Gujarat High Court
Bhikhabhai Devjibhai Patel & 2 vs State Of Gujarat & on 31 March, 2015
Author: Abhilasha Kumari
Bench: Abhilasha Kumari
C/SCA/1747/2015 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1747 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to No
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of No
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of No
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
BHIKHABHAI DEVJIBHAI PATEL & 2....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR AS SUPEHIA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 3
MR DM DEVNANI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondents
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
KUMARI
Date : 31/03/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Mr.D.M.Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Page 1 of 15 C/SCA/1747/2015 JUDGMENT Rule for the respondents. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided finally.
2. The petitioners have preferred this petition with a prayer to quash and set aside the letter dated 28.10.2014, whereby the representation made by the petitioners has been rejected by respondent No.2. The petitioners have further prayed to direct the respondents to reevaluate their results by adding one mark and to declare them as having passed the Head Teachers Aptitude Test (HTAT) held on 31.08.2014.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners are serving as Primary Teachers in Government Primary Schools. An advertisement dated 20.07.2014, was issued by respondent No.2, Secretary, State Examination Board, for holding the HTAT examination for Primary Teachers on 31.08.2014. The petitioners appeared in the said examination. The State Government issued a Page 2 of 15 C/SCA/1747/2015 JUDGMENT provisional answerkey (result) of the aforesaid examination on 01.09.2014. It was stated in the said provisional result that if there is any doubt or disagreement with the answerkey, an appropriate written representation can be made to respondent No.2, along with proof, upto 03.09.2014. The petitioners made a representation dated 02.09.2014 regarding three questions. The petitioners have been granted one mark each by respondent No.2 with regard to two questions, therefore, their grievance qua those two questions no longer survives. The petition is restricted to the grievance of the petitioners regarding Question No.112 only.
4. In the HTAT test, the petitioners were required to select one correct answer to every multiple choice question. The translated version of Question No.112 reads as follows:
112. Which planet revolves in a reverse direction than other planets?
The following options were given, out of which Page 3 of 15 C/SCA/1747/2015 JUDGMENT the candidates had to choose one correct option:
(A) Uranus (B) Shani (Saturn) (C)Budh (Mercury)(D) Pluto Two of the petitioners did not exercise the correct option and one of the petitioners did not attempt the question at all. They, therefore, received no marks for this question.
5. In reply to the representation of the petitioners, respondent No.2 issued the impugned communication dated 28.10.2014, wherein it is stated that "Uranus" is the correct answer to Question No.112, which the petitioners have either failed to indicate or have not attempted. It is the case of the petitioners that the said communication deserves to be quashed and set aside as respondent No.2 has not stated whether the answers given by the petitioners in their representation, relying upon the Standard10 text book of Gujarat State Board are correct, or not. As per the petitioners, the correct answer Page 4 of 15 C/SCA/1747/2015 JUDGMENT to the above Question is "Venus" which was not one of the four options indicated in the question paper. The petitioners further assert that the Science text book for the 10th standard indicates only one option, that is, "Venus" and as this option was not reflected in the question paper, the petitioners did not choose "Uranus" as the correct answer. In short, the case of the petitioners is that the correct answer to Question No.112 ought to have been sourced from the Standard10 text book of the Gujarat State Board and not from any other source.
6. Mr.A.S.Supehia, learned advocate for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the Government Resolution dated 18.01.2012, and has submitted that it is stated in Clause 4 III, Part2 thereof, that the questions would be based upon the syllabus of Primary Schools of Standards 1 to 8 of the Education Department, but the evaluation standard and context/ relation would be as per Secondary Education (Standards 9 and 10). It is submitted that this Resolution means that the correct answer should Page 5 of 15 C/SCA/1747/2015 JUDGMENT be as per the text book of Standard 10 of Gujarat State Board and as the said Science text book of Standard10 states that only one planet, that is, "Venus", revolves in a reverse direction than others, respondent No.2 should have included planet Venus as one of the options to the said question. Had this been done, the petitioners would have answered accordingly and got one mark, enabling them to pass the HTAT examination.
7. The learned advocate for the petitioners further submits that a kit was provided to the petitioners to prepare for the HTAT examination, which contained some reading material, including a text book published by Dr.Vikram Sarabhai Community Science Center. In the said text book, it is stated that the planet Venus (Shukra) rotates in a reverse direction from other planets. Insofar as the information regarding "Uranus" is concerned, the said text book does not mention this aspect at all.
8. For the above reasons, it is prayed that the Page 6 of 15 C/SCA/1747/2015 JUDGMENT petition be allowed.
9. The petition is opposed by Mr.D.M.Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, by submitting that the petitioners have appeared in the examination for the test of Head Teacher, therefore, the knowledge gained by them ought to be of a higher level than that which is taught in Standards 9 and 10 of the State Education Board. It is submitted that the Government Resolution dated 18.01.2012 states that the syllabus would be as per Standards 1 to 8 but the evaluation would be as per Standards 9 and
10. This Resolution nowhere states that the correct answers should be sourced from the text book of 10th standard of the Gujarat State Board, alone.
10. It is further submitted that before taking any decision, the competent authority has called the Director of Gujarat State Text Book Board and the Director of Gujarat Council of Educational Research and Training, who are experts in the subject. After taking advice from the said Page 7 of 15 C/SCA/1747/2015 JUDGMENT experts and referring to all the relevant material relating to this point, an appropriate decision has been taken, which is, that the option "Uranus" given in the answerkey is correct. The decision of respondent No.2 in not granting one mark to the petitioners qua this question, therefore, may not be interfered with.
