Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajveer Shekhawat & Ors. vs . State Of Rajasthan & Ors. on 11 September, 2014
Author: Sangeet Lodha
Bench: Sangeet Lodha
RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
(S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14 and one connected matter)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
(1) RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS.VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
(S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14) (2) VISHAKHA JAIN VS. THE RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES & ORS.
(S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5633/14) Dated : 11th September, 2014 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. Rajveer Shekhawat, Mr. Ramdev, Mr. Bharat Khetani, Miss Aishwarya Mathur, Mr. Sandip Balara, Mr. Manish Kumar, Miss Anjali Bansal, Miss Atmaja Shivansingh, Mr. Varun Maheshwari, the petitioners; Mr. Parvinder Singh Bhadu, Special Power of Attorney Holder on behalf of the petitioners-Aishwarya Mathur and Anjali Bansal, Mr.Nagendra Shekhawat, Special Power of Attorney Holder on behalf of the petitioners-Varun Maheshwari and Mr. Sandeep Balara (in Writ Petition No.5685/14) Mr. Sanjay Jain for the petitioner-Vishakha Jain (Minor) (in Writ Petition No.5633/14), present-in-person.
Dr. Avtar Singh Dua, Additional Director (ME), Directorate of Medical Education, present-in-person on behalf of the respondent no.1, 4 & 5 in writ petition No.5685/14 and on behalf of respondent no.3 in writ petition No.5633/14. Mr. Balveer Singh, Deputy Registrar, Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, present-in-person, for the respondents no. 2 & 3 in writ petition No.5685/14 and for the respondent no. 1 & 2 in writ petition No.5633/14.
1. By way of these writ petitions, the petitioners have questioned legality of the result of Rajasthan Pre Medical Test- 2014 (Re-examination) [ for short 'RPMT-2014 (RE)'] conducted by the respondents. The petitioners while questioning the RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14 and one connected matter) 2 correctness of certain questions and/or the answers thereof declared by the respondents by way of publishing the revised Answer Key, have prayed that the respondents be directed to constitute a committee of experts preferably, the experts of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to examine the disputed questions and till the final report in this regard is submitted by the committee, the process of counseling of the selected candidates be kept in abeyance. It is further prayed that if any provisional/final list is issued pursuant to the counseling undertaken, the same may be quashed and set aside. The petitioner-Vishakha Jain has prayed that she may be declared successful in RPMT-2014 (RE) by treating her answers to the specified questions as correct.
2. The background facts in nutshell are that the respondent- Rajasthan University of Health Sciences conducted RPMT-2014 in six slots from 28th to 30th of May,2014. The candidates who could not qualify, approached this court by way of writ petitions with a prayer that the aforesaid examination conducted by the respondent-University be declared illegal and the respondents be directed to hold fresh examination. Another set of writ petitions were preferred by the candidates who were declared successful, seeking directions to the respondents to adhere to the time schedule for admission as originally notified and refrain from cancelling the whole examination.
3. During the pendency of the said writ petitions, the State RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14 and one connected matter) 3 Government constituted a committee of experts to look into the grievances raised. After due consideration of the report submitted by the committee and other relevant aspects, vide order dated 17.6.14, the State Government decided to hold fresh examination. The writ petitions preferred were decided by Jaipur Bench of this court vide order dated 26.6.14, whereby the process of examination of RPMT-2014 and the result thereof declared by the respondent-University on 5.6.14 was declared illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and was accordingly, quashed and set aside. The decision of the State Government to hold RPMT-2014 afresh was upheld and the respondents therein were set at liberty to hold RPMT-2014 afresh, on the basis of the application forms already received, with the permission of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to suitably modify the calender of the said examination laid down vide order dated 19.5.14 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.737/2013- Lipika Gupta and Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., so as to complete the admission process by 30.9.14. Accordingly, the State of Rajasthan preferred an application before the Hon'ble Supreme Court to suitably modify the calender of the said examination laid down vide order dated 19.5.14 in Lipika Gupta's case (supra). The application was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 2.7.14 and the State of Rajasthan was permitted to issue notification on or before 5.7.14, conduct the examination on or before 27.7.14 RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14 and one connected matter) 4 and declare the result of the qualifying/entrance examination on or before 1.8.14. The State of Rajasthan was permitted to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court for fixing the dates and time for admission immediately thereafter.
