Delhi High Court - Orders
Sachin Jaiswal vs University Grants Commission & Anr on 5 September, 2023
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9423/2019
SACHIN JAISWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Nandita Rao and Mr.Jai Shankar,
Advocates.
versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Muskaan Gupta, Advocate for
Mr.Arjun Harkauli, for R-1 .
Ms.Manisha Singh, Advocate for R-
2/NTA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 05.09.2023
1. The petitioner, vide the instant writ petition prays for the following reliefs:-
"a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature certiorari/ or other by declaring the answer option No. 1 (Option ID-646350106855) of the Question No. 56 (Question ID No. 64635027223) in the subject Political Science (Subject Code-002) in UGC NET Exam June 2019 as incorrect answer
b) declare the answer option No. 2 (Option ID-646350106856) of the Question No. 56 (Question ID No. 64635027223) in the subject Political Science (Subject Code-002) in UGC NET Exam June 2019 as correct answer
c) direct the respondents to award 2 marks in respect Question No. 56 (Question ID No. 64635027223) in the subject Political Science (Subject Code-002) in UGC NET Exam June 2019
d) direct the respondents to provide the status of Junior Research Fellow in the subject Political Science (Subject Code-002) in UGC NET Exam June 2019 to the petitioner."
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 16:50:39 -2-
2. The facts of the instant case would show that the petitioner appeared in UGC NET Examination- June 2019 in Political Science Paper.
3. It is seen that the examination was conducted by respondent no.2- National Testing Agency (NTA) who released the proposed answer key and invited objections within specified period of time.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner did not raise any objection within the time prescribed for the said purpose. Accordingly, on the basis of the expert opinion, the final answer key was prepared and the evaluation was conducted.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not raise the objection as she was expecting higher rank on the basis of the proposed answer key. The petitioner, when realized that the cut off score was 60.67% and the petitioner obtained only 60% marks, he raised the objection with respect to question no.56 with its answer being option 1.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contends that instead of option no.1 of question no.56, option no.2 is the correct answer and she has submitted various books and material to the respondents to justify her claim.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents raised various objections and submitted that on the basis of the expert opinion, the final answer key was prepared.
8. Learnd counsel for the respondents have relied on the decisions passed by this court in the case of Mohamed Anwar Vs. National Testing Agency and Anr.1, wherein, this court has relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Salil Maheshwari vs. The High Court of Delhi and This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 16:50:39 -3- Anr.2
9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record.
10. Question no. 56 and its options reads as under:-
Circulation of elites' most closely refers to which one of the following?
Rotation of elites Replacement of elites Retention of elites Restoration of elites Options
1. 1.
2. 2.
3. 3.
4. 4 Question Type MCQ Question ID- 64635027223 Option 1 ID- 646350106855 Option 2 ID- 646350106856 Option 3 ID- 646350106857 Option 4 ID- 646350106858
11. If the decision passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in the case of Salil Maheshwari (supra) is carefully perused, the same would indicate that if the candidate who had the opportunity to raise an objection and if the objection is not raised, is not entitled for challenging the final answer key at the subsequent stage. Paragraph no.7 of the said case reads as under:-
"7. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be heard to challenge the answer key to a particular question, after having discovered that he was awarded no marks for his response, it being at 1 2023:DHC:5351 2 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4563 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 16:50:39 -4- variance with the answer key. Here, the last date for communicating objections was 23.6.2014, and the respondent released its response to the objections on 2.7.2014. The results were only published on 8.7.2014. It appears that the petitioner did not think it necessary to object to this question before the deadline for objections, but only sought to object after the results were published on 8.7.2014 by way of this petition filed on 1.8.2014. This Court finds that the petitioner was therefore estopped from raising a challenge at this belated stage, since a challenge cannot be advanced against a selection process only after the candidate has discovered his or her unsuccessful performance in the process. See Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal (2008) 4 SCC 171 and Madan Lal v. State of J&K (1995) 3 SCC 486. Consequently, no findings will be recorded in regard to this question."
12. The justification raised by the petitioner that the petitioner was expecting higher rank, therefore, the objection was not raised, cannot be the reason if any of the options indicated in the modal answer key was incorrect, according to the petitioner.
13. Any interference into the aforesaid aspects will have the effect of disturbing the decision taken by the experts. The examination in question was conducted in the year 2019 and result was declared soon. Thereafter change of one answer would bound to affect large number of candidates. Fresh merit will have to be drawn. By this time, some of the successful candidates might have obtained employment as well.
14. The writ courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are normally not expected to interfere in the modal answer key unless, the answer is palpably wrong, which is not the case in hand.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of U.P. Public Service Commission vs. Rahul Singh & Anr.3 has held that when it came to 3 (2018) 7 SCC 254 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 16:50:39 -5- conflicting views with regard to the answer key in an examination, then the courts must rely on the opinion of the experts and cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters.
16. This court in the case of Ashish Singh and Ors. V. Union of India and Ors.4 has held that once the procedure has been followed by the concerned examination agency and the objections are considered and finalised by the experts, the court normally should not interfere into the answer keys. Paragraph nos.17 to 19 of the said decision are reproduced as under:
"17. Having considered the procedure, which has been followed by the respondent No.3-NTA and after perusal of the answers which have been finalized by the experts, this court is not inclined to accept the prayer of the petitioners of either to call for a second expert opinion or to further send the questions before a „Expert Committee‟.
18. It is to be seen that there are no allegations of mala fide or bias against any of the experts or against the examining body. The procedure as detailed above does not, by any judicial standard, seem unreasonable. In fact, this court is of the opinion, that procedure is just, fair and reasonable. There were lakhs of students who appeared in the said examination. The fact remains that all the students were treated similarly. Merely for the reason that some text, as has been produced by the petitioners, indicating answers to be different from what were there in the answer key, the entire examination process cannot be overturned.
19. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this court is not inclined to interfere in the instant petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed along with the pending application."
17. With respect to objection to the answer key, this court in the matter of Atul Kumar Verma vs. Union of India & Anr.5, in paragraph no. 22 held as 4 2023/DHC/00078 5 2023:DHC:000778 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 16:50:39 -6- under :-
"22. The Courts have directed the examining bodies which did not have the procedure of inviting objections to the answer key to follow the said procedure which the Courts felt was necessary to have a fair result of the examination and to eliminate the possibility of mistakes in the answer key. Once such a procedure has been followed, there can be no possible further challenges except on the traditional parameters of judicial review. If such challenges were to be allowed, the same would lead to disgruntled students filing one petition after other with opinions of the subject experts and which can vary and which will ultimately lead to delays in admissions and in commencement of academic session and all of which will be contrary to public interest and cannot be permitted and if permitted would amount to a cure worse than the disease of a possibility of error remaining in the answer key inspite of the procedure of inviting objections and considering the same being followed.
23. No case for judicial review within the traditional parameters thereof has been made out."
18. In view of the aforesaid, this court is not inclined to interfere into the answers finalized by respondent no.2-NTA.
19. The instant petition is, therefore, dismissed.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 5, 2023 nc/rs This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 16:50:39