11. It is next submitted that approximately 36,000 candidates appeared in the HTAT examination. However, only the petitioners have questioned the validity of the question and the correct answerkey. The text book published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) also provides for the correct answer to the question in dispute, that is, both "Venus" and "Uranus" rotate in a reverse direction than other planets. It is submitted that when the petitioners are applying for the post of Head Teacher, they cannot claim to have knowledge only of what is provided in the text books of Gujarat State Board or the reading material. The petitioners ought to have good knowledge about the subjects which are to be Page 8 of 15 C/SCA/1747/2015 JUDGMENT taught by them.
12. On the above grounds, it is prayed that the petition be rejected.
13. This Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments made in the petition and other material on record.
14. The short question that has arisen in this petition is, whether the petitioners are entitled to be granted one extra mark by respondent No.2 for the multiple choice Question No.112 as, according to them, the correct option "Venus" (Shukra) was not provided as one of the answers to be opted for.
15. According to the petitioners, the reading material provided to them indicates that only one planet, that is, "Venus", rotates in a reverse direction to other planets and this option was not available to them in the question paper. On the other hand, according to the respondents, there are two planets, that is, Page 9 of 15 C/SCA/1747/2015 JUDGMENT "Venus" (Shukra) and "Uranus", that revolve in a reverse direction. One of the correct options is "Uranus", which is indicated in the question paper as a possible choice to the question. As two petitioners did not indicate the correct option and one petitioner did not attempt the question at all, they have received zero marks for the said question.
16. At the very outset, it may be kept in mind that this Court does not possess the necessary expertise to reevaluate answersheets in the examination or indicate whether one option, or the other, is correct. The issue is best resolved by experts in the field. In the present case, after the petitioners made a representation, the matter was examined by the Chairman of the State Examination Board and the Director of the Gujarat Council of Educational Research and Training, who are the experts in the field. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has produced the original record in this regard, from which it is clear that there has been an application of mind from the experts in Page 10 of 15 C/SCA/1747/2015 JUDGMENT the field to arrive at a conclusion that one of the options to the question, that is, "Uranus", is correct.
17. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has substantiated his submissions by referring to the Science text book for Standard 8 published by the NCERT, wherein it is indicated that like "Venus", "Uranus" also rotates from east to west. This matches with the opinion of the experts and of respondent No.2.
18. According to the petitioners, the Government Resolution dated 18.01.2012, particularly, Clause 4III, Part2, clearly does not read that the answers should be sourced only from Standards 9 and 10 text books of Gujarat State Board. A perusal of the said Government Resolution indicates that the syllabus is to be prescribed as per Standards 1 to 8 of the Education Department and the evaluation is to be done as per Standards 9 and 10. Nowhere, in the said Resolution, is it mentioned that the answers to the questions would be found in the Page 11 of 15 C/SCA/1747/2015 JUDGMENT text book prescribed for Standards 9 and 10 by the Gujarat State Board. It may be true that "Venus" is one of the correct options, but it also appears to be true that "Uranus" is also correct. There may be one, or more, correct options to a question, such as in this case. If only one of the correct answers has been indicated to the question in dispute, failure to indicate it would entail the consequence of receiving no marks for the question, as in the present case. It is not incumbent upon the respondents to indicate both the correct answers. No material on record has been produced to indicate that the answers to the questions would be found only in the text books prescribed for Standards 9 and 10. If the said text books contain only partial information, it does not mean that the petitioners are prohibited from gaining the full and correct information and knowledge from other sources, so as to know the correct answers and exercise the options accordingly. The submission on behalf of the petitioners, that their answers were restricted Page 12 of 15 C/SCA/1747/2015 JUDGMENT to the Standard10 text book only, is not convincing, especially when no such text book has been prescribed for the said examination.
19. Knowledge cannot be restricted. The petitioners, who are aspiring to be Head Teachers and are required to teach children with impressionable and inquisitive minds. They cannot take a stand that they will restrict their knowledge to a limited sphere and not go beyond that sphere, even when they are required to gain correct knowledge of the subject. Such a restrictive mindset would hardly benefit the students.
20. Insofar as the text book reading material, from the Dr.Vikram Sarabhai Community Science Center is concerned, a perusal thereof indicates that each planet has been dealt with separately. In the discussion regarding "Venus", it is mentioned that this planet revolves in a reverse direction to other planets. Though, in the discussion regarding "Uranus", this aspect is not mentioned, however, it cannot be said that if some information is missing or is not Page 13 of 15 C/SCA/1747/2015 JUDGMENT adequately provided, it ceases to exist. When the experts in the field have opined that both "Venus" and "Uranus" are correct options to the question in dispute and one of the correct options, that is, "Uranus", has been reflected as one of the possible answers, it cannot be said that any injustice has been caused to the petitioners, who have themselves not exercised the correct option.
21. In the considered view of this Court, no fundamental or legal rights of the petitioners have been infringed by any action of the respondents. When two of the petitioners have themselves not exercised the correct option and one of the petitioners has not made any attempt to answer the question at all, they are not entitled to be granted one extra mark. It may be unfortunate that the petitioners have failed by one mark only. However, that extra mark cannot be granted to them in view of the fact that they have not exercised the correct option.
22. The cumulative effect of the above discussion is Page 14 of 15 C/SCA/1747/2015 JUDGMENT that there is no merit in the petition, which deserves to be rejected. It is, accordingly rejected. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) sunil Page 15 of 15