Tripura High Court
Manideepa Das And Others vs The State Of Tripura And Others on 3 July, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 29
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A
WA. No.37 of 2023
1. Manideepa Das and Others
.....Appellants
-V E R S U S-
1. The State of Tripura and Others
..... Respondents.
WA. No.38 of 2023
1. Sri Bikash Bhandari and Others .....Appellants
-V E R S U S-
1. The State of Tripura and Others ..... Respondents.
WA. No.42 of 2023
1. Bijan Chakraborty and Another .....Appellants
-V E R S U S-
1. The State of Tripura and Others ..... Respondents.
WA. No.52 of 20231. Smti. Tumpa Roy and Others .....Appellants
-V E R S U S-
1. The State of Tripura and Others ..... Respondents.
WA. No.54 of 20231. Sri Bapan Debnath and Others .....Appellants
-V E R S U S-
Page 2 of 291. The State of Tripura and Others ..... Respondents.
WA. No.88 of 20231. Sri Abhijit Majumder .....Appellant
-V E R S U S-
1. The State of Tripura and Others ..... Respondents.
WA. No.110 of 20231. Debjyoti Shome and Others .....Appellants
-V E R S U S-
1. The State of Tripura and Others ..... Respondents.
WA. No.27 of 20241. Tutan Debbarma and Others .....Appellants
-V E R S U S-
1. The State of Tripura and Others ..... Respondents.
B_E_F_O_R_E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
For Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Bikram Banerjee, Advocate.
Mrs. S. Deb (Gupta), Advocate.
Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
Mr. S. Sutradhar, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Dey, Advocate General.
Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, G.A.
Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. G.A.
Ms. A. Chakraborty, Advocate.
Date of hearing : 03.07.2024
Date of delivery of judgment
and order : 09.07.2024
Whether fit for reporting : YES
Page 3 of 29
JUDGMENT & ORDER
[T. Amarnath Goud, J]
Heard P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel, Mrs. S. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel and Mr. Bikram Banerjee along with Mr. S. Sutradhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. S. S. Dey, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. G.A. and Ms. A. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
[2] These appeals are clustered together for disposal inasmuch as the questions involves in these appeals are common in nature. Writ appeal filed under Rule-2(iii) of Chapter-V & Rule-R sub-rule-17 of Chapter-VIII of the High Court of Tripura Rules, 2023 read with Article-226 of the Constitution of India, under Article-226 of the Constitution of India read with High Court of Tripura Rules, 2023 against the judgment and order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.105 of 2022. Furthermore, having taken into consideration of the facts agitated in these writ appeals, the averments as put forth in WA No.37 of 2023 titled as Manideepa Das & Others vs. State of Tripura & Ors, which is taken as the lead case on consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties are noted to decide the questions raised here and this Court deems it proper to quote the prayer made in the said writ appeal, as follows:
"i. Admit the appeal.
ii. Call for the records.
iii. After hearing both the parties, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the L'D Single Judge in WP(C) No.105 of 2022.
iv. Allow the writ appeal by directing the respondents to give marks to each of the appellants in respect to questions Nos.9,10,00,20,24,30,52,73,74,98, 99, 100, 108, 114, 115, 116, 124, 141 of questions booklet Series-B (similar to questions Nos.30, 1, 2, 11, 15, 21, 55, 72, 86, 93, 143, 144, 145, 99, 100, 101, 109, 126 Series A & Questions Nos.19, 20, 21, 30, 4, 10, 53, 68, 78, 113, 114, 115, 123, 129, 130, 131, 139, 96 of Series-C) of T-TET Paper-II Exam-2021 conducted by the TRBT."
[3] The facts as cataloged in these appeals are that the unsuccessful writ petitioners are the appellants. The appellants had been the petitioners in Page 4 of 29 the Writ Petition No. WP(C) No.-105/2022 and the respondents herein had been the respondents in the said writ petition. The Controller of Examination, Teachers Recruitment Board, Tripura (herein after in short TRBT), vide Notice, dated, 10.02.2021, informed all concerned, that, TRBT will conduct Tripura Teacher's Eligibility Test(T-TET) 2021 in two papers. Paper-I is for a person intending to be teacher of Classes I-V and Paper-II is for a person intending to be teacher of Classes VI-VIII as per the programme notified in the Notice. In the year 2015 & 2020, the syllabus for T-TET (Paper-II) Exam was published by the TRBT in its website. The 2015 syllabus was in force up to 2019 before promulgation of 2020 syllabus following which T-TET (Paper- II) 2021 Exam was held. The Appellants prepared T- TET (Paper-11) 2021 Exam following the 2020 syllabus.
[4] Subsequently, TRBT issued admit cards in favour of the appellants & others who also applied for appearing at T-TET (Paper-II) 2021 Exam (for Classes VI-VIII). By the said admit cards, the date of examination was also notified on 03.10.2021 at the respective venues. As all the admit cards are same & identical the appellants herein annexed some of the admit cards & crave leave of the Court to produce the same during hearing of the instant appeal. On 03.10.2021, T-TET (Paper-II) 2021 Exam, was held. Be it mentioned here that, for conducting the said exam, the TRBT, set out 3 series of question papers with OMR Sheets, i.e, Series-A, Series-B & Series-C. All the questions in Series-A, Series-B & Series-C are same but the numbering & sequence of questions are different in each series. Each question booklet has six parts, i.e, Part-I, II, III, IV, V & VI consisting of 150 MCQ type questions. Booklet also contained the instructions (Sl. No. 1 to 11) for the candidates. Each question carries 1 mark. Each part of questions in the booklet were arranged in the following manner:-
[5] Part-1:- Child Development & Pedagogy (Q. Nos. 1 to 30), Part- II:-Language-1 (English) (Q. Nos-31 to 60), Part-III:-Language-II (Bengali) (Q. Nos- 61 to 90), Part-IV:- Language-II (Kokborok) (Q. Nos- 61 to 90), Part-V:- Mathematics & Science (Q. Nos- 91 to 150), Part-VI:- Social Studies (Q. Nos-91 to 150). The appellants herein referred the Question Booklet Page 5 of 29 Series-B with tentative answer key & final answer key of Series-A, B & C published by the TRBT.
