Karnataka High Court
Shri.Dharmaraj S/O Anandappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 April, 2022
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
WP No. 109293 of 2019
C/W WP No. 108569 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 109293 OF 2019 (EDN-EX)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 108569 OF 2019
IN WP NO.109293/2019
BETWEEN:
1. NAGARAJ S/O MARUTI RAO BHOSLE
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: PART TIME TEACHER,
R/O: WARD NO.28, CHAPPARADALLI AREA,
NEAR JALANJANEYA TEMPLE,
HOSAPTE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI.
2. SRI JANDIPEER S/O BUDANSAB BAGLI
AGE:32 YEARS, OCC:PART TIME TEACHER,
R/O:AT:GABBUR, POST:KUTAGANAHALLI,
TQ and DIST:KOPPAL
3. BOGAMMA D/O BHEEMARAYA HALAGERI
AGE:26 YEARS, OCC:PART TIME TEACHER,
R/O:KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, DONI MALAI,
SANDUR, TQ:SANDUR, DIST:BALLARI
4. SHRIKANT SHIVASHARAN MALI
AGE:30 YEARS, OCC:PART TIME TEACHER,
R/O:C/O SAGAR SOMANNA MALI,
B.T.PATIL NAGAR,KOPPAL,
TQ AND DIST:KOPPAL
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B.C.JNANAYYA SWAMI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
WP No. 109293 of 2019
C/W WP No. 108569 of 2019
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
RPTD BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
BENDALURU
DIST:BENGALURU
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION)
SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY EDUCATION, BENGALURU,
DIST:BENGALURU
3. THE SPECIAL OFFICER
CENTRALIZED EXAMINATION CELL
BENGALURU, DIST:BENGALURU
4. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
BENGALURU, BENGALURU,
DIST:BENGALURU
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1, R2 AND R4;
SRI. K.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE
OF MANDAMUS BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO
CONSIDER THE REPRESENATIONAS DATED 13.03.2019 AND
25.03.2019 VIDE ANNEXURES-G AND G1 AND TO PASS AN
APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, ETC.,
IN WP NO.108569/2019
1. SHRI DHARMARAJ S/O. ANANDAPPA DODDAMANI,
AGE 29 YEARS, OCC: PART TIME TEACHER,
R/O. WARD NO.15, GANDHINAGAR, KUSTAGI,
-3-
WP No. 109293 of 2019
C/W WP No. 108569 of 2019
TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.
2. POORNIMA D/O. NAGAPPA,
AGE 26 YEARS, OCC: PART TIME TEACHER,
R/O. AT POST KAVALOOR, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL.
...PETITIONERS
(SRI. B.C.JNANAYYASWAMI AND SRI. PRUTHVI K.S., ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPTD. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION BENGALURU,
DIST. BENGALURU.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMIISTRATION)
SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT AUTHORITY,
DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION,
BENGALURU NORTH, DIST. BENGALURU.
3. THE SPECIAL OFFICER,
CENTRALIZED EXAMINATION CELL,
BENGALURU, DIST. BENGALURU.
4. THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION BENGALURU,
BENGALURU, DIST. BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1, R2 AND R4;
SRI. K.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT NO.4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF
PETITIONER NO.1 DATED 25.03.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND TO
PASS AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
WP No. 109293 of 2019
C/W WP No. 108569 of 2019
COMMON ORDER
1. In W.P.No.109293/2019, the petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the following reliefs:
(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus by directing the respondent No.1 to consider the representations dated 13.03.2019 and 25.03.2019 vide Annexure-G and G1 and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
(b) Issue a writ in the mandamus by directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to participate in the examination for recruitment to the post of Primary School Teachers pursuant to the Notification dated 05.03.2019 bearing No.C.1/Pra/Sha/Shi/Nemakati/01/2018-19 vide Annexure-H, issued by the respondent No.1 insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
(c) Issue such other suitable order/s or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. In W.P.No.108569/2019, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
(a) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus by directing the respondent No.4 to consider the representation of petitioner No.1 dated 25.03.2019 vide Annexure-K and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, in the interest of justice and equity.
(b) Issue a writ in the mandamus by directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to participate in the examination for recruitment to the post of Primary School -5- WP No. 109293 of 2019 C/W WP No. 108569 of 2019 Teachers pursuant to the notification dated 05.03.2019 bearing No.C.1/Pra/Sha/Shi/ Nemakati/01/2018-10 vide Annexure-L issued by the respondent No.2 in the interest of justice and equity.