4. In compliance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as aforesaid, the respondents published the notification dated 4.7.14 for conducting RPMT-2014 (RE) on 27/28.7.14. The examination was conducted accordingly.
5. At the time of examination itself, the candidates were asked to submit their grievances regarding the question papers and the questions. The grievances received with regard to the questions and options were gathered and thereafter, the meeting of the two/three experts each of the respective subjects was convened on 29.7.14. The experts were asked to moderate the key provided by the paper setters after checking all the questions. The experts considered the grievances as also the Answer Key of the paper setter and prepared the Answer Key, which was uploaded on the web site on 29.7.14 itself and the candidates were asked to submit their grievances with regard to answer key only by e-mail by 10.30 am on 30.7.14. The grievances received were considered by the committee of the experts and on the basis of the inputs of the experts, the respondents while incorporating the changes in the Answer Key, processed the result which was uploaded on web site on 31.7.14. The revised Answer Key was uploaded on the web site on 4.8.14.
RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14 and one connected matter) 5
6. The grievance of the petitioners is that after declaration of first Answer Key, they raised objections on official website well within time in respect of eight questions, however, while declaring the revised Answer Key, the respondents have rectified the answer in respect of four questions, but in the revised Answer Key, five erroneous questions/answers were still there. The grievances raised regarding the questions no. 16, 44, 71, 151 and 186 of question papers of 'P' series, as set out by the petitioners (in Writ Petition No.5685/14) in para no.21 of the petition, may be reproduced hereunder for ready reference :
"Sub: Physics Code:P Q.No.16: What is the mode of heat transfer by which a hot cup of coffee uses (sic. loses) most of its heat?
(a) conduction (b) convection
(c) evaporation (d) radiation
The respondents in the revised answer key have declared option (c) as the correct answer.
As per the petitioners, the correct answer is option
(d).
Q.No. 44: A sinusoidal voltage of peak to peak value of 310V is connected in series with a diode and a load resistance R so that Half-wave rectification occurs. If the diode has a negligible forward resistance, the root mean square voltage across the load resistance is:
(a) 310 V (b) 155 V
(c) 109.5 V (d) 77.5 V
Q.No. 44: 310 V श खर म न क एक ज वक व ल त क एक
RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14 and one connected matter) 6 ड ड तथ एक ल ड पततर ध R स शण कम म ज डन पर अध$-तर% ग द(षकरण प प ह त ह, । द( ड ड क अग पततर ध नगण ह त ल ड क शसर0 क ब च व ल त क वग$-म ध -मल 4 मन हग ।
(a) 310 V (b) 155 V (c) 109.5 V (d) 77.5 V
That it is submitted that a bare perusal of the aforementioned question reveals that the language of the question in English medium is entirely different from the language in Hindi medium which results into different answers. As per the English language, the correct answer of the question is 77.5 V i.e. option (d) and as per the Hindi language, the correct answer of the question is 155 V i.e. option (b).
The respondents in the revised answer key have declared option (d) as the correct answer.
As per the petitioners, there are two correct answers i.e. option (d) & option (b), therefore, for this question, the respondents ought to award bonus marks. Subject : Chemistry Q.No.71 : Among the following the false statement is:
(a) SiO4 is not the basic structural unit in silicates
(b) SiCi2-6 is unknown
(c) Beryl is a cyclic silicate
(d) Silicones contain R2SiO repeating units The respondents in the revised answer key have declared option (a) as the correct answer.
As per the petitioners, no available options can be said to be the correct answer, therefore, bonus marks ought to have been awarded.
RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14 and one connected matter) 7 Subject : Biology :
Q.No.151 : Which one of the following sets of characters TRULY defines a living organism?
(a) Growth and metamorphosis
(b) Metabolism and regeneration
(c) Self replication and response to external stimulus
(d) Consciousness and metabolic reactions The respondents in the revised answer key have declared option (c ) & (d) as the correct answer.
As per the petitioners, option (d) is the correct answer.
Q.NO. 186: The earliest hominoid fossils belong to :
(a) Dryopithecus
(b) Ramapithecus
(c) Australopithecus africans
(d) Australopithecus robustus The respondents in the revised answer key have declared option (a) as the correct answer.
As per the petitioners, option (c) is the correct answer."
7. The petitioner-Vishakha Jain (Writ Petition No.5633/14) has raised grievance in respect of the questions no.91, 107, 40 and 171, which read as under:
Q.No.91: Which of the following is a copolymer?
