Chattisgarh High Court
Nitesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 November, 2023
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:29635
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 5391 of 2023
Order reserved on 03.08.2023
Order delivered on 28.11.2023
Nitesh Kumar S/o Shri Ram Shankar Aged About 24 Years
R/o Village And Post Sukhapali, Tehsil Dabhara, District Sakti, Ps Dabhra,
Sakti (C.G.)
---- PETITIONER
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Livestock Development Department
(Pashudhan Vikas Vibhag), New Mantralaya, New Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Director Veterinary Services (Pashuchikitsa Sewaye) Ground Floor,
Indravati Block, New Raipur (C.G.)
3. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Through Controller, Vyapam
Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 492001
----RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Soni, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Panel Lawyer For the Vyapam : Mr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, Advocate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV ORDER
1. The petitioner has assailed the legality and propriety of the answer of question No. 59 in Set-B in the examination for recruitment conducted by respondent No. 3 for the post of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer, Government of Chhattisgarh as per the advertisement dated 18.08.2022 issued by respondent No. 2. The petitioner has also prayed for re-valuation of the question No. 59 or deleted the same from realm of evaluation process. Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:29635 2
2. Brief facts of the case as reflected from the record are that the petitioner participated in the recruitment examination for the aforesaid examination conducted by respondent No.3. According to the petitioner, question No. 59 of set B has wrongly been valuated, therefore, it is required to be corrected. It is also the case of the petitioner that he belongs to Scheduled Caste and if answer No. 59 in set B, is correctly valuated and .25 marks have not been deducted in view of minus marking system, his ranking in the list would have been upgraded and on above factual matrix, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to re-assess the answer No. 59 or delete the same.
3. Learned counsel for the professional Board would submit that the experts of the subject have evaluated the answer thereafter they have issued the model answer and accordingly the answer-sheet has been examined. He would further submit that the procedure adopted by them is fair, transparent and applicable to all the candidates uniformly. To substantiate his submission, learned counsel for the respondent would refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in 2018(2) SCC 357, Uttar Pradesh PSC vs. Rahul Singh and Ors reported in 2018(7) SCC 254 and Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board vs. Vikram Singh Rana in Writ Appeal No. 108 of 2020 decided on 06.03.2020 and Umang Gauraha vs. State of Chhattisgarh in Writ Appeal No. 165 of 2020 decided on 10.12.2020. He would further submit that this Court's power to interference in the academic matter is very limited, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in various judgments, thus he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has raised objection on 208.06.2023 with certain text books (Annexure P/7) but the respondent No. 3 without giving any consideration on the objection raised by the petitioner has declared the result on 27.07.2023. The respondent has Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:29635 3 adopted the procedure which is required to be interfered by this Court in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. To substantiate his submission, learned counsel would refer to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 10070 of 2021 on 14.07.2021, Anikt Tiwari vs. High Court of Madhya Pradeh and another, Rajesh Kumar and Ors vs. State of Bihar reported in 2013(4)SCC 690 and Manish Ujwal and Ors. vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University and Ors reported in 2005(13) SCC 744 and Vikash Pratap Singh and Ors vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (2013) 14 SCC 494.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction.
6. It is not in dispute that the professional board has constituted the expert committee who has analyzed each and every answer and thereafter they have assessed the question and issued model answer and only thereafter the marks were allotted. It is also not in dispute that the similar treatment has been given to all the candidates, Thus, considering the well settled principle of law that scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters concerning evaluation of candidates, particularly for the purpose of recruitment to public service is narrow and also considering that in absence of any provisions for revaluation of answer-sheets judicial review should be exercised only under exceptional circumstances. The petitioner is not able to point out that it is an exceptional case where this Court can exercise power of review. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Bihar Staff Selection Commission and others Vs. Arun Kumar & others reported in (2020) 6 SCC 362, wherein it has been held at paragraph 23 to 25 as under:-
"23. This court reiterates that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 in matters concerning evaluation of candidates- particularly, for purpose of recruitment to public services is narrow. The previous decisions of the court 3; Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Ors (1984) 4 SCC 27; Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 714; Board of Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:29635 4 Secondary Education v. Pravas have constantly underscored that in the absence of any provision for re- evaluation of answer sheets, judicial review should be rarely exercised - preferably under exceptional circumstances. A three judge Bench of this court, in Pramod Kumar Srivastava (supra) held as follows:
"7......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."