[6] All the appellants appeared in T-TET (Paper-II) 2021 Exam & they performed well in the said examination. During examination, the appellants found that some questions in the booklet were out of 2020 syllabus published by the TRBT. Some questions have structural defects & some questions have double meanings or ambiguities. Some questions were inserted following 2015 syllabus of TRBT. Immediately thereafter, the appellants along with other candidates raised their grievances before the respondent No-5 on 04.10.2021. The appellants urged upon the respondent No-5 to look into the aforesaid grievances so far the questions were concerned & take appropriate steps as per the norms of TRBT. The respondent No-5 assured the appellants & others that, at the time of publication of tentative answer key the aforesaid grievance will be taken care of.
[7] On 09.10.2021, the respondent No-5 published the tentative answer key (Series-A, B & C), in respect to T-TET (Paper-II) (for Classes-VI to VIII). After downloading the tentative answer key (Series-A, B & C), in respect to T-TET (Paper-11) (for Classes- VI to VIII) from the official website of TRBT, the appellants found, that, some answers were wrong/ambiguous & contradictory. Some questions have more than one correct answer as per the given options in the booklet, but the respondent No-5 has given only one option as correct answer. Not only that the respondent No-5 has failed to redress the grievances of the appellants which was assured to them on 04.10.2021.
[8] Almost all the appellants challenged the questions/answers to the questions, as given in the tentative answer key, on the grounds of incorrectness/out of syllabus/ structural defects/ contradictory answers/ more than one correct answer by depositing requisite fees before the TRBT. Thereafter, on 26.11.2021, the TRBT published final answer key of T-TET (Paper-II) Exam-2021, in respect to Series-A, B & C. In the final answer key, the TRBT has rectified some of the questions which were questioned by the Page 6 of 29 appellants with other candidates & given (**) star marks in respect to 8 questions. It is very important to mention here that, the final answer key is totally different than the tentative answer key. For example, in respect to question No- 10, in the tentative answer key, the TRBT declared Option-A is the correct one but while publishing final answer key the TRBT declared Option-D is the correct answer. In the writ petition, the appellants as petitioners have challenged the answers to the questions Nos-10, 11, 20, 24, 27, 30, 52, 66, 73, 74, 93, 98, 99, 100, 108, 114, 115, 116, 124, 141 of Question Booklet Series-B (similar to Question Nos-30, 1, 2, 11, 15, 21, 55, 72, 86, 93, 143, 144, 145, 99, 100, 101, 109, 126 of Series A & Question Nos- 19, 20, 21, 30, 4, 10, 53, 68, 78, 113, 114, 115, 123, 129, 130, 131, 139, 96 of Series C), which has been arranged in different series of question booklet.
[9] On 02.12.2021, the TRBT published one corrigendum, whereby the respondent No-5 suo-moto decided to give 1 mark against each of the question numbers mentioned in the said corrigendum, declaring the said questions as "**". By the said corrigendum, the respondent No-5 has declared 9 questions to be read as star (**) questions. In the said corrigendum, it was also mentioned, that, all candidates are to be awarded 1 (one) mark each with respect to questions Nos. 5, 23, 26, 45, 46, 48, 55, 129 & 140 in respect to Series-B, (similar to questions Nos. 14, 17, 26, 44, 45, 47, 54, 114, 125 of series-A) & (similar to questions Nos.3,6, 15, 46, 47, 49, 52, 95, & 144 of series-C) whether candidates have attempted those questions or not. On 13.12.2021, the appellants submitted representations to the respondents, praying for review of the questions/answers to questions as challenged by the appellants/candidates in their representations. All the appellants submitted same & identical representations before the respondents.
[10] Thereafter, on 22.12.2021, the respondent No-5 published the OMR sheets & score sheets of the candidates Including the Appellants herein in it's official website. On the same date i.e. on 22.12.2021, the respondent No-5 published the result of T-TET (Paper-II) Exam-2021. By the said notice, dated, 22.12.2021, programme was fixed by the TRBT for verification of documents of the qualifying candidates, subsequently which has been Page 7 of 29 deferred. The minimum qualifying marks for T-TET in respect to UR candidates is 60% (90 marks out of 150 marks) & relaxation up to 5% (83 marks out of 150 marks) in respect to SC/ST/PH candidates as determined by the Education (School) Department, Govt. of Tripura & mentioned by the TRBT in the prospectus. All the appellants failed to got the pass marks/qualifying marks due to incorrect options determined/given by the TRBT in the final answer key in respect to Questions Nos-9, 10, 11, 20, 24, 30, 52, 73, 74, 108, 98, 99, 100, 114, 115, 116, 124, 141 of Question Booklet Series-B (similar to Question Nos-30, 1, 2, 11, 15, 21, 55, 72, 86, 93, 143, 144, 145, 99, 100, 101, 109, 126 of Series A & Question Nos-19, 20, 21, 30, 4, 10, 53, 68, 78, 113, 114, 115, 123, 129, 130, 131, 139, 96 of Series C).