(a) Polyacrylonitrile
(b) Nylon-66 (c ) Butadiene-Styrene
(d) Nylon-6 Q.No.107: How many copies of each chromosome RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
(S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14 and one connected matter) 8 are in an endosperm nucleus and how can you represent its ploidy?
(a) One; n
(b) Three; 3x (c ) Eight; 8n
(d) Three; 3n Q.No.40: For the following combination of gates select the correct statement.
a. The output is 1 when both the inputs are 1.
b. The output is 0 when both the inputs are 0.
c. The output is 0 when the two inputs differ.
d. the output is 1 when two inputs differ.
Q.No. 171 : Which one of the following sets of characters TRULY defines a living organism?
a. Growth and Metamorphosis b. Motobolism and Regeneration c. Self Replication and Response to External Stimulus.
d. Consciousness and Metabolic Reaction.
According to the petitioner in respect of question no.91 though she has attempted option (b) as the correct answer, the options (c) & (d) both are correct answers whereas, in the revised Answer Key only the option (c) is suggested to be correct answer. Regarding question no.107, the petitioner attempted option (d); as per the Answer Key published both (a) & (d) have been treated to be correct answer, but according to the petitioner only option (a) is the correct answer. Regarding question no.40, the petitioner attempted the option (d), the respondents have treated answer (b) & (d) as the correct RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14 and one connected matter) 9 answers, whereas, according to the petitioner, (b) is incorrect answer. In respect of question No.171, the petitioner attempted the option (d), as per the Answer Key (c) is the correct answer whereas, as per the text book published for Biology by NCERT, only option (d) is the correct answer.
8. According to the petitioners, on account of erroneous questions and answers being treated as correct, the merits of the candidates appearing in RPMT-2014 (RE) and the fairness of the selection process has been adversely affected, which has caused great prejudice to the meritorious candidates. The grievance of the petitioners is that the result was published before declaring the revised Answer Key and therefore, they had no occasion to raise grievance in respect of the errors crept in the revised Answer Key published on the website. It is submitted that the difference of marks amongst the students who are declared as selected being marginal, if the answer of any of the questions declared to be correct in the revised Answer Key published by the respondent is found to be incorrect, the merit position is bound to be changed and the petitioners who have not been selected, may be declared selected.
9. The respondents in their reply to the writ petitions, have raised preliminary objections in terms that the grievances sought to be raised by the petitioners have already been considered in great detail and thereafter, the same have been duly dealt with by the experts and they have found the RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14 and one connected matter) 10 objections raised by the petitioners to be invalid on the basis of the references duly recognised as also their expert opinion. It is submitted that this court as also the Hon'ble Apex Court have time and again held that where detailed consideration has been made by the experts of respective fields and there are no allegations of mala fides or fraud, the court should be slow in interfering with the selection process. It is submitted that the RPMT-2014 (RE) has been conducted in the most transparent and fair manner and admittedly, even the petitioners have not alleged any leakage of question papers and/or ill-will/malice on the part of the respondents and therefore, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. It is submitted that when the expert had duly considered the petitioners' objections not once but twice i.e. first regarding the question paper and second regarding the Answer Key and found that the revised Answer Key is correct, the grievance raised by the petitioners is not sustainable. It is submitted that the objections raised by the petitioners to the revised Answer Key published by the respondent no.4 & 5 are absolutely misconceived.
10. By way of an additional affidavit filed on 22.8.14, the respondents have brought on record that as many as seven petitioners (in Writ Petition No.5685/14) had not even submitted any grievance/objection within the time frame. Only four petitioners namely; Aishwarya Mathur, Sandeep Balara, Varun Maheshwari and Anjali Bansal i.e. petitioners no. 4, 5, 8 and 10 RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14 and one connected matter) 11 respectively had submitted their objections online on the website. It is submitted that petitioner no.10-Varun Maheshwari had not submitted any grievance related to five questions, made the subject matter of the present writ petitions. The petitioner no. 4 & 5 submitted their grievance only in respect of three questions whereas, the petitioner no.8 submitted her objection to answers of four questions. However, none of the petitioner raised any objection with regard to question No.86 of 'P' series. Regarding question no.44 of 'P' series, it is submitted that none of the petitioner excluding petitioner no.4 & 8 had raised objections to the said question and even the said petitioner had opted option (c ) as the correct answer in their OMR sheets. It is submitted that the objections/grievances raised by one Nagendra Singh Shekhawat, who was neither a candidate nor stated himself to be parent of any candidate, were not considered. Precisely, the objection of the respondents is that while referring the objections raised by Nagendra Singh Shekhawat placed on record as Annexure 9, the petitioners other than the petitioners no. 4,5, 8 and 10 have tried to mislead this court and wrongly tried to take benefit of the objections raised by others, while stating that they also raised the objections. The opinion obtained from the experts in respect of the questions regarding which the petitioners have raised grievance, is also placed on record.
