Gujarat High Court
Ajaykumar Virsingbhai Beldar vs State Of Gujarat on 16 June, 2023
C/SCA/9801/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9801 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT sd\-
==========================================================
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 ?
==========================================================
AJAYKUMAR VIRSINGBHAI BELDAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR CHAITANYA S JOSHI(5927) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS DHARITRI PANCHOLI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 16/06/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution on India with the following prayers:-
Page 1 of 11 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 20 20:36:58 IST 2023C/SCA/9801/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2023 "(A) Direct the GPSC to give additional marks to the petitioners for having answered correctly the Question No. 81 of Paper No. 1 and consequently direct the GPSC to revise the final result considering the fact that the petitioners have correctly answered the above referred question and thereby direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest, Class-II pursuant to the advertisement at Annexure-A to this petition, or in the alternative.
(B) Quash and set aside the final answer key to Question No. 81 of Paper No. 1 and direct the GPSC to publish the revised provisional result with the corrected answer key, and (C) Constitute a committee consisting of experts in the field to decide the correctness or otherwise of the final answer key prepared by the respondent Commission for the above referred question, and (D) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the GPSC to permit the petitioners to participate in the main examination as well as oral interview for appointment to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest, Class-II pursuant to the advertisement at Annexure-A to this petition, and (E) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition the Honourable Court may be Page 2 of 11 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 20 20:36:58 IST 2023 C/SCA/9801/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2023 pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for awarding additional marks to the petitioners for having attempted the question/s correctly, and (F) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to constitute a committee consisting of experts in the field to decide the correctness or otherwise of the final answer keys prepared by the respondent Commission for the above referred questions, and (G) Award the cost of this petition, and (H) Grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Honourable Court may consider just and proper."
2. The issue involved in the present petition is similar to the issue involved in Special Civil Application No. 7813 of 2023. The present petition is taken up for hearing along with Special Civil Application No. 7813 of 2023.
3. The petitioner herein has also raised the same ground seeking the prayer to participate in the main examination scheduled on 19.06.2023. It is the case of the petitioner in this petition that the answer published by the GPSC in provisional answer key, in relation to question No. 81 is incorrect. The petitioner has made averment in the petition that if the said Page 3 of 11 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 20 20:36:58 IST 2023 C/SCA/9801/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2023 answer key is corrected as objected by the petitioner he would have fair chance to participate in the main examination scheduled to be held on 19.06.2023.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Dharitri Pancholi for the respondent No. 1 - State and learned advocate Mr. Chaitanya Joshi for the respondent No. 2 - GPSC.
5. The petitioner in support of his objection has relied upon certain material and it was his case that the same is not considered.
6. As the issue involved in this petition is similar to the issue raised in Special Civil Application No. 7813 of 2023, this petition is also rejected adopting the reasoning given in Special Civil Application No. 7813 of 2023. In Special Civil Application No. 7813 of 2023 this court has held as under:
"10. Considered the submissions and perused the documents taken into consideration by the expert committee for their opinion on the objections from the candidates. In relation to question No. 81 "Which is the longest and shortest river of Gujarat ", the committee has considered the details provided on the website of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited Page 4 of 11 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 20 20:36:58 IST 2023 C/SCA/9801/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2023 wherein it is referred as under:-
"Narmada is the longest river in Gujarat. It rises from the Amarkantak Plateau in Anuppur district of Madhya Pradesh. It forms a very traditional boundary between North and South India by flowing westwards over a length of approx. 1312 km. It drains through the Gulf of Khambhat into the great Arabian Sea.
Remarks - The Narmada, the largest west flowing river of the Peninsula rises near Amarkantak range of mountains in Madhya Pradesh. It is the fifth largest river in the country and the largest on in Gujarat."
11. In relation to question No. 160 " The RED DATA BOOK published by International Union of Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources contains the list of?", the expert committee for their opinion has relied upon website of International Union of Conservation of Nature Resources (IUCN) wherein it has been referred as under:-
"The 'Red Data Books' published by the International Union of Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) contains list of Endemic plant and animal species present in the Page 5 of 11 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 20 20:36:58 IST 2023 C/SCA/9801/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2023 biodiversity hotspots.
Remarks - "The IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria are intended to be an easily and widely understood system for classyfying species at high risk of global extinction. It divides species into nine categories: Not Evaluated, Data Deficient, Least Concern, Near Threatened, Vulnerable, Endangered, Critically Endangered, Extinct in the Wild and Extinct.""
12. Thus, from the material produced by the GPSC it is noticed that there is supportive material to substantiate that the final answer key published by the GPSC is correct.
13. Assuming at this stage that even the answer provided by the petitioners are also supported by some material, the same would admittedly would amount to one of two possible views. In such circumstances, the decision taken by the expert committee as per settled legal position is to be accepted.
14. In the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur University V/s Samir Gupta reported in (1983) 4 SCC 309 it is held that-
"16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University, contended that no Page 6 of 11 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 20 20:36:58 IST 2023 C/SCA/9801/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2023 challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. 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 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 contention of the University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged text-books, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those text-books leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect."
15. Further, in the case of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission V/s Rahul Singh and Anr reported in (2018) 7 SCC 254, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"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 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 (supra), the Court recommended a system of - (1) moderation; (2) Page 7 of 11 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 20 20:36:58 IST 2023 C/SCA/9801/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2023 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 answer is better or more correct.
14. In the present case we find that all the 3 questions needed a long process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed that the stand of the Commission is also supported by certain text books. When there are conflicting views, then the court must bow down to the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts."
16. Further, the coordinate bench of this court in Page 8 of 11 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 20 20:36:58 IST 2023 C/SCA/9801/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2023 the decision dated 17.08.2022 in Special Civil Application No. 11978 of 2022 has held as under: -
"42. In case of Priteshkumar Jasubhai Barevadia (supra) considering the decision in case of Ranvijaysingh (supra) the Court held that when there are conflicting views, judges are not expected to act as experts in the fields and overstep.
43. In case of High Court of Tripura through The Registrar General v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and others reported in (2019) 16 SCC 663, the Supreme Court referred to the case law and reiterated that a question cannot be re-valuated by any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization.
44. If the contentions of the petitioners are to be accepted, especially, in considering the correctness of Questions 19 and 26, the Court will have to undertake an inferential process or reasoning. It has been demonstrated that the most plausible unit of measuring distances is kilometers and miles which has been considered by experts after receiving objections. As far as the question of election to the President and the Vice President, as is stipulated in the advertisement itself, what the candidate was expected to know is the basic feature of the constitution and discern the difference between the election of the President and the Vice President. For all other questions too, if an exercise as contemplated by the petitioners is to be undertaken, the Court would fall into an exercise of undertaking an inferential process of reasoning, which it cannot.Page 9 of 11 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 20 20:36:58 IST 2023
C/SCA/9801/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2023
45. For the aforesaid reasons all the petitions are dismissed."
17. Therefore, in view of the opinion of the expert committee, the contention of the petitioner that the final answer key published by the GPSC is patently and demonstrably incorrect is not acceptable.
17.1. In the decision relied upon by the petitioners, in the case of Rajeshkumar and Ors V/s State of Bihar reported in 2013 4 SCC 690, it is observed that there are however exception to this Rule and in exceptional circumstances the Court has interfered to grant relief to the meritorious candidates, whose merit has been ignored due to improper setting of papers of incorrect answer declared in the answer key. In the present case, it cannot be stated that the answer key published by the GPSC is patently and demonstrably incorrect. Further in the decision relied upon of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 14870 of 2015 and allied matters, the Court has interfered and directed the respondents to look into the answer key given by writ applicants with the further direction to rectify the mistakes at the earliest. The above directions were with the finding that the answers published in the final answer key were demonstrably incorrect, which is not the case here.
Page 10 of 11 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 20 20:36:58 IST 2023C/SCA/9801/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2023
18. Applying the same principle, if the contentions of the petitioners are to be accepted, it would amount to undertaking an inferential process or reasoning. From the material taken into consideration by the expert committee of respondent No. 2, it is evident that they have published the final answer key supported by material on the subject. Assuming that two views are possible, then also the view taken by the expert body is required to be considered. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts involved in the present petition and the decisions referred herein above, this Court deems it appropriate not to entertain the petition and therefore the same is dismissed.
19. Notice is discharged. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated."
7. In view of the findings given by this court in the order dated 16.06.2023, in Special Civil Application No. 7813 of 2023, this petition is also dismissed.
8. Notice is discharged. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated. sd\-
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J) SHRIJIT PILLAI Page 11 of 11 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 20 20:36:58 IST 2023