[11] As a result thereof, the appellants have been awarded marks less than the qualifying marks. Moreover, some questions were structurally defective & ambiguous. As a result thereof, the appellants could not answer those questions properly & the appellants became entitled to get star marks in respect to those questions. If the appellants are given marks which fell due to them on the basis of the answers given by the appellants by taking into account the correct answers of the aforesaid questions in respect to which answers key gave incorrect answers, all the appellants will cross the qualifying marks & will be eligible for being recommended by the TRBT for appointment for the post of Graduate Teacher (Class-VI to VIII). Due to the irresponsibility of the respondent No-5, the future of the appellants is in steak & the appellants are deprived of being appointed in the post of Graduate Teacher (Class-VI to VIII).
[12] Learned counsel Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration, that the appellants have given correct answer in respect to questions Nos-9, 10, 11, 20, 24, 30, 52, 73, 74, 98, 99, 100, 108, 114, 115, 116, 124, 141 of question booklet Series-B (similar to Question Nos.30, 1, 2, 11, 15, 21, 55, 72, 86, 93, 143, 144, 145, 99, 100, 101, 109, 126 of Series-A & Question Nos.19, 20, 21, 30, 4, 10, 53, 68, 78, 113, 114, 115, 123, 129, 130, 131, 139, 96 of Series C) of T-TET Paper-II Exam-2021 conducted by the Page 8 of 29 TRBT, which is revealed from the authentic book reference given by the appellants in paragraphs No-18 to 34 of the writ Petition.
[13] He persistently contended that all the appellants were very close to secure the cut-off marks and they were unsuccessful in qualifying the T- TET Examination only because of the fault of the respondents. According to learned counsels for the appellants, if the grievances of the appellants would have addressed, then, the appellants could easily secure the cut-off marks necessary to qualify the T-TET Examination, 2021.
[14] The learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration that the expert has given opinion without following the references given by the appellants and also failed to take into consideration, that, if two different books or references have led two different answers as correct answer, then, in such a situation, benefit should go in favour of the candidates. The appellants did not pray for sympathy or compassion from the respondents, rather to give marks to the appellants in view of the book reference given by the appellants in respect to challenged questions.
[15] By relying on authoritative reference books, the appellants discharge their onus to demonstrate, that, answer key was incorrect and mistake are glaring on the face of the record and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that, answer key in respect to the questioned answers was wrong. The respondents save and except stating, that the answer key was prepared on the basis of expert opinion could not produce any materials on the basis of which answer key were prepared.
[16] Also by relying on the sealed cover materials, the learned Single Judge caused prejudiced to the appellants and denied reasonable opportunity to the appellants because behind the back of the appellants, on the basis of materials furnished through seal cover, the learned Single Judge decided the lis involved in the writ petition. The Expert Committee was for determining the out of syllabus questions not for other challenges, such as the questions/answers to the questions, as given in the tentative answer key, suffers on the grounds of incorrectness/ structural defects/ contradictory Page 9 of 29 answers/ more than one correct answer. The respondents / Expert Committee acted arbitrarily & whimsically in preparing the final answer key & on the basis of the incorrect/inaccurate answer key, the respondents assessed the answers given by the appellants.
[17] It has been further contended that erroneously and wrongly proceeded on the fact, that, the expert committee which has arrived at a conclusion of challenged questions, is a Committee under the control & command of the respondents examining body. Unless an independent expert appointed by this Court, is asked to give its opinion on the questions/answers challenged by the petitioners/appellants, the petitioners shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. The very fact, that, answers given in the provisional answer key were subsequently changed twice in the final answer keys, raises a serious doubt regarding the opinion of experts framed by the authorities concerned.
[18] the learned Single Judge, also failed to consider when the key answers are under challenge, the opinion of the experts are also under challenge and in view of such fact unless an independent experts, outside the preview of the respondent TRBT are appointed by this Court, to examine upon the questions and the correct answers, the appellants shall suffer irreparable loss. Since several recognized books contradict the answer keys of the TET Examination, the learned Single Judge ought to have appointed an independent expert & called for its report to ascertain the truth.
[19] The lis involved in the writ petition could be resolved by an opinion of an independent expert appointed by this Court on this subject but not by the departmental expert who are already involved in the preparation of the question paper and the key answer. Both the provisional answer key and final answer key were prepared by the experts and hence the expert opinion differed and in view of such difference of the opinion, an independent expert should be appointed for re-assessing the correctness of the challenged questions and the answer key and thereafter based on the said report of the Independent Expert, reassessment of the appellant's marks requires to be awarded.
Page 10 of 29[20] The dispute of out of syllabus question could only be resolved by an opinion of an independent expert appointed by this Court outside the preview of the Education Department, Government of Tripura and thereafter reassessment of the appellants' marks should have been done. It is a settled principal of law that, apprehension of bias which can cause danger to the appellants and the student's Community at large such administrative action or even judicial order cannot sustain in the eye of law. By not appointing any independent expert for ascertaining the correctness of the challenged questions in the writ petition, inasmuch as, the learned Single Judge only appointed the Expert Committee who are exclusively under the control of the respondent TRBT to ascertain whether the challenge questions are within the syllabus prescribed by the respondents, is completely unacceptable.
[21] Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further averred that the learned Single Judge erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case that while ascertaining the questions/answers of the provisional answer key is an expert opinion and the final answer key, which is also an expert opinion that was changed thrice and in view of the fact, the Court should have appointed an independent Expert outside the purview of the concerned respondents and call for its report and relied the same. As such, the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.
[22] In the writ petition, the appellant contended, that, during T-TET Paper-II Exam-2021, the appellants found that, some questions in the booklet were out of 2020 syllabus published by the TRBT. Some questions have structural defects & some questions have double meanings or ambiguities. The Appellants further contended that, they have been selected correct answers to the questions but due to the incorrect answers/options given in the final answer key, the appellants have been deprived of marks for the correct answer.
[23] Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel has argued on the point that some of the challenged questions were structurally defective & ambiguous. As a result thereof, the appellants could not answer those questions properly & the Page 11 of 29 appellants became entitled to get star marks in respect to those questions, as has been already given by the TRTB, vide corrigendum, dated, 02.12.2021.
[24] The appellants urged upon the respondent No-5 to look into the aforesaid grievances, so far the questions were concerned & take appropriate steps as per the norms of TRBT. In turn, the respondent No-5 assured the appellants & others that, at the time of publication of tentative answer key the aforesaid grievance will be taken care of. The appellants also contended, that, on 09.10.2021, the respondent No-5, published the tentative answer key (Series-A, B & C), in respect to T-TET (Paper-II) (for Classes-VI to VIII). The appellants challenged the questions/answers to the questions, as given in the tentative answer key on the grounds of incorrectness/out of syllabus/structural defects/contradictory answers/more than one correct answer.
[25] It is further contended, that, on 26.11.2021, the TRBT published final answer key of T-TET (Paper-II) Exam- 2021, in respect to Series-A, B & C. In the final answer key, the TRBT has rectified some of the questions which were questioned by the Appellants with other candidates & given (**) star marks in respect to 8 questions. It is very important to mention here that, the final answer key is totally different than the tentative answer key.
[26] On 02.12.2021, the TRBT published one corrigendum, whereby the respondent TRBT has suo-motu decided to give 1 mark against each of the question "numbers mentioned in the said corrigendum, declaring the said questions as "**". By the said corrigendum, the respondent No-5 has declared 9 questions to be read as star (**) questions. In the said corrigendum, it was also mentioned, that, all candidates are to be awarded 1 (one) mark each with respect to Questions Nos- 5, 23, 26, 45, 46, 48, 55, 129 & 140 in respect to Series-B, (similar to Questions Nos. 14, 17, 26, 44, 45, 47, 54, 114, 125 of Series-A) & (similar to Questions Nos.-3,6, 15, 46, 47, 49, 52, 95, & 144 of Series-C) whether candidates have attempted those questions or not.
[27] In support of his argument, has placed his reliance in a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court (1) Richal and Others v. Rajasthan Public Page 12 of 29 Service Commission and Others reported in (2018) 8 SCC 81 (2) Kanpur University, Through vice-Chancellor and others v. Samir Gupta and Others, reported in (1983) 4 SCC 309.
[28] Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for one of the appellants in support of his case has contended that the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration, that, the appellants have given correct answer in respect to Questions Nos-2, 16, 24, 28, 60, 94 of Question Booklet Series-B (similar to Question Nos-24, 8, 16, 20, 55, 117 of Series A & Question Nos- 10, 24, 2, 6, 39, 101 of Series C) of Tripura Teachers Eligibility Test (Paper- II)-Exam, 2021, which is revealed from the authentic book reference given by the appellants. Also the expert has given opinion without following the references given by the appellants. It has been further contended that if two different books or references have led two different answers as correct answer, then, in such a situation, benefit should go in favour of the candidates.
[29] The appellants did not pray for sympathy or compassion from the respondents, rather to give marks to the appellants in view of the book reference given by the appellants in respect to challenged questions. By relying on authoritative reference books, the appellants discharge their onus to demonstrate, that, answer key was incorrect and mistake are glaring on the face of the record and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that, answer key in respect to the questioned answers was wrong.
[30] The respondents, save and except stating, that, answer key was prepared on the basis of expert opinion could not produce any materials on the basis of which answer key were prepared. By relying on the sealed cover materials, the learned Single Judge caused prejudiced to the appellants and denied reasonable opportunity to the appellants because behind the back of the appellants, on the basis of materials furnished through seal cover, the learned Single Judge decided the lis involved in the writ petition. The Expert Committee was for determining the out of syllabus questions not for other challenges, such as the questions/answers to the questions, as given in the Page 13 of 29 tentative answer key, suffers on the grounds of incorrectness/ structural defects/ contradictory answers/ more than one correct answer.
[31] The appellants as petitioners have sought for necessary direction upon the respondents to award marks to them in respect to the Questions Nos- 2, 16, 24, 28, 60, 94 of Question Booklet Series-B (similar to Question Nos- 24, 8, 16, 20, 55, 117 of Series A & Question Nos-10, 24, 2, 6, 39, 101 of Series C) of T-TET (Paper-I) Exam-2021, conducted by the TRBT on the ground, that, answers to those questions as given by the TRBT in the final answer key, were incorrect & inaccurate. The appellants also sought for star marks in respect to structurally defective questions as pointed out in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge absolutely failed to appoint an independent expert outside the purview of the concerned respondent TRBT and call for its independent report.
[32] In view of the meticulous arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. S. S. Dey, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. and Ms. A. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that before dealing with the allegations made in these appeals, the same are liable to be dismissed as not maintainable in its present form and nature inasmuch as the same does not disclose cause of action for failure of the respondents to carry out any legal or constitutional or statutory obligation for which prerogative writ may be invoked by this Court in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution of India.