11. The petitioners have also placed the opinion of some of the RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14 and one connected matter) 12 experts in respect of the disputed questions on record by way of additional affidavit. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit disputing the correctness of the references placed on record on behalf of the petitioners to show that answers to the questions disputed by the petitioners in the writ petitions as given out in the Answer Key by the respondents, are incorrect.
12. Mr.P.S.Bhadu, the Special Power of Attorney Holder, appearing on behalf of the petitioners-Aishwarya Mathur and Anjali Bansal, while reiterating the stand taken in the writ petition, submitted that the question no.16 relates to mode of heat transfer by a hot cup of coffee and therefore, by no means, it could be by way of evaporation and the correct answer is option (d) i.e. radiation and thus, the answer suggested by way of revised Answer Key is absolutely incorrect. It is submitted that the question no.44, reveals that the language of the question in English medium is apparently different from the language in Hindi medium, which results into different answers and therefore, both the options (b) and (d) have to be treated as correct answers. Regarding question no.71, it is submitted that SiO4 is not the basic structure unit of cyclic silicate rather it is SiO4-2 and therefore, in the revised Answer Key, the declaration of option (a) as the correct answer is erroneous and on account of non availability of the correct answer, bonus marks ought to have been awarded. Regarding question no.151, it is submitted that living being have to perform metabolic RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14 and one connected matter) 13 activities i.e. Growth regeneration and other vital activities and therefore, option (d) is the appropriate answer rather than the option (c ) as treated to be correct answer in the Answer Key published by the respondents. Regarding question no.186, while referring to the opinion expressed by the Assistant Professor, Department of Zoology, JNV University, placed on record as Annexure 15, it is contended that option (c) is the correct answer and not the option (a) as suggested by the respondents in the revised Answer Key.
13. It is further submitted that the question papers for RPMT are framed on the basis of CBSE Syllabus and therefore, so as to find out the correct answers of the questions, the study material available for CBSE examinations and the study material published by NCERT need to be taken into consideration and the answers given by the candidates found to be correct on the basis of the said study material must be taken to be correct. It is submitted that the time available for raising grievances online was very short and therefore, the objections raised by the petitioners jointly through their teacher cannot be brushed aside, saying that no individual grievance has been raised by the respective petitioners in respect of the question papers and Answer Key published. It is submitted that the difference of the marks amongst the candidates selected being very marginal, if answer of any of the question as published by the respondents by way of Answer Key is found to be incorrect, it will have vital RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14 and one connected matter) 14 effect on the merit list prepared and thus, the petitioners and their likes who stand deprived of selection may be included in the list of successful candidates and therefore, in the interest of justice, the entire matter regarding the correctness of the answers of the disputed questions as suggested by the respondents by way of the revised Answer Key published, needs to be referred to the Expert Committee to be constituted by this court. It is argued that the answers of the disputed questions provided by the respondents by way of revised Answer Key published are palpably and demonstrably wrong and if the matter is not interfered with by this court, it will amount to merit being made a casualty and therefore, to do the complete justice, the matter regarding the correctness of the answers of the disputed questions as suggested by the respondents, must be referred to the Expert Committee. In this regard, reliance is placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Manish Ujwal & Ors. vs. Maharishi Dayanand Sarsawati University & Ors.", (2005) 13 SCC, 744.
14. The remaining petitioners, present-in-person (Writ Petition No.5685/14) adopted the arguments advanced by Mr.P.S. Bhadu, noticed as above.
