Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Neha Gupta vs The Professional Examination Board, ... on 17 September, 2013
Author: Vimla Jain
Bench: Vimla Jain
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT
AT JABALPUR
W.P. No.5710/2012
Shubham Dubey
Vs.
State of M.P. and another
W.P. No.5995/2012
Dr. Neha Gupta
Vs.
State of M.P. and another
Present: Hon'ble Shri Rajendra Menon, J. &
Hon'ble Mrs. Vimla Jain, J.
______________________________________________________
Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Senior Counsel with Shri
Gaurav Tiwari for the petitioner in W.P. No.5710/2012.
Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in
W.P. No.5995/2012.
Shri P. K. Kourav, learned Additional Advocate General
with Shri Aditya Khandelkar, for both the respondents.
__________________________________________________
ORDER
( 17 92013 ) Per : Shri Rajendra Menon, J.
As common questions of law and fact are involved in both these cases and as challenge in both the petitions are 2 made to the Pre PG Test 2012 conducted by the Professional Examination Board, Bhopal in March 2012 both the petitions are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience documents and material available in the record of W.P. No.5710/2012 is being referred to.
2. Petitioners herein were candidates who had completed their graduation course and were eligible for seeking admission to the Post Graduate Medical and Dental Courses.
3. In January 2012 the respondent No.2 issued the necessary notification for conducting the Pre PG Test-2012. The application forms were made available for sale on 18.1.2012. The last date for submission of the application was 10.2.2012. The date of examination was notified as 11.3.2012 and in fact the examination was also conducted on the said date. The model answers were uploaded in the website of the respondent No.2 on 11.3.2012. Objections to the model answers were to be received upto 14.3.2012 at 7 p.m.. Thereafter the results were declared on 17.3.2012 and the final answer key was also uploaded after declaration of the result on 17.3.2012.
4. Grievance of the petitioners in these petitions are two folded. Their first grievance is that as per the provisions of Chapter 3 containing the instructions for conduct of the Pre PG Test-2012, certain procedure has been laid down in the matter of evaluating and considering defective questions and award of marks in such cases. By referring to clause 3.13 of Chapter 3 of the Examination Rules, it was tried to be 3 emphasized that after completion of the examination, the respondent No.2 Board did not get the question papers examined by the group of subject experts along with the answers suggested by the paper setter and the moderator. Instead the model answers given by the question paper setter or the moderator was itself displayed in the website, objections called for and only such of the questions to which objections were received are referred for opinion of the subject experts and a decision taken. Accordingly, the first ground canvassed is that as the requirement of clause 3.13 as contained in Chapter 3 pertaining to referring the question paper and the model answers to the expert at the very first instance has not been complied with, the valuation gets vitiated. The second ground canvassed was that with respect to 21 questions particulars of which are given in Annexure P/9, P/13, P/36, P/46 and P/48 certain error has been committed even by the expert Committee and therefore, by saying that due to these errors, the petitioners are entitled to the marks as per the stipulations contained in clause 3.13, benefit is claimed for.
5. Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Senior Counsel and Shri Sanjay Singh, Advocate who appeared for the petitioners, took us through the 21 questions as are indicated in Annexures P/9 onwards referred to herein above and tried to demonstrate before us that the petitioners have given the correct answers which are applicable to these questions, by referring to certain text books in the reference column as is indicated in the concerned annexures, it is said that the expert bodies and the Examination Board without taking note of the errors pointed 4 out by the petitioners are proceeding in the matter. By referring to Annexure P/9, learned counsel tried to emphasize that with regard to the two questions, namely question No.73 and question No.186 in set 'D' as is indicated in the statement, the correct answers to these questions with reference to the books are indicated in column No.4 . These were the correct answers which were originally given in the model answer key but subsequently the experts have given a different recommendation and an incorrect answer has been selected in the revised answer scheme. Accordingly, with regard to these two questions it is said that the experts have committed an error and had given incorrect answers in the revised answer key without any basis. By referring to a text book extract of which is filed as Annexure P/10, learned counsel tried to demonstrate before this Court that the answer given by the petitioners is the correct answer and the opinion and the correction suggested by the experts and accepted by the respondents Board are not correct. Similarly, with respect to 9 answers as are indicated in Annexure P/13, it is said that the correct option is not given in the question paper and therefore, these questions were liable to be cancelled and action taken in accordance to clause 3.13(iii). In this case also reference is made to certain reports of the Indian Council for Medical Research and certain other expert bodies to say that the contention of the petitioners are correct. Thereafter, reference is made to Annexure P/36 wherein 7 questions are referred to and it is said that in these case there are two correct options and therefore, the questions were liable to be canceled and action taken. Here again reference is made to various text 5 books to say that contentions of the petitioners as reflected in Annexure P/36 is correct. Similar averments are made with regard to two questions in Annexure P/46 and it is said that spelling of two words in these two questions are not correct. Finally, reference was made to Annexure P/48 wherein one question has been referred to and it is said that this question has been wrongly canceled even though it was a correct question with a correct answer. By taking us through all the questions, the answers suggested by the petitioners, various text books referred to in the reference column as indicated herein above, Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Senior Counsel argued that experts have themselves committed an error in the matter and therefore, petitioners claim be accepted, and action taken and appropriate marks awarded to the petitioner so that the result is corrected. Placing reliance on the following judgments : Kanpur University Vs. Samir Gupta and others
- AIR 1983 SC 1230; Vivek Jain Vs. Professional Examination Board - AIR 1994 MP 164; Kumari Anjali Saxena Vs. The Chairman, Professional Examination Board, Bhopal and others - AIR 1990 MP 253; Union of India & Ors v. Rajpal Singh - 2009(1) SCC 216; - Ram Phal Kundu Vs. Kamal Sharma - AIR 2004 SC 1657 and Asha Vs. Pt. B. D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and others - 2012(7) SCC 389, learned Senior Counsel tried to emphasize that the relief as claimed for should be granted.
6. Shri P. K. Kourav, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State Government and the Professional Examination Board refuted the aforesaid and submitted that examination in question is conducted on the 6 basis of certain executive instructions issued from time to time by the Professional Examination Board based on the decision taken by the Executive Committee and even though the clauses are referred to as rules , they are nothing but the non statutory executive instructions for conduct of the examination. It was pointed out by him that on 15th November 2011 a notification was issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, whereby the rules, executive in nature for conducting the Post Graduate Medical (MD & MS) Course and PG Diploma and Dental Course was notified. Chapter 3 of the Rules is the instructions with regard to the procedure to be followed for valuation and instructions for processing the application forms, question papers and answer sheets etc. He submitted that in fact, Chapter 3 was incorporated in the booklet as an instruction for conduct of the examination and even before the conduct of the examination which was held on 11.3.2012, the Professional Examination Board issued a notification on 10.2.2012 vide Annexure RII/2 and laid down the scheme for publication of the answer key and correction of questions. Shri P. K. Kourav took us through the decision of the Executive Council of the Professional Examination Board held on its 7 th meeting on 26.2.2011 and argued that based on the same, the Rules for preparation of the key answer sheets was published on 10.2.2012. He invites our attention to Annexure RII/3 to say that the entire rules formulated by way of executive instructions on 11.2.2012 as contained in Annexure RII/2 was notified and published in the website vide Annexure RII/3 much before the conduct of the examination and finally the same was also notified and published in the 7 Daily Newspapers for information of all concern. In this regard he invites our attention to Annexure RII/13 dated 18.2.2012, the enclosures to them available at page 120 of the additional return filed by the State Government and the Professional Examination Board on 16.5.2012, the advertisement published in the Newspaper