Himachal Pradesh High Court
Lalita Devi vs State Of H.P. And Another on 29 April, 2016
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
CWP No.2648 of 2015.
Date of decision: 29.04.2016.
Lalita Devi .....Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. and another .....Respondent s.
of
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
rt
Whether approved for reporting?1No
For the Petitioner : Mr.Bhender Kumar Chaudhary,
Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms.Meenakshi Sharma, Additional
Advocate General and Ms.Parul Negi,
Deputy Advocate General, for
respondent No.1.
Mr.Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)
This writ petition has been filed with the following substantive prayer:-
"(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent Board to award full marks to the petitioner in respect of Question No.30, 73 & 123 and declare her to have qualified the Teacher Eligibility Test-
2014, since the petitioner has correctly answered these questions but no marks for these rightly answered questions have been awarded to the petitioner due to wrong answer- key of Respondent Board as per Annexure P-7."
2. It would be evident from the prayer clause as also the pleadings as set out in the writ petition what the petitioner infact Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:13:02 :::HCHP 2 seeks is a judicial pronouncement from this Court on the correctness of the answer to the questions referred above. Whether .
such a course is permissible and whether this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction has power to judicially review the decision taken by the experts insofar as it relates to the revised key answers, are the of questions which are required to be determined by this Court.
3. Identical questions have repeatedly come up before this rt Court and this Court only need to refer to a recent decision rendered by a learned Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.699 of 2016 titled Rustam Garg and others versus Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, decided on 29.03.2016, wherein it was held as under:-
"6. This court in case titled Mukesh Thakur Vs. State of HP & others, reported in 2006 (1) Shim. L.C 134 had found inconsistency in framing of the questions relating to this very examination in the subject of Civil Law-II and after evaluating the same, it quashed the result prepared by the Commission.
7. However, the matter was carried in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & anr reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was not permissible for this court to have intervened and examined the question papers and answer sheets itself, even if these questions pertained to the subject of law, more particularly when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates,. It would be apt to reproduce the following observations:
"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 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:13:02 :::HCHP 3 assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the .
answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for respondent No.1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been of adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible rt to the High Court."
8. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, it is absolutely clear that this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction has no power to judicially review the decision taken by the experts in so far it relates to revised key answers.
9. Similar question regarding allegation of publication of incorrect revised key answers has been repeatedly coming up before this Court and it shall be profitable to make note of some of the decisions.
10. In a batch of writ petitions, the lead case being CWP No.9169 of 2013 titled Vivek Kaushal & ors Vs. H.P. Public Service Commission, decided on 17.7.2014, this court was dealing with the key answers relating to the conduct of H.P. Administrative Services, Class-1 (gazetted) examinations and after taking into consideration the entire case law, more particularly, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukesh Thakur's case (supra), held as under:
"16. The Apex Court, after discussing the authorities, which were governing the field till the date of the decision in the case, has used the words : "......the Court should not generally direct revaluation". Meaning thereby, it suggests that if there is some mistake apparent on the face of it, the Court may interfere and may direct for revaluation.
17. In the instant case, the Rules do prescribe for inviting objections before the Examiner examines the papers and before declaring the result, if the candidates files objections ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:13:02 :::HCHP 4 within seven days from displaying the key on the website. It appears that the purpose is just to examine those objections .
before declaring the result.
18. Applying the test to the instant case, it is specifically averred by the respondents, as discussed hereinabove, that they have invited the objections, asked the Experts to examine the objections, objections were examined, some of mistakes were found, were rectified, the Examiners were asked to examine the papers in light of the Expert's opinion and thereafter, the result was declared. Thus, there is no rt case for interference. Had the Commission not invited the objections or had failed to take into account the said objections and the Expert's opinion, in that eventuality, the judicial review was permissible. Thus, on this count, these writ petitions are not maintainable.
19. The respondents have specifically pleaded that some of the petitioners have filed objections, but some have not filed the same. The respondents have furnished CWP-wise list of the petitioners, who have not represented/filed objections before the Commission, made part of the file. The respondents have also furnished opinion of Experts of Key- Committee on objected questions/key answers of the General Studies & Aptitude Test.
20. It is beaten law of land that the Courts are not Experts, have to honour the opinion of the Experts and cannot substitute the same. In the instant cases, the Experts have examined the questions and given their opinion.
21. We are of the considered view that the writ petitioners, who have not filed objections, have lost their right, are bound by the decision of the Commission and cannot now file writ petitions. Thus, the writ petitions are not maintainable so far it relate to them. Further, the objections raised by the candidates have been considered and judicial review is not permissible."::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:13:02 :::HCHP 5
11.Notably, the judgment rendered in Vivek Kaushal's (supra) was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Special .
Leave to Appeal (C ) Nos. 20992 to 20995/2014 and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 7.8.2014.
12. The above stated legal position was thereafter reiterated in a batch of writ petitions, the lead case being CWP No.6812 of 2014, titled Arvind Kumar & ors Vs. Himachal Pradesh of Public Service Commission, decided on 16.10.2014.
13. In Ashutosh Parmar Vs. State of HP & ors, CWP No. 1118 of 2014, decided on 1.10.2015, this court was rt again dealing with a case seeking correction of key answers to the H.P. Judicial Service Examination and it was observed as under:
"13.In Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & anr, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759, it was specifically held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question paper and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. If there is any discrepancy in framing of the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all candidates appearing for the examination and not for an individual candidate."
14. Notably, even the aforesaid decision in Ashutosh Parmar's case (supra) was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (C) No542/2016, however, the same was withdrawn on 18.1.2016.
15. Similar reiteration of the legal proposition is found in case titled Lalit Mohan Vs. H.P. Public Service Commission, CWP No. 3866 of 2015, decided on 2.11.2015.
16.The aforesaid legal position has yet again been reiterated by this court in its recent decision rendered in LPA No. 211 of 2015, titled H.P. Board of School Education, Dharamshala, Vs. Rajnesh & anr decided on 14th March, 2016. The court therein was dealing with the judgment rendered by the learned writ court wherein it had substituted the findings rendered by the expert by its own findings and this court held as under:
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:13:02 :::HCHP 6"2.The judgment, on the face of it, is not in tune with the judgment made by this Court in CWP No. 9169 of 2013 titled .
Vivek Kaushal and others versus H.P. Public Service Commission and other connected matters, decided on 10.7.2014, made by the Division Bench of this Court, and other cases. The judgment impugned is also bad in view of the judgment delivered by the apex Court in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission versus Mukesh Thakur of and another reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759."
4. In view of the definitive law enunciated by the Hon'ble rt Supreme Court and thereafter repeatedly followed by this Court, I am of firm opinion that the revised key answers are immune from judicial review and it is not permissible for this Court to examine the question papers and answer-sheets itself, particularly, when the experts have already assessed and analyzed the same. Further, it is not for the Court to take upon itself the task of statutory authorities and substitute its own opinion for that of the experts.
5. Having said so, I find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
( Tarlok Singh Chauhan), April 29, 2016. Judge.
(krt) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:13:02 :::HCHP