(c) Issue such other suitable order/s or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
3. In both cases, respondent No.1 had called for teachers' eligibility test. By filing an application, the petitioners participated in the said test, they having completed B.Ed. courses. They attended the examination on 03.02.2019, thereafter the key answers were published by the respondents in respect of Paper II.
4. The petitioners are before this Court contending that, the key answers published to question Nos.83 and 85 are not correct inasmuch as regards question No.83, the options 1 and 2 would be correct and in respect of question No.85, the option Nos.2 and 4 would be correct. The petitioners having marked one of the -6- WP No. 109293 of 2019 C/W WP No. 108569 of 2019 options, the answer key had indicated only one correct answer when there were two correct answers, the petitioners having been deprived of that particular question/answer and as such learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the respondents ought to take into consideration both the answer Nos.1 and 2 in respect of question No.83 and answer Nos.2 and 4 in respect of question No.85 to be correct and award marks.
5. Per contra, Sri. K.S.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 - Special Officer, Centralized Examination Cell, Bengaluru, who has filed objections in WP No. 108569 of 2019 submits that the same may be considered as objections in W.P.No.109293/2019. He firstly submits that, the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy in terms of approaching the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal since the matter relates to a -7- WP No. 109293 of 2019 C/W WP No. 108569 of 2019 recruitment process. Secondly, he submits that after publishing the key answers some of the candidates including the petitioners had filed their objections which were considered by respondent No.3 and thereafter referred to an expert committee, the expert committee has gone through the same has opined that the option No.1 is the correct answer for question No.83 and option No.2 is the correct answer for question No.85. Hence, the expert opinion having been obtained and the experts having submitted the opinion as regards the correct answer this Court ought not to entertain the above petition.
6. In this regard, he relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Rahul Singh and another, reported in 2018 (7) SCC 254, more particularly paragraph No.11 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
-8-WP No. 109293 of 2019 C/W WP No. 108569 of 2019
"11. 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: (Ran Vijay Singh case), SCC p. 369) "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.
" 32. 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 -9- WP No. 109293 of 2019 C/W WP No. 108569 of 2019 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."
7. He also relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.110794/2017 [RAJANI D/O. CHANDRAKANT SHAHAPURKAR VS.
RECRUITING AUTHORITY AND DIVISIONAL SECRETARY, KARNATAKA HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION EXAMINATION BOARD AND EX- OFFICIO JOINT DIRECTOR AND OTHERS] more particularly paragraph No.9 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"9. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records at the outset it require to be stated that Courts would not embark upon conducting a roving
- 10 -WP No. 109293 of 2019 C/W WP No. 108569 of 2019
enquiry as to whether opinion of the expert committee is correct or otherwise. Court would not don the robes of experts or in other words sit in the armchair of experts to find out as to which key answer is the correct answer. The objective assessment and subjective satisfaction is the prime criteria. It is highly impossible to arrive at a conclusion that opinion of experts being erroneous since courts would not pave such expertise. In the matter of technical issues the Courts would not possess the expertise and as such it cannot sit in judgment over the expert opinion. There may be instances where there are two opinions or as issue, and if the opinion or the conclusion arrived at by the experts has been relied upon by the authority conducting the examination to hold same to be correct definitely, it would sway in the mind of this court to accept such experts opinion relied upon by the authorities rather than contrary opinion which is relied upon by the contesting applicant or petitioner"
8. Heard Sri. B.C.Jnanayya Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Praveen K. Uppar, learned HCGP for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and Sri. K.S.patil, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the papers.
9. Question No.83 translated in English would read as under:
- 11 -WP No. 109293 of 2019 C/W WP No. 108569 of 2019
Question No.83: Diagnostic Test is designed to identify;
(1) Learning difficulties (2) Learning disabilities (3) Learning distractors (4) Learning Abilities
10. It is submitted that, as per the Petitioners, the Correct Answer to the said Question is Option No.2. In this regard, they have relied upon the material as per Annexure-F. However, the subject experts have considered the Key Answers and the objections filed by the candidates and opined that, Option No.1 is the correct answer and in this regard, they have relied upon the Book called "Evaluation & Statistics in Education" by Dr. H.V. Vamadevappa and therefore, the correct answer to Question No. 83 is Option No.1. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for any marks in respect of Question No.83.
11. The question No.85 with its option reads as under:
- 12 -WP No. 109293 of 2019 C/W WP No. 108569 of 2019
"Question No.85: Introversion is related to (1)Intelligence (2)Social Activity (3)Social Mobility (4)Creativity
12. It is submitted that, as per the Petitioners, the Correct Answer to the said Question is Option No.4. In this regard, they have relied upon the material as per Annexure-G. However, the subject experts have considered the Key Answers and the objections filed by the candidates and opined that, Option No.2 is the correct answer and in this regard, they have relied upon the Book called Educational Psychology by Dr. Vamadevappa and therefore, the correct answer to Question No. 85 Is Option No.2. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for any marks in respect of Question No.85.
- 13 -
WP No. 109293 of 2019 C/W WP No. 108569 of 2019
13. The Apex Court in Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission's matter, has also held at paragraph No.13 as under:
"13. 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 answers is better or more correct."
14. The Apex Court has held that unless the candidates were to demonstrate that the key answers are patently wrong, the Courts cannot enter into the academic field and weigh the pros and cons of the arguments of both sides.
- 14 -
WP No. 109293 of 2019 C/W WP No. 108569 of 2019
15. Insofar as question No.83, extracted above is concerned, in my considered opinion, the question itself is very vague. The question being as to diagnostic test is designed to identify, the question is not clear as to what diagnostic test is under consideration. Merely stating that a diagnostic test is designed to identify, cannot restrict the option to any particular answer.
16. Sri. Rajashekhar Burji is right in stating that the diagnostic test could be designed to identify the learning difficulties, learning disabilities, learning distracters, as also learning abilities. Thus all four answers could be the correct answer insofar as question No.83 is concerned, since there is no particular diagnostic test which has been mentioned in question No.83.
17. Thus, in my considered opinion, the petitioner has been able to establish that the answer key to
- 15 -
WP No. 109293 of 2019 C/W WP No. 108569 of 2019 question No.83 is patently wrong or that apart from that answer all other options could be an answer to the said question.
18. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that to make the playing field level amongst all the candidates, question No.83 and answer thereto is required to be eschewed from the process of examination.
19. Insofar as question No.85 is concerned, though Sri. Rajashekhar Burji has contended that it is option No.4 which is correct and Sri. K.S.Patil has contended that, it is option No.2 which is correct, a evaluation of the same would require weighing the pros and cons as regards the said answer. The expert committee in this regard has opined that, it is option No.2 which is correct and therefore, it would not be permissible for this Court to conduct any enquiry as regards correct answer when the petitioner has been
- 16 -
WP No. 109293 of 2019 C/W WP No. 108569 of 2019 unable to establish that the answer given in the key is patently wrong or otherwise.
20. This Court vide order dated 09.04.2019, in W.P.No.108569/2019 had passed the following order:
"Learned counsel for the petitioners points out from the prescribed textbook that a particular question admit two right answers and one having tick-marked by him should have yielded one mark. There is prima facie force in this submission subject to say of the other side.
The petitioners are permitted to manually submit the applications for recruitment in question, the last date being tomorrow i.e., 10.04.2019. If such applications are given by hand by the petitioners, the same shall be accepted by the second Respondent-Deputy Director (Administration), the Selection and Appointment Authority, subject to further orders to be made in the writ petitions.
Issue notice."
21. This Court vide order dated 24.04.2019 in W.P.No.109293/2019 had passed the following order:
"Learned counsel for the petitioners points out from the prescribed textbook that a particular question admit two right answers and one having tick- marked by them should have yielded one mark. There is prima facie force in this submission subject to say of the other side.
- 17 -WP No. 109293 of 2019 C/W WP No. 108569 of 2019
The petitioners are permitted to manually submit the applications for recruitment in question, the last date being tomorrow i.e., 25.04.2019. If such applications are given by hand by the petitioners, the same shall be accepted by the Respondents, subject to further orders to be made in the writ petitions.
Issue emergent Notice.
Mr. A.R.Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the official respondents.
A copy of this order be made available to the learned counsel for the petitioners forthwith."
22. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in pursuance thereto, the petitioners have submitted their applicants manually which has been accepted by the respondent-Deputy Director (Administration) and only the results of the said application are to be announced which is concurred to by the counsel for the respondent.
23. In view of the above, I pass the following:
ORDER i. The question No.83 to Paper II to the examination held on 03.02.2019 is eschewed.
- 18 -WP No. 109293 of 2019 C/W WP No. 108569 of 2019
ii. The respondents are directed to mark the applicants without reference to question No.83.
iii. Since the recruitment process is stated to be completed for the year 2018, and a fresh recruitment process has been announced. In the event of the petitioner being declared qualified on account of the deletion of question No.83, they are permitted to apply for the fresh recruitment which shall be considered by the respondents, in accordance with law.
iv. In view of the above, the petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE SVH