15. Mr.Sanjay Jain, appearing on behalf of the petitioner- Vishakha Jain while adopting the arguments advanced by Mr.P.S. Bhadu, while referring to the excerpt from the text book of Organic Chemistry authored by Dr.O.P. Tandon and RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14 and one connected matter) 15 Dr.A.K.Virmani, in respect of question no.91, submitted that Nylon-66 and Butadiene-Styrene are both copolymer and therefore, both option (b) and (c) should be treated as correct answers. Regarding question no.107, it is submitted that the respondents have erred in treating both option (a) and (d) as the correct answers. It is submitted that as per the textbook of Biology published by the NCERT, the option (a) is not the correct answer and therefore, the candidates who have opted option (a) are not entitled for any marks. Similarly, regarding question no.171, it is reiterated that option (d) is the correct answer and not the option (c) as suggested by the respondents. It is submitted that if the petitioner is awarded additional marks even for one question or the candidates, who have been wrongly awarded the marks in respect of question no.107 and 171, are deprived of the same, the petitioner is bound to be selected.
16. Mr.Avtar Singh Dua, Co-convener, RPMT-2014, appearing on behalf of the respondents reiterating the stand taken in reply to the writ petitions submitted that RPMT-2014 (RE) were conducted by the respondents in most impartial, fair and transparent manner. It is submitted that at the time of examination itself, the candidates were asked to submit their grievances regarding the question papers and questions. The grievances received were duly considered by the experts of respective subjects and they were asked to moderate the key provided by the paper setter after checking all the questions. It RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14 and one connected matter) 16 is submitted that admittedly, the Answer Key prepared by the experts was uploaded on the website on 29.7.14 and thereafter, the grievances received online within the stipulated period, were again examined by the experts while taking aid of references and cross references and after great deliberations, the Experts Committee recommended certain changes in the Answer Key. It is submitted that even after filing of the present writ petitions, the opinions of the experts of the respective subjects were obtained in respect of the disputed questions/answers, which is a matter of record. It is argued that once the expert body has considered the matter and given its report then the court cannot act as expert over such body. It is submitted that the examination and entire selection process have been conducted by the respondents with due fairness and transparency and there is no allegation of mala fides or fraud and therefore, this court would not like to sit over the findings of the report of Experts Committee and take a different view. In this regard, the reliance is placed on decision of this court in the matter of "Lalit Mohan Sharma & Ors. vs. RPSC & Ors.", RDD 2005(10), 4483 and a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "HPPSC vs. Mukesh Thakur & Anr.", 2010 (10) SCC, 759. Dr. Dua further argued that if the contentions of the petitioners are accepted and another set of experts are asked to give their report, it will amount to questioning the credibility of the experts, selected by the respondents, who are persons of repute RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14 and one connected matter) 17 in their field. It is submitted that assuming for the sake of argument that the another set of experts gives a report which is favourable to the petitioners, then the said report also cannot be treated to be final inasmuch as, the students who would then be affected from such report, would definitely ask and rightly so, for a report of another set of experts. It is submitted that the subjects experts who looked into the grievances of the candidates and who gave their inputs for Answer Key are best in their respective field and therefore, there is no reason to doubt their credibility and expertise. It is submitted that as a matter of fact after deletion of the name of the petitioner no.11 out of remaining ten petitioners, six petitioners have not raised any grievance as against the questions and the answers and the remaining petitioners while filing the petition have not even relied upon the grievances raised by them individually within the time frame. It is submitted that it was very clearly stated in the communication addressed to the candidates that they are required to submit their objection in the stipulated time frame. It is submitted that the grievance raised by Mr. Nagendra Singh Shekhawat has rightly been not entertained by the respondents. Replying the contention of the petitioners that anyone may submit the objections, it is submitted that if it is accepted then same would not only create complex situation for the respondents but the same would virtually open a Pandora box wherein, not only the genuine candidates but the persons with RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14 and one connected matter) 18 vested interest such as, Coaching institutes runners may raise umpteen and unwarranted grievances. Referring to the averments made in the writ petitions, Dr. Dua emphasised that in the writ petition filed, it is nowhere averred by the petitioners that Mr.N.S.Shekhawat had raised the grievances on their behalf as their teacher. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioners who are apparently guilty of misleading the court are not entitled for any indulgence in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
17. Referring to the original record relating to the consideration of the grievances raised by the candidates by the experts, it is submitted that each grievance has been dealt with by the experts appropriately and therefore, there is absolutely no reason why the matter with regard to examination of the grievances sought to be raised in the petitions should at all be referred to yet another set of experts. It is submitted that RPMT-2014 (RE) conducted by the respondents and the admission process has to be completed within the time frame as ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, any interference by this court at this stage shall hamper the process and bound to cause great prejudice to the candidates already selected. It is submitted that two rounds of the counseling already stand completed and third counseling is scheduled to be conducted on 13th and 14th September, 2014 and the entire RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14 and one connected matter) 19 admission process has to be concluded by 30th September,2014 and therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the petitioners are not entitled for any indulgence by this court.
18. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
19. Before proceeding to consider the rival contentions raised by the parties, it will be appropriate to refer to the legal position settled by the various decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding ambit and scope of the powers of the courts to interfere with the opinion expressed by the experts in the academic matters.
20. In the matter of 'University of Mysore and Anr. vs. C.D.Govind Rao and Anr.' AIR 1965 SC, 491, a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the scope of the interference by the courts with the opinions expressed by the experts of academic matters held that normally the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts particularly when there is no allegation of mala fides against the experts who constituted the Selection Board. The court categorically observed that it would be normally wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts, who are more familiars with the problems they face than the courts generally can be.
21. In the matter of 'Dr. J. P. Kulshrestha Others v. Chancellor, Allahabad University & Others' (1980) 3 SCC 418, the RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14 and one connected matter) 20 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the court should not substitute its judgment for that of academicians when the dispute relates to educational affairs.
22. In the matter of "Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Others", (1984) 4 SCC 27, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :
"29. ... As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. .. ... ..."
23. In the matter of 'Dental Council of India v. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust & Another', (2001) 5 SCC 486, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the court's jurisdiction to interfere with the discretion exercised by the expert body is limited even though, the right to education is concomitant to the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. However, it was observed that if such bodies act arbitrary for ulterior purpose, the court's power to set right such arbitrary exercise of the power by such authorities is always there.
24. In the matter of 'All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan & Others', (2009) 11 SCC 726, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the courts are neither equipped nor have academic or technical background to RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14 and one connected matter) 21 substitute themselves in place of statutory professional, technical bodies and take decision in academic matters. The court reiterated that it is rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.
25. In Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission's case (supra) relied upon on behalf of the respondents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the court cannot take upon itself task of Examiner or Selection Board and examine discrepancies and inconsistencies in question papers and evaluation thereof.
26. In Manish Ujwal's case (surpa), relied upon by the petitioners, where six key answers supplied by the university in entrance test for admission to Medical & Dental courses were found to be palpably and demonstrably wrong, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that welfare of the students is paramount as a wrong key answer can result in merit being made a casualty.
27. In Lalit Mohan's case (supra), a Larger Bench of this court while examining the matter regarding the key answers provided by RPSC for evaluating the answer sheets of the petitioner were alleged to be wrong, held :
"20. In the context of impressive array of facts, as fully detailed above, we are not inclined to accept the contention raised on behalf of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the key-answers provided by the respondent Commission for evaluating the answer-sheets of the petitioners were wrong or that despite there being a report by the Expert Committee the Court must take in hand the exercise of finding out as to whether the key-answers are correct or wrong.
RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14 and one connected matter) 22 There is no need to go into the plea raised by the petitioners for examining the disputed questions and the authenticity of the key-answers provided by the respondent Commission in view of the report of the Expert Committee constituted for the purpose. Surely, the Court is not an expert in the field of education and the various subjects from which the question paper was settled. Expert Committee constituted for the purpose has given its report based upon recognised text books authored by persons of repute in the field. There is no allegation, whatsoever that the members constituting the Committee did not know or had no specialisation in the concerned subjects nor is there any allegation of bias against them. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no occasion at all arises for the Court to further probe the matter. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners needs thus no further comments. Suffice is it, however, to motion that while urging that the key-answers provided by the respondent Commission are wrong, all that is being urged is that in some of the recognised text book or books of repute, different answers of the concerned questions have been provided. Assuming what has been urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners to be correct, it would neither be permissible nor just and proper to interfere and order re-evaluation of the answer sheets."
(emphasis added)
28. Thus, the settled position of law which emerges from various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court is that the Courts are not entitled to sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts in their respective fields and should be extremely reluctant in interfering with the opinion expressed by the experts in academic matters, particularly when no mala fide or bias is alleged against the experts. However, where the academic bodies act arbitrary for ulterior purpose, the court's power to set at naught such arbitrary exercise of power, is not ruled out.