24. In Khushboo Shrivastava (supra) too, a similar view was echoed:
"9. We find that a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and Ors. (supra) has clearly held relying on Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Ors. (supra) that in the absence of any provision for the re-evaluation of answers books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has any right to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. The decision in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and Ors. (supra) was followed by another three-Judge Bench of this Court in Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda and Anr. (2004) 13 SCC 383 in which the direction of the High Court for re-evaluation of answers books of all the examinees securing 90% or above marks was held to be unsustainable in law because the regulations of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, which Ranjan Panda (2004) 13 SCC 383; Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr (2010) 6 SCC 759; Gangadhara Palo v. Revenue Divisional Officer & Anr. (2011) 4 SCC 602; Central Board of Secondary Education Through Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination & Ors. v. Khushboo Shrivastava & Ors (2014) 14 SCC 523 and Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (2018) 2 SCC 357 conducted the examination, did not make any provision for re- evaluation of answers books in the rules.
10. In the present case, the bye-laws of the All India Pre- Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination, 2007 conducted by the CBSE did not provide for re-examination or re-evaluation of answers sheets. Hence, the Appellants could not have allowed such re- examination or re-evaluation on the representation of the Respondent No. 1 and accordingly rejected the representation of the Respondent No. 1 for re-examination/re-evaluation of her answer sheets. The Respondent No. 1, however, approached the High Court and the learned Single Judge of the High Court Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:29635 5 directed production of answer sheets on the Respondent No. 1 depositing a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and when the answer sheets were produced, the learned Single Judge himself compared the answers of the Respondent No. 1 with the model answers produced by the CBSE and awarded two marks for answers given by the Respondent No. 1 in the Chemistry and Botany, but declined to grant any relief to the Respondent No. 1. When Respondent No. 1 filed the LPA before the Division Bench of the High Court, the Division Bench also examined the two answers of the Respondent No. 1 in Chemistry and Botany and agreed with the findings of the learned Single Judge that the Respondent No. 1 deserved two additional marks for the two answers.
11. In our considered opinion, neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court could have substituted his/its own views for that of the examiners and awarded two additional marks to the Respondent No. 1 for the two answers in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution as these are purely academic matters. This Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Ors. (supra) has 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. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded.
12. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs. We are informed that the first Respondent was admitted to the MBBS Course subsequently. If so, her admission in the MBBS Course will not be affected."
25. The decision in Ran Vijay Singh (supra f.n.2), after a review of all previous decisions, held as follows:
"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 scrutinize the Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:29635 6 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 (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.
XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX
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."
7. The judgment referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on the facts as the respondent No.3 after declaration of modal answer has called the objections which have been considered by the experts and thereafter final result was published on 27.07.2023 whereas the judgment referred to by the counsel for the petitioner no such exercise has been done. The case of Ankit Tiwari (supra), relates to appointment of Civil Judge wherein question relates to law and there are some material which can highlight the wrong answer therefore, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has constituted a committee of experts to re-valuate it, whereas in the present case the issue relates to appointment of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer which is different field and even the petitioner has not submitted any material to prima- facie substantiate that answer given in the modal answer of question No. 59 is Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:29635 7 also illegal. In absence of any material placed on record this Court cannot issue any writ of mandamus in the filed of expert. The answer considered by the respondent No. 3 while evaluating the question No. 59 in set B is not ifso facto illegal.
8. It is apparent that respondent No. 3 immediately after conducting examination has published model answer called claims and objections from the participating candidates on the model answer and thereafter the final answer was published based on the opinion of the experts and thereafter results were declared. The procedure adopted by the respondent No.3 was transparent and therefore, it cannot be said that action of the respondent No. 3 is malafide or unreasonable in any manner. The Committee constituted by respondent No.3 has published the model answer invited objections and the model answer and objections were placed before the panel of experts and the panel of experts after considering the issue relying upon the material available with them submitted their opinion which cannot be held to be illegal, in view of limited power available with this Court with regard to interference in the field of experts.
9. Considering the submissions made by the parties and also considering the restriction imposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in interference by the Courts with regard to field of experts, particularly when the answers have been evaluated by the experts of the subjects which has been uniformly applied to every candidate and even petitioner is not able to point-out that he is subjected to discrimination while evaluating the answer-sheet by the respondent. This Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the decision taken by the expert.
10. The writ petition sans merit and deserves to be and accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh