Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
N. Saidinesh vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 22 October, 2020
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
***
W.P.Nos.536, 2156, 5432, 13201, 15757 and 18090 of 2020
W.P.No.536/2020
Between:
#1. N. Saidinesh S/o. Nagaraja, R/o. H.No.2-475/VH, Bapuji Nagar,
Kongareddypalli, Chittoor, A.P.-517001.
2. Surepalli Lavanya S/o. Surepalli Ramanaiah, Sivalayam Street,
Pudiparthi, Venkatachalam Mandal, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore, A.P.-
524321.
3. Marupilla Srinivasa Rao S/o. Krishna Swamy, R/o. 301 3-6-648, St.
No.10, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-500029.
4. S. Giribabu S/o. S. Chandran, R/o. 3-97, 49 Kothapallimitta Village,
Srirangarajapuram Mandal -517167.
5. Sirivella Narasimha Rao, S/o.Venkata Narasaiah, R/o. 22-2-73/2,
Nancharamma Colony, Kandukur, 523105.
6. Sivalakshmi Uppala S/o. Venkata Narayana, R/o. Vuyyuruvaripalem,
Nagaram Mandal, Guntur District-522258.
7. Tamatam Harinadha Reddy, S/o. T. Prabhakara Reddy, R/o. 6/4,
Doreddulavandlapalli, Eguvagottiveedu post, Galive, Kadapa, A.P-
516269.
... Petitioners
AND
$ 1.The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary, General
Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, rep. by its Secretary,
R&B Building, M.G. Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra
Pradesh.
... RESPONDENTS
Date of Judgment pronounced on : 22-10-2020
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No
May be allowed to see the judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No
to Law Reporters/Journals:
3. Whether The Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No
Of the Judgment?
RRR,J
2 W.P.No.536 of 20120 & batch
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.Nos.536, 2156, 5432, 13201, 15757 and 18090 of 2020
% Dated:22-10-2020
W.P.No.536/2020
Between:
#1. N. Saidinesh S/o. Nagaraja, R/o. H.No.2-475/VH, Bapuji Nagar,
Kongareddypalli, Chittoor, A.P.-517001.
2. Surepalli Lavanya S/o. Surepalli Ramanaiah, Sivalayam Street,
Pudiparthi, Venkatachalam Mandal, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore,
A.P.-524321.
3. Marupilla Srinivasa Rao S/o. Krishna Swamy, R/o. 301 3-6-648, St.
No.10, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-500029.
4. S. Giribabu S/o. S. Chandran, R/o. 3-97, 49 Kothapallimitta Village,
Srirangarajapuram Mandal -517167.
5. Sirivella Narasimha Rao, S/o.Venkata Narasaiah, R/o. 22-2-73/2,
Nancharamma Colony, Kandukur, 523105.
6. Sivalakshmi Uppala S/o. Venkata Narayana, R/o. Vuyyuruvaripalem,
Nagaram Mandal, Guntur District-522258.
7. Tamatam Harinadha Reddy, S/o. T. Prabhakara Reddy, R/o. 6/4,
Doreddulavandlapalli, Eguvagottiveedu post, Galive, Kadapa, A.P-
516269.
... Petitioners
AND
$ 1.The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary, General
Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, rep. by its Secretary,
R&B Building, M.G. Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra
Pradesh.
... RESPONDENTS
W.P.No.2156/2020
Between:
#1. Vijaya Shanthi Kovathula, D/o. Suresh (Late), R/o. H.No.32-17-
18/2, Atchiyammapeta, Near Allipuram, Visakhapatnam-530004
... Petitioner
AND
$ 1. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, rep. by its Secretary,
R&B Building, M.G. Road, Vijayawada.
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary, General
Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
RRR,J
3 W.P.No.536 of 20120 & batch
Amaravathi, Guntur District.
... RESPONDENTS
W.P.No.5432/2020
Between:
#1. Prasanth Kumar Batchu, S/o. Batchu Hanmanth Rao, R/o. 15-26-3,
Old
Town, Repalle, Gutur District, A.P. 522265
2. S. Raja Srinivas Rao, S/o. S. Siva Sankara Rao, R/o. 2-31-45, National
Club
Road, Nandulipeta, Tenali, Guntur District - 522201.
3. Lenka Narayana Rao, S/o. Appalanaidu, R/o. 1-90, Ramalayam Street,
Ippalavalasa Village, Vijayanagaram District. A.P. 535581.
... Petitioners
AND
$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary, General
Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, rep. by its Secretary,
R&B Building, M.G. Road, Vijayawada.
... RESPONDENTS
W.P.No.13201/2020
Between:
# Kota Satish Kumar, S/o. Bla Babu,
R/o. 5-7, Datta Sai Street, Raghavendra Nagar,
Bommuru, Rajamundry - 533124
... Petitioner
AND
$ 1. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, rep. by its Secretary,
R&B Building, M.G. Road, Vijayawada.
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary, General
Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District.
... RESPONDENTS
W.P.No.15757/2020
Between:
# Sigiram Venkatavenugopal, S/o. Ramakrishnaiah,
H.No.20/1A-8-127/1, Old Sridevi Rice Mill Line,
Parameswaraiah Venue, Walkers Road, Nellore -524001.
... Petitioner
AND
$ 1. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, rep. by its Secretary,
R&B Building, M.G. Road, Vijayawada.
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary, General
RRR,J
4 W.P.No.536 of 20120 & batch
Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District.
... RESPONDENTS
W.P.No.18090/2020
Between:
# G. Srinivas Reddy S/o. Mahanandi Reddy,
R/o. 4-5, Gangalakuynta Village, Veldurti Mandal,
Guntur District.
... Petitioner
AND
$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary, General
Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, rep. by its
Secretary (C), 2nd Floor, New R&B Building, M.G. Road, Opp/ Indira
Gandhi Municipal Stadium, Vijayawada, Krishna District, A.P.
520010.
3. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, rep. by its Joint
Secretary (C), 2nd Floor, New R&B Building, M.G. Road, Opp/ Indira
Gandhi Municipal Stadium, Vijayawada, Krishna District, A.P.
520010.
... RESPONDENTS
! Counsel for petitioners : Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Counsel
appearing
For Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri
Sri Madasa Bharat Chandra
Sri Thandava Yogesh
Sri M.V.V.R. Satyanarayana
^Counsel for Respondents : Mr. Addanki Rama Chandra Murthy
(For APPSC)
Sri R.V. Mallikarjuna Rao
<GIST :
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred:
1. (2019) 12 SCC 674
2. (2018) 7 SCC 254
RRR,J
5 W.P.No.536 of 20120 & batch
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.Nos.536, 2156, 5432, 13201, 15757 and 18090 of 2020
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Yogesh Tandava, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.2156 of 2020 and Sri R.V. Mallikarjuna Rao for the respondents.
2. Before adverting to the controversy in question, a few facts would be necessary:-
The A.P. Public Service Commission had issued notification dated 31.12.2018 for filling up various carry forward vacancies and fresh vacancies falling under Group-I Service. The said notification also set out the conditions under which the recruitment process would be carried out.
The selection process was in three stages, viz., preliminary examination, main examination and interview. All persons, who are eligible in terms of age and other qualifications were permitted to appear for the preliminary examination, which was an objective test consisting of two papers, viz., Paper-I was to test the candidates in - (a) History and Culture; (b) Constitution Policy, Social Justice and International relations; (c) Indian and Andhra Pradesh Economy and Planning; and (d) Geography and Paper-II was to test the candidates in - (a) General Mental Ability, Administrative and Psychological Abilities; and (b) Science and Technologies, and Current events of Regional, National and international importance.
RRR,J 6 W.P.No.536 of 20120 & batch
3. The preliminary examination was a screening examination to shortlist candidates appearing for the Main exam in the ratio of 1:50. Thereafter, depending upon their performance in the main examination, candidates would be called for interview in a ratio of 1:2 of the vacancies available. The performance of the candidates in the main examination and interview would be taken into account for issuing the final merit list from which candidates would be selected for various vacancies in accordance with the rule of reservation and other parameters.
4. Each of the papers, for the preliminary examination for 120 marks consisted of 120 multiple choice. As a measure of preventing malpractices, four sets of question papers, viz., Set-A, Set-B, Set-C and Set-D papers were prepared for each of the question papers. In all the paper sets, the questions were same. However, the order in which they were placed in the question papers was changed.
5. About 50,000 candidates appeared for the preliminary examination, which was conducted on 26.5.2019. As a measure of transparency, the key to the questions, giving the correct choices, as decided by the Public Service Commission, was published on 26.05.2019. The candidates were permitted to raise objections to any of the answers indicated by the Public Service Commission till 10.06.2019. The objections so received were referred to subject experts for verification. A report of the subject experts, on the objections raised by the candidates, was received on 05.9.2019 and the revised key was published on 06.09.2019. According to the revised key, 19 questions in Paper-I and 6 questions in Paper-II were found to be incorrect and the marks in relation to those questions were deleted. As a further measure, objections were again RRR,J 7 W.P.No.536 of 20120 & batch called for in relation to the revised key published on 06.09.2019 up to 17.09.2019. These objections were received and referred to the subject experts on 18.09.2019. At that stage, other candidates, who had appeared in the preliminary examination, had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.13075 of 2019.
6. The Petitioners, in W.P.No.13705 of 2019, had also filed an interlocutory application for staying all further proceedings in the selection process. A learned single judge of this Court had, by order dated 26.9.2019, directed that there shall be a stay of pronouncement of results of the Preliminary examination. Thereupon, the Public Service Commission had filed a vacate petition which came to be allowed on 1.11.2019. Thereafter, the results were announced along with the publication of the Final answer key based upon the recommendations of the subject experts after taking into account the objections raised by the candidates to the answer key published on 6.9.2019. The cut off mark for the selected candidates was 92.40 marks. About 8351 candidates were cleared to sit for the Main examination.
7. Aggrieved by the order dated 1.11.2019, vacating the stay of pronouncement of results, the petitioners had filed Writ Appeal No. 77 of 2020 which was allowed on 17.07.2020 setting aside the order of 01.11.2019 with a request to the learned single judge to decide the writ petition as per law within two months if possible.
8. In these writ petitions, objections have been raised on the answer key published on 01.11.2019 and the method of evaluating the answers have been disputed. Apart from this, objections relating to RRR,J 8 W.P.No.536 of 20120 & batch prohibition of usage of calculators and the differences by virtue of translation, were also raised.
9. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel had appeared for some of the writ petitioners. But the learned counsel in all other writ petitions, have essentially adopted his arguments. Sri Tandava Yogesh had made his submissions on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.No.2156 of 2020.
10. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, drew the attention of this Court to the following conditions set out in the notification.
A. Annexure-II to the notification reads as follows:-
"N.B: NEGATIVE MARKS: as per G.O.Ms.No.235 Finance (HR-I Plg & Policy) Department, dated 06.12.2016, for each wrong answer will be penalized with 1/3rd of the marks prescribed for the question."
B. Para-12, which relates to resolution of disputes related to question paper, answer key and other matters which essentially stated that after the conduct of examination, the Commission would publish the key of the preliminary examination and would receive objections in relation to the key and refer the same to an Expert Committee for its opinion and thereupon take appropriate decision. It further stated that the revised key would again be placed for public inspection and second round of objections would be invited and referred to the subject expert committee, after which, a final key would be published and thereafter no objections would be entertained.
C. Condition No.D.5 in the notification. The relevant portion of the said condition being "non-programmable calculators would be permitted, wherever necessary".
RRR,J 9 W.P.No.536 of 20120 & batch
11. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, submitted that the objections to the answer key and the questions framed in the question papers were three fold. Firstly, by virtue of the final answer key various questions were shown to have multiple correct answers, which is not permissible under the scheme of examination. Secondly, the differences in translation between the question papers set in English and translated Telugu questions caused immense confusion and difficulty for the candidates which require corrective action, and lastly, there were palpably incorrect questions/incorrect answers in the final answer key, which also require to be corrected.
12. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao submits that a perusal of the questions set in Paper-II would clearly show that calculators are necessary and the refusal of the authorities to permit usage of calculators, caused severe disadvantage to the candidates. He also submits that the words "wherever necessary" would come into play only after the examination commences and the question of deciding whether calculators are needed at this stage or not, would be difficult to assess and impossible to implement.