29. In the backdrop of the position of law settled as above, adverting to the controversy raised in the present writ petition, it RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14 and one connected matter) 23 is pertinent to note that in the first instance the candidates appearing in RPMT-2014 (RE) had an opportunity at the time of examination itself to submit their grievances regarding the question paper and questions. Thereafter, taking into consideration the grievances received with regard to the questions and the options, the matter was considered by the experts who were asked to moderate the Answer Key provided by the paper setter after checking all the questions. The experts after detailed consideration, prepared the Answer Key which was uploaded on the website and the candidates were asked to submit their grievances. It is not disputed that out of the ten petitioners (in Writ Petition No.5685/14), six did not raise any grievance regarding the questions framed and the options given and the remaining four though raised the grievance online within the time frame have not referred to the grievances raised by them individually in the petition filed. It is also not in dispute that in the communication addressed to the candidates, it was clearly stated that they are required to submit their objections in stipulated time frame. It is pertinent to note that in para no. 19 of the petition, it is stated that the petitioners consulted their teacher and finding the disputed questions, they jointly submitted the objections. There is no averment made in the petition that Mr. Nagendra Shekhawat is the petitioners' teacher and he raised the objections on their behalf. Even from perusal of the representation raising the grievances in respect of the RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14 and one connected matter) 24 various questions submitted by Mr. Nagendra Shekhawat online, placed on record as Annexure-9, in no manner, it can be inferred that the same was made by him on behalf of the petitioners herein. The contention sought to be raised by the petitioners that they could not submit the grievances online on account of short time available is apparently self contradictory inasmuch as they have taken categorical stand before this court that the grievances were raised on their behalf by their teacher vide Annexure-9. That apart, it is a matter of record that out of ten petitioners, four have raised their grievances individually online within the time frame. Be that as it may, since the grievances with regard to the disputed questions have been examined by the experts may be on account of the grievances raised by some of the petitioners herein or on account of the grievances raised by some other candidates and therefore, this Court is not inclined to delve into the objection raised on behalf of the respondents any further inasmuch as irrespective of the fact whether the grievances are raised or not, so as to maintain the fairness and transparency in the examination, even otherwise the respondents were reasonably expected to examine the correctness of all the questions and the options before preparing the final result.
30. Coming to the contention raised by the petitioners regarding correctness of the answers suggested by the respondents in respect of the disputed questions while publishing RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14 and one connected matter) 25 the revised Answer Key, it is not in dispute that all the grievances raised in respect of the question paper and the options given have been dealt with by the experts of the respective subjects. From perusal of the original record produced by the respondents, it is apparent that the grievances raised by the candidates individually have been dealt with by the experts and thereafter the final Answer Key was prepared. The grievances have been dealt with by the experts of repute and there is no allegation of bias, mala fide or fraud levelled against any of the experts. During the pendency of the petitions, the respondents referred the disputed questions again for opinion of the experts and they have suggested that the answers of the disputed questions as suggested in the revised Answer Key are the correct answers. It is true that the petitioners have also placed on record the opinion of certain Associate Professors and Assistant Professors alleged to be expert in their respective fields giving the opinion different than the opinion given by the experts appointed by the respondents. But then, the fact remains that the matter with regard to the correctness of the answers of the disputed questions has already been examined by the experts appointed by the examining body and there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve/suspect the correctness thereof. In any case, the Court, which has no expertise in the matter cannot sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by the experts so as to arrive at a different finding.
RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14 and one connected matter) 26
31. Having considered the rival submissions and gone through the material on record, this court is of the opinion that in no manner it can be inferred that the answers of the disputed questions suggested by the experts by way of revised Answer Key are palpably and demonstrably wrong so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
32. There is yet another aspect of the matter. As noticed above, the RPMT-14 originally conducted stands cancelled and RPMT-2014 (RE) are being conducted by the respondents within the time frame approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As per the time schedule, the admission process has to be completed by 30th September, 2014. In these circumstances, the respondents are absolutely justified in contending that when the grievances raised by the candidates in respect of the disputed questions submitted within the time frame, have been dealt with by the experts appropriately, without there being any reasonable basis, there appears no reason why the matter should at all be referred to the experts for opinion all over again. Obviously, the experts may opine in favour of the petitioners or against the petitioners, but then, the grievance with regard to the correctness of the expert opinion shall always be there inasmuch as the students who would then be affected from such expert report may raise the grievance and it will be a never ending process, which cannot be countenanced by this court.
RAJVEER SHEKHAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5685/14 and one connected matter) 27
33. In view of the discussion above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the matter in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
34. In the result, the writ petitions fail, the same are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SANGEET LODHA),J.
Aditya/