation of malafide, as in the instant case. It cannot be doubted that the NTA is an expert body with personnel with a long experience of holding examinations of varied kinds. NTA also has access to subject (Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 11:44:32 PM) (21 of 24) [CW-10881/2019] experts, who prepare the question papers and determine the answers thereto for evaluation of the candidates writing the given examination. To ensure transparency, a mechanism has been devised where subsequent to the declaration of results, the OMR sheets of the candidates are published on the Internet and so are the answer keys and objections invited from the candidates aggrieved of any answer in the answer key. Such objections are considered by a fresh set of experts different from the experts who prepared the question paper/s and answer key/s in the first instance. Where this second set of experts seized of the objections of the candidates who wrote the particular examination comes to a particular conclusion, I am of the considered view that in the context of sheer extent of the exercise undertaken by the NTA, the matter should be put to rest. Appointment of an independent set of experts, as sought by the petitioners in the instant case reviewing the view of NTA's appointed experts, even on revision following consideration of objections received and / or challenges made, would entail opening up a Pandora's box and the process (Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 11:44:32 PM) (22 of 24) [CW-10881/2019] would become quite unending disrupting the admissions into a course and the entire academic schedule for admission to the MBBS course statutorily prescribed. The Court has to take a pragmatic view of the matter where no demonstrable and palpable error is made out, as in the instant case. The Court has to be conscious of the fact that subjective notions of absolute justice can be misleading and disruptive. Justice can be served only within pragmatic considerations such as of limited resources of time and human capacity, honestly and transparently. This is so in the instant case.
With regard to the argument of Ms. Anuradha Sharma counsel appearing for Shruti Srivastava in SBCWP No. 10283/2019 pertaining to two correct answers to a question provided for to some questions as in the revised answer sheet being in the cross hair of the pattern of the examination in the information booklet issued by NTA and hence being vitiated, I am of the considered view that the argument is untenable. Indeed the pattern of NEET (Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 11:44:32 PM) (23 of 24) [CW-10881/2019] UG examination, 2019 did provide that to all the four options to each 180 objective type questions, there would be a single correct answer. Indeed in the revised answer key published by NTA on 5.6.2019 in respect of questions no. 1 and 13 (chemistry), 68 & 70 (physics), 155, 157, 163 (biology) any two of the four options in the model question paper have been taken to be the correct answers. That however merely entails a benefit to the candidates not a detriment. It is not the petitioners' case that until each of the two answers to the questions in issue were marked, the answer was not to be treated as correct. Admittedly it sufficed for the candidates at the examination in issue to be given the prescribed mark to the questions in issue if they had opted for either of the two correct options to question no. 1 and 13 (chemistry), 68 & 70 (physics), 155, 157, 163 (biology). No prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. (Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 11:44:32 PM)
(24 of 24) [CW-10881/2019] I am of the considered view that in the facts of the case, no case for interference in these petitions is made out. The petitions, are therefore dismissed.
(ALOK SHARMA),J DILIP KHANDELWAL (Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 11:44:32 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)