13. Sri R.V. Mallikarjuna Rao, appearing for the A.P. Public Service Commission, submits as follows:
The condition set out in the notification in relation to calculators is as follows:
"Non-programmable calculators would be permitted wherever necessary."
He submits that the system that the words "wherever necessary"
would mean that it is the examiner or APPSC, which would decide whether such calculators should be permitted to be taken into examination hall. He RRR,J 10 W.P.No.536 of 20120 & batch submits that the subject expert, who sets the paper, is asked whether a calculator should be permitted to be taken or not, depending upon the complexity of the question. Thereupon, the subject expert advises the Public Service Commission as to whether such calculators are necessary. Depending upon the said advise the Public Service Commission, thereafter, permits the usage of calculators or prohibits such usage.
14. In the present case, the questions relating to general aptitude etc., wherein certain mathematical problems were raised, did not require a calculator, in the opinion of the subject expert. Further, the mathematical questions, which were set in the question paper, were of such nature, which could be answered by any person at the graduate level and as the candidates were seeking to enter Group-I Service, which is at the highest level of recruitment in the State, permitting calculators would defeat the purpose of the examination.
15. In these circumstances, the decision to prohibit usage of calculators cannot be challenged.
16. The further argument is that there was a change in the condition of calculators being permitted by way of a subsequent prohibition of usage of calculators is also not correct. The language mentioned above shows that the notification had merely stated that there was a possibility of permitting the use of calculators wherever necessary and that cannot be read to mean that calculators were permissible if the candidates thought it necessary. In the light of the language in the notification, the subsequent prohibition of calculators, by way of instructions to candidates in the hall tickets cannot be treated as a change in conditions.
RRR,J 11 W.P.No.536 of 20120 & batch Consideration of the Court:-
17. The instruction D.5 in the original notification dated 31.12.2018 stated - "non-programmable calculators would be permitted, wherever necessary". The subsequent instructions in the hall ticket prohibited the usage of non-programmable calculators in the course of the examination. The change in stance of the Public Service Commission is explained, by Sri R.V. Mallikharjuna Rao, that the subject expert setting the question paper decides, after the question paper is set, whether the candidates would require a calculator to answer the questions in the papers set by the subject experts. In this case, it is stated, that the subject expert took the view that calculators are not necessary for answering the questions in the papers.
18. In the said circumstances, prohibition of use of calculators cannot be said to be changed in the conditions. Further, in a test of general mental ability, candidates are tested by questions of the nature, which have been set out in the papers. Usage of calculators to solve such problems would result in a situation where there would be no test of the general mental ability of the candidate and it would only be an exercise of using the calculator to solve the questions. This contention of the petitioners would have to fail.
19. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao also submitted that difference in translation has caused immense prejudice to the candidates, who took the examination in Telugu in as much as certain questions were totally unintelligible and in certain situations misleading. In these circumstances, the said questions ought to have been excluded from valuation. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao also took me through these questions.
RRR,J 12 W.P.No.536 of 20120 & batch
20. With regard to the question of incorrect translation, Sri R.V. Mallikarjuna Rao submits that instruction No.3 of the instructions to the candidates, set out in the first page of the question paper, reads as follows:
"The question paper is set in English and translated into Telugu language. The English version will be considered as the authentic version for valuation purpose."
21. In these circumstances, any discrepancy in translation cannot be a ground for contending, that the candidates could not answer the questions properly, because of the discrepancy in translation. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and another Vs. T. K. Rangarajan and others (2019) 12 SCC 674, set out at paragraphs 16 to 20 and 24.
Consideration of the Court:
22. I have gone through the question paper set in English and in Telugu. I have also gone through the objections raised by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and what is set out in the material filed along with the writ petition. It is true that there is substantial variation between the questions set in English and the questions translated from English into Telugu. It is also true that these translations, in some questions, have changed the complexion of the question itself.
23. A few examples in this regard would be (these questions are taken out from the paper set :-
Paper-I:- Question No.10 in English version "who wrote 'Why I am an Atheist'-----, in Telugu version when are translated RRR,J 13 W.P.No.536 of 20120 & batch into English would read "when I was an Atheist" would read "who wrote the book when I was an Atheist".
Paper-II:- Question No.49 in English version "Two trains of length 150 mts and 170 mts respectively are running at the speed of 40 km/hr and 32 km/hr on parallel tracks in opposite directions. In what time will they cross each other". The same question translated into Telugu would read as "when two trains would meet each other".
24. A similar situation was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in Central Board of Secondary Education and anr., v. T. K. Rangarajan and ors.,1. In this case the Hon'ble High Court at Madras, after finding that there were significant variations between the Tamil translation of the English questions, had directed that students, who had appeared for NEET-UG-2018 examination in Tamil medium would be avoided marks in 49 questions in which such errors had occurred. In the appeal against the said direction, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered the condition in the examination that in the event of any ambiguity between the original language and English, the version in English would be taken as final. On the basis of this condition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken the view that even in the event of serious variations, the said variations would not give rise to any relief for the students in the form of award of marks.
25. In the present case, Instruction No.3 in the question paper book reads as follows:
1
(2019) 12 SCC 674 RRR,J 14 W.P.No.536 of 20120 & batch "The question paper is set in English and translated into Telugu language. The English version will be considered as authentic version for valuation purpose."
26. In the light of this instruction, which is similar to the condition considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the errors in translation would require to be overlooked. Viewed from another angle, all the candidates would have sufficient knowledge of English, and would have referred to the question in English in the event of any ambiguity in Telugu translation. Any other view would mean that undue advantage would accrue the candidates who claimed to have attempted the paper in Telugu language only.
27. However, this cannot mean that the public service commission can continue in the same manner to the detriment of the future of lakhs of candidates who appear for various examinations that are conducted by the commission. Sri Tandava Yogesh, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted a memorandum on the way forward for the commission. The summary of the suggestions is as follows:
i. Preparation of Question paper by expert in English and Telugu.
ii. Dual Translation Approach.
iii. Transparency in Expert Committee Reports iv. Form a committee to study how various testing agencies are doing in India and the committee report may be followed with specific timeframe.
It would be appropriate for the Public Service Commission to consider these issues and ensure that such errors do not creep in.
RRR,J 15 W.P.No.536 of 20120 & batch
28. The petitioners in W.P.No.5432 of 2020 have compiled all the questions, which are under challenge by the petitioners in all these writ petitions. The said consolidated set of questions have also been served on the learned counsel for the Public Service Commission. The set of consolidated questions compiled in the booklet filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.5432 of 2020 are being taken up to consider the objections raised by the petitioners.
29. According to the compilation made in W.P.No.5432 of 2020 (for the purpose of these objections, the questions in Paper Set-A were taken up) in all 15 questions in Paper-I and 11 questions in Paper-II, were challenged. A perusal of these questions would show that the objections to the following questions were raised on the ground that there were errors in translation :
Paper-I - Question Nos.25, 27, 31, 37, 48, 49, 60, 71 and 74. Paper-II - Question No.116
30. For the reasons set out above, the errors in translation are not being considered.
31. The questions that are being challenged on the ground that, according to the final key, there is more than one correct answer to the question are:
Paper-I: 6,12 and 15 Paper -II : 116.
32. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao would point to the note mentioned above, which reads as follows:
A. Annexure-II to the notification reads as follows:-
RRR,J 16 W.P.No.536 of 20120 & batch "N.B: NEGATIVE MARKS: as per G.O.Ms.No.235 Finance (HR-I Plg & Policy) Department, dated 06.12.2016, for each wrong answer will be penalized with 1/3rd of the marks prescribed for the question."
Sri Adinarayana Rao submits that because of the negative marking, a lot of candidates had by-passed these questions or ended up spending too much time on these questions, as various answers appeared to be correct and as a result of the mistakes committed by the subject experts, who set the questions, a large number of candidates lost in the marking of these questions.
33. Sri Adinarayana Rao alternatively submits that the tone and tenor of the instructions to the candidates and stipulation of negative marking was to the effect that there can be one correct answer and when the candidates face such questions which suggested possibilities of more than one option being correct, which has resulted in all the candidates being unsure of the answer which again caused candidates to lose marks.
34. This submission of Sri Adinarayana Rao has considerable merit. However, a review of these questions and the multiple answers that were permitted in the final key would go to show that all the candidates appearing for the examination had been treated uniformly and the disadvantages set out by Sri Adinarayana Rao apply to all the candidates equally. As this is a competitive screening test, improper setting of questions cannot be a ground to hold that only some of the candidates suffered disadvantage vis-à-vis other candidates. Hence, the issues raised in relation to these questions cannot be looked into.
RRR,J 17 W.P.No.536 of 20120 & batch
35. The third category of objections relate to questions which are either wrongly framed or where the answer given in the final key is also wrong. The questions in this category, in Set A, are -
"Paper-I:- Question Nos.31, 51, 76, 86 and 99. Paper-I:- Question Nos.2 and 117."
36. On the question, whether this court can look into these objections, when two expert committees have already gone into these issues, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanpur University Vs. Samir Gupta (1983) 4 SCC 309 and Sri R.V. Mallikarjuna Rao learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UPPSC Vs Rahul Singh2. As the judgement in Rahul Singh's case considered the earlier judgment, the following extracts from the judgement in Rahul Singh's case would be sufficient to elucidate the issue:
8. 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.
9. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta [Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309] , this Court was dealing with a case relating to the Combined Pre-Medical Test.
Admittedly, the examination setter himself had provided the key answers and there were no committees to moderate or verify the correctness of the key answers provided by the examiner. This Court upheld the view of the Allahabad High Court that the students had proved that three of the key answers were wrong. The following observations of the Court are pertinent:
"16. ... 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 2 (2018) 7 SCC 254 RRR,J 18 W.P.No.536 of 20120 & batch 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 Court gave further directions but we are concerned mainly with one that the State Government should devise a system for moderating the key answers furnished by the paper setters.
10. In Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. [Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] , this Court after referring to a catena of judicial pronouncements summarised the legal position in the following terms: (SCC pp. 368-69, para 30) "30. 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 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."
12. 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 RRR,J 19 W.P.No.536 of 20120 & batch 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 [Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309] , 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.
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.
37. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while narrowing the scope for judicial scrutiny of such issues has still left it open to undertake such an exercise where glaring errors are apparent and no inferential process is required to show that the answers are wrong. In these circumstances, the scrutiny of the challenge made to these questions is being taken up.
Paper-I:-
Question No.31:- Choose the correct answer relating to Supreme Court of India.
1) A Supreme Court Judge addresses his resignation to Chief Justice of India.
RRR,J 20 W.P.No.536 of 20120 & batch
2) The Supreme Court does not have the power to review its own judgments.
3) All Civil and Judicial authorities in India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.
4) The Supreme Court has the autonomy to make rules for the practice and procedure of Court.
Question No.31:- The options given in the initial key is 3, revised key - 1, 3, 4 and final key - 4. In the present case it is obvious that the options-1 and 2 are palpably incorrect and option-4 also is incorrect, as Article 145 of the Constitution states that the Supreme Court may, from time to time, with the approval of the President, make Rules relating to the practice and procedure of the Court. Article 144 of the Constitution provides that all Civil and Judicial authorities in India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.
In these circumstances, the award of marks to candidates who have marked option-4 as the correct answer would be wrong and marks should be awarded only to candidates who have marked option-3.
Question No.51:- A sitting of the Parliament can be terminated by Adjournment, prorogation or dissolution in this regard choose the correct answer.
1) Adjournment terminates sitting as well as session of the house.
2) All pending notices including introducing bills lapse on prorogation.
3) Dissolution ends all business including bills and motions before the lok sabha.
4) Adjournment sine die means terminating a sitting for a indefinite period.
Question No.51: The options given in initial key - 4, revised key - 3 & 4, and in final key-4. Here again options-3 & 4 are both correct. However, only option-4 is declared to be the correct answer and the candidates who have marked option-3 have suffered negative marking. In RRR,J 21 W.P.No.536 of 20120 & batch the circumstances, marks would have to be awarded to the candidates who have marked option-3 for question No.51.
Question No.76:- At present with which name is Swarna Jayanthi Gram Swarojgar Yojana (1999) implemented.
1) National Rural Livelihood mission
2) Jawahar Gram Samridhi Yojana
3) National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
4) Ajeevikaa
Question No.76:- The initial key marked 4 as the correct answer and there is no change in the said answer subsequently. However, the correct answer to this question, according to the Petitioners, is "Deendayal Anthyodaya Yojana National Rural Livelihood mission. The Swarna Jayanthi Gram Swarozgar Yojana was started in 1999 and was restructured in 2011 as National Rural Livelihood mission and subsequently renamed as Deendayal Anthyodaya Yojana National Rural Livelihood mission in 2015. It appears the scheme was also called Ajeevikaa, till 2015 when it was renamed "Deendayal Anthyodaya Yojana National Rural Livelihood mission". There is no correct answer for this question and as such this question would have to be deleted and marks changed accordingly.
Question No.86:- According to 2014 reorganization Act after the bifurcation of the State how many revenue divisions are there in Andhra Pradesh.
1) 46
2) 54
3) 50
4) 64
RRR,J
22 W.P.No.536 of 20120 & batch
Question No.86:- The consistent option given in all the answer keys for this question is option-3. However, the Statistical Abstract of Andhra Pradesh-2015 shows that there are only 49 revenue divisions which means this question would have to be excluded in toto and marks adjusted accordingly.
Question No.99:- Which of the following statements rightly explains about tropopause.
1) Seasonal variation occurs in the height of tropopause.
2) It is the transition zone between troposphere and stratosphere.
3) It lies below the Stratosphere
a) 2 and 3
b) 1 and 2
c) 1,2 and 3
d) 1 and 3
Question Nos.99:- The initial key showed option-1 & 2 and the final key showed options-2 & 3. However, all the options are correct. In these circumstances, the marking would have to be altered accordingly.
Paper-II Question No.2:- The following question is based on diagram given below in which the rectangle stands for illiterate, the square stands for employed, the triangle stands for farmer and the circle stands for the backward. Which the following statements is not true?
1) Some farmers who are employed are either backward or illiterate or both
2) Some unemployed farmers are backward illiterate.
3) Some backward farmers who are employed are not illiterate.
4) All those backward persons who are not illiterate are either farmers or employed or neither of these.
Question No.2:- option-3 was shown to be correct both in the initial key as well as in the final key. The objection to this RRR,J 23 W.P.No.536 of 20120 & batch question is that the question itself is wrong. The correctness of this answer will require inferential reasoning and as such cannot be looked into.
Question No.117:- How many municipal Corporations are there in Andhra Pradesh?
Question No.117:- The initial key and final key show option-3 is right. This was challenged on the ground that option-1 is the correct answer. However, upon verification, it turns out that option-3 is correct and challenge to this question would have to fail.
38. In view of the above findings it would be seen that there are clear mistakes in relation to five questions. The change of marking for these five questions in such an examination would result in a sea change in the fortunes of the candidates who are appearing for the examination. A similar challenge was made to six questions in the preliminary examination for Group -I services, conducted by the Respondent Commission, in the year 2011. This challenge reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court after the Main examination had been conducted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgment dated 7.10.2013 in Civil Appeal No. 9140 of 2013, after finding that these six questions would need to be deleted had directed the respondent Commission to revalue the answer books of all the candidates after deleting the six questions and to short list the candidates who would be eligible to sit for the main examination on the basis of such revaluation and to de novo conduct the main examination. In a similar situation, it would not be appropriate to allow the present examination to be continued until and unless these mistakes in marking are corrected by the Public Service Commission.
RRR,J 24 W.P.No.536 of 20120 & batch
39. In these circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions to the A.P. Public Service Commission:
1) The Public Service Commission shall take steps, in line with the observations mentioned above, to make appropriate corrections in the marks awarded to the candidates, who appeared for the examination,
2) The Public Service Commission after making necessary corrections shall arrive at a new merit list/shortlist and fix the cutoff point thereafter. Those who qualify in the new shortlist will be eligible to write the main examination.
3) The Public Service Commission shall not conduct the main examinations proposed to be held from 02.11.2020. It shall conduct the main examination only after the completion of the above exercise on the basis of the new merit list/short list.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
____ October, 2020 Js L.R. Copy to be marked.
RRR,J 25 W.P.No.536 of 20120 & batch THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO W.P.Nos.536, 2156, 5432, 13201, 15757 and 18090 of 2020 _____ October, 2020 js