[33] As per prospectus cum instructions of T-TET 2021 TRBT issued all the guidelines with respect to conduct of T-TET-2021. After the test, tentative answer key was published. In the event of having any objection/claim etc. on any answer/question candidates were asked to submit their claims. All the challenges claims were placed before the subject expert for further examination. Depending on the opinion of the 102 subject expert TRBT prepared the Final Answer Key and published it. Result was prepared Page 14 of 29 on the basis of final answer keys. As such, TRBT has addressed each and every claim as submitted by the candidates.
[34] TRBT published final answer keys with respect to T-TET 2021 Paper-II Social Studies, Second Language option Bengali and Kok-Borok on 26.11.2021 wherein 9 marks were awarded as per the opinion of subject expert. Later on it was observed that due to typographical error one mark was missed with respect to Q. No.114 of Q. Booklet Series A, Q No.129 of Series B and Q No. 144 of series C. to rectify the inadvertent error a corrigendum was issued on 02.12.2021. While conducting TET, TRBT strictly follows the guidelines prescribed by NCTE as well as the prospectus-cum-instructions of TRBT. This time also T-TET 2021, P-I & II have been conducted in the same manner without having any deviation from the notified rules and regulations of prospectus-cum-instruction T-TET 2021.
[35] The appellants challenged some of the final key answers including the questions which were challenged, but not addressed. A few examples are as under:
(A) Question no.21 in question booklet series-A, question no.30 in question booklet series-B and question no.10 in question booklet series-C are same.
The said question is quoted inter alia:
"Personalized System of Instruction (PSI) is also known as (A) Keller Play (B) Interplay (C) Cross-sectional play.
(D)None of the above."
In the tentative key answers the correct answer was declared as option "A". But, at the time of publishing final key answers, option „D‟ i.e. „None of the above‟ as the correct answer was declared. The appellants having taken note of a book, namely Child Development and Pedagogy written by Dr. Debasish Paul claimed option "A" would be the correct answer, but, their claim was not considered.
Page 15 of 29(B) Question No.109 in question booklet series-A, question No.124 in question booklet Series-B and question No.139 in question booklet Series-C are same. The said question is quoted inter alia: "Ashoka had established relations with which of the following distant lands? (A)China (B)Greece (C)Rome (D)None the above"
Option "D" as the correct answer in the tentative as well as final key answers was declared, but, being taken reference to some books, according to the appellants, the correct answer would be option "B".
Similarly, the appellants challenged the final answer keys at question No.99 in question booklet series-A, question No.114 in question booklet series-B and question No.129 in question booklet series-C, question No.100 in question booklet series-A, question No.72 in question booklet series-A, question No.15 in question booklet series-A, question No.24 in question booklet series-B and question No.4 in question booklet series-C, question No.1 in question booklet series-A and same question in question booklet series-B and booklet series-C, etc. [36] Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners persistently contended that all the petitioners were very close to secure the cut- off marks and they were unsuccessful in qualifying the T-TET Examination only because of the fault of the respondents. According to learned counsels for the petitioners, if the grievances of the petitioners would have addressed, then, the petitioners could easily secure the cut-off marks necessary to qualify the T-TET Examination, 2021.
[37] It has been further contended by the learned Advocate General that the disputed questions raised by the appellants were placed before the Expert Committee and they ultimately finalized the final key answers. It was not possible for Teachers Recruitment Board, Tripura to travel beyond the opinion of the Expert Committee and to award marks as per the wishes of the candidates. The Teachers Recruitment Board, Tripura (for short, TRBT) Page 16 of 29 declared the terms and conditions in the Prospectus-Cum-Instructions where it was clarified that challenges on tentative answer keys would be settled after taking the view of the experts on the particular subject and TRBT had followed the declared terms and conditions.
[38] The marks obtained by the candidates are a matter of record. Teachers Recruitment Board, Tripura has followed the declared guidelines. All the challenges receiving by Teachers Recruitment Board, Tripura was placed before the subject expert. Based on the opinion of subject expert Teachers Recruitment Board, Tripura finalized the answer key. Result was prepared on the basis of final answer key. There is no iota of doubt that Teachers Recruitment Board, Tripura followed all the standard procedures. Thus, the claim by candidates is liable to be dismissed.
[39] He also relied upon some decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in (1) Kanpur University, Through vice-Chancellor and others v. Samir Gupta and Others, reported in (1983) 4 SCC 309 (2) 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] and (3) Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh and Others, reported in (2022) SCC Online SC1520.
[40] Recently, in the case of Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh & Ors.: 2022 SCC Online SC 1520, this Court has, after referring to the previous decisions, including that in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra), thoroughly dis-approved the process of the Court calling for answer sheets for satisfying as to whether there was a need for re-evaluation or not and thereafter, issuing directions for re-evaluation. This Court has observed and held as under: -
"9. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not at all justified in calling the record of the answer scripts and then to satisfy whether there was a need for re-evaluation or not. As reported, the High Courts are calling for the answer scripts/sheets for satisfying whether there is a need for re-evaluation or not and thereafter orders/directs re-evaluation, which is wholly impermissible. Such a practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation and that too in absence of any specific provision in the relevant rules for re-evaluation and that Page 17 of 29 too while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is disapproved.
25. In our view, in a Court of law, when a particular litigation in reference to its subject-matter is taken up for final decision, ordinarily, the decision ought to remain confined to the issues arising for determination in the matter. Even if an ancillary relief or direction is considered appropriate, the same could be granted or issued by the Court only in direct correlation with the facts and circumstances of the case and not beyond. Moreover, for one particular fault of one individual in one particular matter, all the concluded matters cannot be ordered to be re- opened. In a matter of the present nature, if the assessment by one examiner/evaluator has been found questionable by the High Court, neither all the examiners could be presumed to be irresponsible nor every result declared by the University could be re-opened. As noticed, on 25.11.2019, while entertaining the petition leading to this appeal, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 21.05.2019. However, before granting of stay by this Court, several other writ petitions were filed in the High Court, seeking the same relief of re-evaluation or re-checking; and the learned Single Judge of the High Court had no option but to grant the prayers. We are constrained to observe that all such unnecessary litigations had their genesis only in the unwarranted directions, as contained in the said paragraph 32 of the order impugned.
26. As aforesaid, we would not be re-opening any concluded matter which is not in challenge before us but, with respect, we need to observe that the directions contained in paragraph 32 of the order impugned remain wholly untenable and are required to be annulled all together. In this regard, we may also observe that when there is no provision for re-evaluation in the Statute of the University, issuance of any writ of mandamus of this nature would practically amount to issuing directions for doing something which is not provided for by law."
[41] Heard both sides. [42] In view of overall discussions advanced by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in different judgments let us conclude the issue involved in the present appeals by touching the relevant portions. It is clarified that a certain question or questions may carry an answer, which may on the face of which appears to be correct and may be in some of the text books or references that is indicated to be so, but, ultimately, it is the paper-setting Committee and the Expert Committee which have the advantage of having subject experts of various fields, if have arrived on a conclusion that particular answer is correct answer, this Court will refrain itself from holding it otherwise. For example, in the present cases, in questions in the booklet series, the candidates i.e. the appellants relying upon some of the text books have opined that said questions are out of syllabus, but, subject experts opined that the correct answers are not out of syllabus. Law also does not permit the Court to accept that when there Page 18 of 29 are disputes as regards the correct answers between the candidates and the subject expert, then, benefits should be given to the candidates unlike in Criminal Law benefit of doubt should go to the accused and he should be acquitted.
[43] On consideration of the facts of the present cases, this Court finds that the expert opinion was taken and the subject expert had relied upon and disclosed the source and materials on the basis of which TRBT formed its opinion as regards to determine the answer keys. In this situation, in the opinion of this Court, it would not be a sound and wise exercise of jurisdiction for the Court to invoke its discretionary and extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to sit in over such expert opinion to find out any better or more correct answers ignoring the views of the Expert Committee. The Court must not transgress an area in which it has no expertise and where it has to act and take a decision only with the aid of experts of the respective area.
[44] In this batch of appeals, the appellants have also challenged the final key answers on the ground that the tentative/preliminary key answers, according to them, were correct answers, which had been changed in the final answer keys.
[45] In Richal and Others v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Others reported in (2018) 8SCC 81, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus:
This Court while hearing the appeals found substance in some of the submissions raised before us and appellants having satisfied this Court that certain questions need re-examination by experts, this Court issued directions on 16.01.2018. As noted above, pursuant to the directions of this Court the Expert Committee re- examined the questions with regard to which objections were raised in these appeals. After the order of this Court dated 16.01.2018 the Commission adopted Expert Committee Report which re-examined the questions with regard to which objections were raised before us in these appeals. An affidavit dated 17.04.2018 has been filed by the Commission. The affidavit contains the following statements:
(i) on the basis of the Report of Experts, Answers to 22 Questions across 9 subjects were corrected and revised. [p.2-3 pr.6 of Affidavit ] [Chart has been annexed at p.5] Page 19 of 29
(ii) A perusal of the Revision conducted by Experts w.r.t. Questions in Paper I (General Awareness & General Studies) as per Chart [p.5 of Affidavit] reveals that:
(a) Experts accepted Petitioner's Representation and retained 3 earlier deleted questions.
(b) Experts accepted Petitioners' Representation and corrected the answer of 1 question (Q.No.3) in the remaining 57 questions.
(c) Experts rejected Petitioners' Representation seeking correction of answer of 5 questions (Q. Nos. 25, 28, 33, 49, 58).
(iii) RPSC has stated that out of the total number of Advertised posts(13,098) 1045 vacancies in the post of School Lecturers still exist. [p.3 pr.7 of Affidavit] [Chart has been annexed at p.47]
(iv) RPSC has stated that 48 of 311 Special Leave Petitioners before this Hon'ble Court are within merit for selection as School Lecturers after revision of their answer scripts.[p.3-4 pr.8 of Affidavit]
27. In the affidavit filed by the Commission it is mentioned that the result has been revised of only 311 appellants who are before this Court. We are of the view that key answers having been corrected, merit of all the candidates except those who have already been selected needs to be redetermined. In our order dated 16.01.2018 it is mentioned that this exercise shall not affect those who have already been selected. We, thus, are of the view that the Commission should revise the entire result of all the candidates except those who have been selected on the basis of the report of Expert Committee and publish revise result of all the candidates. When the key answers are correct of the candidates who appeared in the examination, they are entitled for revision of their result, since, fault does not lie with the candidates but lies with the examination body. It shall not be equitable to not extend the benefit to those candidates who have not come to the Court being satisfied with the steps taken by the Commission and its earlier Expert Committee which was given the task of revising the key answers."
[46] Kanpur University, Through vice-Chancellor and others v. Samir Gupta and Others, reported in (1983) 4 SCC 309, wherein at para -16 the Court held thus:
"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 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.
Page 20 of 29[47] This Court after referring to a catena of judicial pronouncements summarised the legal position in the following terms as envisaged in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. (2018) 2 SCC 357:
"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."
[48] In Kanpur University (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus:
"16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University, contended that no 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.
17. Students who have passed their Intermediate Board Examination are eligible to appear for the entrance Test for admission to the Medical Colleges in U.P. Certain books are prescribed for the Intermediate Board Examination and such knowledge of the subjects as the students have is derived from what is contained in those text-books. Those text-books support the case of the students fully. If this were a case of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong.Page 21 of 29
18. If the State Government wants to avoid a recurrence of such lapses, it should compile under its own auspices a text-book which should be prescribed for students desirous of appearing for the combined Pre-Medical Test. Education has more than its fair share of politics, which is the bane of our Universities. Numerous problems are bound to arise in the compilation of such a text-book for, various applicants will come forward for doing the job and forces and counter- forces will wage a battle on the question as to who should be commissioned to do the work. If the State can succeed in overcoming those difficulties, the argument will not be open to the students that the answer contained in the text-book which is prescribed for the test is not the correct answer. Secondly, a system should be devised by the State Government for moderating the key answers furnished by the paper setters. Thirdly, if English questions have to be translated into Hindi, it is not enough to appoint an expert in the Hindi language as a translator. The translator must know the meaning of the scientific terminology and the art of translation. Fourthly, in a system of 'Multiple Choice Objective-type test', care must be taken to see that questions having an ambiguous import are not set in the papers. That kind of system of examination involves merely the tick-marking of the correct answer. It leaves no scope for reasoning or argument. The answer is 'yes' or 'no'. That is why the questions have to be clear and unequivocal. Lastly, if the attention of the University is drawn to any defect in a key answer or any ambiguity in a question set in the examination, prompt and timely decision must be taken by the University to declare that the suspect question will be excluded from the paper and no marks assigned to it.
20. Twenty-seven students in all were concerned with these proceedings, out of whom 8 were admitted to the B.D.S. course, 3 were admitted to the M.B.B.S. course last year itself in place of the students who dropped out and 5 have succeeded in getting admission this year. Omitting 8 of the respondents who have been already admitted to the M.B.B.S. course, the remaining 19 shall have to be given admission as directed by the High Court. If the key answer was not wrong as it has turned out to be, they would have succeeded in getting admission. In view of the findings of the High Court, the question naturally arose as to how the marks were to be allotted to the respondents for the three questions answered by them and which were wrongly assessed by the University. The High Court has held that the respondents would be entitled to be given 3 marks for each of the questions correctly ticked by them, and in addition they would be entitled to 1 mark for those very questions, since 1 mark was deducted from their total for each of the questions wrongly answered by them. Putting it briefly, such of the respondents as are found to have attempted the three questions or any of them would be entitled to an addition of 4 marks per question. If the answer-books are reassessed in accordance with this formula, the respondents would be entitled to be admitted to the M.B.B.S. course, about which there is no dispute. Accordingly, we confirm the directions given by the High Court in regard to the reassessment of the particular questions and the admission of the respondents to the M.B.B.S. course."
[49] In Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh and Others, reported in (2022) SCC Online SC1520, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"11. The short question which is posed for consideration before this Court is, "whether in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation, the High Court was Page 22 of 29 justified in ordering re-evaluation after calling for the record of the answer scripts?"
In the case of Promod Kumar Srivastava, it is observed and held by this Court that in absence of any provision for re-evaluation in the relevant rules, examinees have no right to claim or demand reevaluation. In paragraphs 7 & 8 it is observed and held as under:
"7. We have heard the appellant (writ petitioner) in person and learned counsel for the respondents at considerable length. The main question which arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing re- evaluation of the answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper. Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re- evaluation of his answer-book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer-book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. This question was examined in considerable detail in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27: AIR 1984 SC 1543]. In this case, the relevant rules provided for verification (scrutiny of marks) on an application made to that effect by a candidate. Some of the students filed writ petitions praying that they may be allowed to inspect the answer-books and the Board be directed to conduct re- evaluation of such of the answer-books as the petitioners may demand after inspection. The High Court held that the rule providing for verification of marks gave an implied power to the examinees to demand a disclosure and inspection and also to seek re-evaluation of the answer-books. The judgment of the High Court was set aside and it was held that in absence of a specific provision conferring a right upon an examinee to have his answer-books re-evaluated, no such direction can be issued. There is no dispute that under the relevant rule of the Commission there is no provision entitling a candidate to have his answer- books re-evaluated. In such a situation, the prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition was wholly untenable and the learned Single Judge had clearly erred in having the answer-book of the appellant re-evaluated.
8. Adopting such a course as was done by the learned Single Judge will give rise to practical problems. Many candidates may like to take a chance and pray for re-evaluation of their answer-books. Naturally, the Court will pass orders on different dates as and when writ petitions are filed. The Commission will have to then send the copies of individual candidates to examiners for re-evaluation which is bound to take time. The examination conducted by the Commission being a competitive examination, the declaration of final result will thus be unduly delayed and the vacancies will remain unfilled for a long time. What will happen if a candidate secures lesser marks in re-evaluation? He may come forward with a plea that the marks as originally awarded to him may be taken into consideration. The absence of clear rules on the subject may throw many problems and in the larger interest, they must be avoided." 8.2 In the case of Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357, in paragraph 32, it is observed and held as under:Page 23 of 29
"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 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." 8.3 In the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta (supra), after considering catena of decisions on scope of judicial review with regard to re-evaluation of the answer sheets, it is observed and held that the court should not re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matter and the academic matters are best left to academics."
[50] Another case in Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra v. Devarsh Nath Gupta and Others, reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 970, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"16. As regards the question of re-evaluation, the principles enunciated by this Court could be usefully recapitulated as follows:
17. In the case of Mukesh Thakur (supra) this Court observed and held as under:-
"24. The issue of revaluation of answer book is no more res integra. This issue was considered at length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27 : AIR 1984 SC 1543], wherein this Court rejected the contention that in the absence of the provision for revaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for rechecking/verification/revaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision.
The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 39-40 & 42, paras 14 & 16).
"14. ... It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the statute can best be implemented and what measures,substantive as well as procedural would have to Page 24 of 29 be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act....
16. ... The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act."
25. This view has been approved and relied upon and reiterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission [(2004) 6 SCC 714 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 883 : AIR 2004 SC 4116] observing as under : (SCC pp. 717-18, para 7).
"7. ... Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for revaluation of his answer book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for revaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for revaluation of his marks.
***** ***** *****"
[51] Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that in the absence of any provision under the statute or statutory rules/regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation. 12.2 Further, in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra), this Court has observed and held as under: -
"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;
Page 25 of 2930.3. 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."
[Emphasis supplied] [52] Applying the law settled by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Kanpur University (supra), Ran Vijay Singh (supra), Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University (supra), this Court may unhesitantly make it clear that the entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceived some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. To conduct a large scale examination is a very difficult task and may reveal certain lapses, which cannot on the face of it be termed as a deliberate one. In the present cases, subject experts had passed their opinion and also disclosed the sources and materials on the basis of which they came to the conclusion as regards the correct and final key answers to the subject questions.
[53] Now another main question which arises for consideration is whether the re-evaluation can be permitted or not. There is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evalution. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totaling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer-book. In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. There is no dispute that under the relevant rule of the Commission there is no provision entitling a candidate to have his answer-books re-evaluated. In such a situation, the prayer made by the appellants in the appeal is wholly untenable.
Page 26 of 29[54] Many candidates may like to take a chance and pray for re- evaluation of their answer-books. The Commission will have to then send the copies of individual candidates to examiners for re-evaluation which is bound to take time. The examination conducted by the Commission being a competitive examination, the declaration of final result will thus be unduly delayed and the vacancies will remain unfilled for a long time. What will happen if a candidate secures lesser marks in re-evaluation? He may come forward with a plea that the marks as originally awarded to him may be taken into consideration. The absence of clear rules on the subject may throw many problems and in the larger interest, they must be avoided.
[55] 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 participated in the examination and the examination authorities. This 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.
[56] Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions cited above and the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the if there is no specific provision provided by the statute, re-evaluation is impermissible. Such a practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation and that too in absence of any specific provision in the relevant rules for re-evaluation and that too while exercising powers under Article-226 of the Constitution is disapproved. It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the statute Page 27 of 29 can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act.
[57] The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purpose of the Act. It 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.
[58] It is hardly a matter of doubt that the Statute governing the examination in question does not provide for re-evaluation and scrutiny of the answer sheets. In our view, in a Court of law, when a particular litigation in reference to its subject-matter is taken up for final decision, ordinarily, the decision ought to remain confined to the issues arising for determination in the matter. Even if an ancillary relief or direction is considered appropriate, the same could be granted or issued by the Court only in direct correlation with the facts and circumstances of the case and not beyond. Moreover, for one particular fault of one individual in one particular matter, all the concluded matters cannot be ordered to be re-opened.
[59] Thus, the law is well-settled that the onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect, but, also 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 Court must Page 28 of 29 exercise great restrain in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers.
[60] Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that it may not be proper to call the record of the answer scripts and then to satisfy whether there was a need for re-evaluation or not, which is wholly impermissible. Such a practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation and that too in absence of any specific provision in the relevant rules for re-evaluation and that too while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is disapproved.
[61] In our view, in a Court of law, when a particular litigation in reference to its subject-matter is taken up for final decision, ordinarily, the decision ought to remain confined to the issues arising for determination in the matter. Even if an ancillary relief or direction is considered appropriate, the same could be granted or issued by the Court only in direct correlation with the facts and circumstances of the case and not beyond. Moreover, for one particular fault of one individual in one particular matter, all the concluded matters cannot be ordered to be re-opened.
[62] To conduct a large scale examination is a very difficult task and may reveal certain lapses, which cannot on the face of it be termed as a deliberate one. In the present cases, subject experts had passed their opinion in sealed cover, where they also disclosed the sources and materials on the basis of which they came to the conclusion as regards the correct and final key answers to the subject questions.
[63] Though logically, this Court is convinced with the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the appellants in making an attempt to demonstrate that their argument is correct by referring answers to the questions with multiple choices by referring locally circulated books which are normally referred by the local candidates. This Court testing the issue only under the logical reasoning may not be justified since, the Court has Page 29 of 29 to give credence to the expert opinion and which is there on record and the same has been relied by the learned Single Judge. Since a huge number of candidates have appeared to the exams and a large number of candidates have succeeded, but for some technical points raised by handful of unsuccessful candidates, the entire re-evaluation cannot be made under as it will be collapsing the system.
[64] For the foregoing analysis of legal position on the subject as aforesaid, we would not be re-opening any concluded matter which is not in challenge before us and when there is no provision for re-evaluation in the Statute of the University, issuance of any writ of mandamus of this nature would practically amount to issuing directions for doing something which is not provided for by law thus, this Court does not find any infirmities in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, accordingly, the present appeals are liable to be dismissed.
[65] Accordingly, the appeals stands dismissed. As sequel, miscellaneous application, pending if any, shall stand closed.
B. PALIT, J T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
A.Ghosh
ANJAN Digitally signed by
ANJAN GHOSH
GHOSH Date: 2024.07.10
16:22:57 +05'30'