available at page 122 of the same document to say that the modified procedure for publication of the Key answer as was decided vide Annexure RII/2 on 10th February 2012 i.e. more than one month of conduct of the examination was notified for all concern and therefore, clause 3.13 as relied upon by the petitioners stood amended by Annexure RII/3 dated 10.2.2012 and subsequently notified on 26.2.2012. It is submitted that as the key answer has been published in accordance to this modified instructions and rules, the petitioners cannot have any grievance in the matter. That apart, as a alternate submission it was argued by Shri Kaurav that in the case of both these petitioners even after the key answers were published on 17.3.2012 and after publication of the result none of the petitioner raised any objection. Even the 21 errors pointed out by the petitioners in these writ petitions pertains to objection raised by other candidates and not by the petitioners. It is specifically pointed out by Shri P. K. Kourav that even till date or till filing of the writ petition both the petitioners have not raised any objection in this regard with the Board and they have filed these writ petitions based on objections received from certain other persons. Shri P. K. Kourav submits that apart from the aforesaid, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by virtue of the procedure 8 followed because all the objections received with regard to the discrepancy of the model answer published or the questions were referred to experts. The experts have given their opinion and based on the opinion of the experts corrections have been made. The petitioners have not pointed out as to how their case is prejudiced only because the model answer were not referred to the experts before publishing them in the website. It is stated that a mere procedural error even if had occurred as claimed by the petitioners due to violation of clause 3.13 as notified earlier, the same does not cause any prejudice or harm to the petitioners as all the objections received have been referred to the experts and a decision taken and the petitioners does not point out a single question or error in the question paper which has not been referred to the expert. Accordingly, Shri P. K. Kourav submits that on the first ground canvassed, no interference is called for.
7. As far as the second ground is concerned, Shri P. K. Kourav submits that petitioners have given reference to certain text books and based on the same, it is their contention that answer suggested by them is the correct one or the error pointed out by them is correct. On the contrary, Shri P. K. Kourav refers to the opinion of the experts given for correction of each of the answers and points out that experts have referred to various aspects of the matter conduct a detailed study of the literature and books referred to by the experts as indicated by Shri P. K. Kourav in his return and additional submissions made in I.A. No.175/2012 before taking the decision. Placing reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public 9 Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and another - (2010)6 SCC 579, another unreported judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Pre Dental Examination, C.B.S.E. & anr. Vs. Khusboo Shrivastava & anr. - SLP (Civil) No.10600/2009 it was argued by Shri Kaurav that interference into the matter is not called for once a expert body has evaluated the matter and the entire action is undertaken by the Board based on the opinion of the expert. He also brings to our notice a unreported judgment of this Court in the case of Preeti Mishra Vs. State of M.P. - W.P. No.7847/2012 decided by a Single Bench of this Court, to say that once an expert body has given its opinion and the model answer book is prepared based on the same, it is not subjected to any further appellate scrutiny by the High Court exercising its jurisdiction in a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. Accordingly, learned counsel argues that no interference into the matter is called for. Finally, Shri P. K. Kourav points out that if the petitioners are to be granted any relief, rights of various other candidates would be effected and as these candidates have not been impleaded as parties, it is said that no interference be made.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record. Two questions have been canvassed at the time of hearing. The first question is with regard to the non compliance of the provisions contemplated in Chapter 3 of the Pre PG Test-2012 and clause 3.13 thereof and the second question is with regard to errors in the question and the model (key) answers as indicated in various annexures referred to by the learned Senior Counsel for the 10 petitioners.
9. We shall now take up the first ground. It may be seen from the records that the advertisement for the Pre PG Test-2012 was notified by the M.P. Professional Examination Board, Bhopal by publication of advertisement and brochure along with notices on their website sometime in the last week of December 2011 and it was notified that the application forms shall be available for sale w.e.f. 18.1.2012. The applications were sold from 18.1.2012 and they were available for sale upto 4.2.2012. Applications complete in all respect were to be submitted on 10.2.2012 and the examination was to be conducted and was in fact conducted on 11.3.2012. After the examination were conducted on 11.3.2012, the model answer were notified immediately, objections were to be received upto 14.3.2012 by 7 p.m. Thereafter the results were declared on 17.3.2012 and the correct answer namely, the key answers were also published immediately thereafter on 17.3.2013. Chapter 3 of the Rules contains the instructions and rules for conduct of the test and infact, if these rules are perused which are from clause 3.9 onwards, it would be seen that they are pertaining to certain procedural aspects for conduct of the examination. Clause 3.13 which is relevant for the present petitions, reads as under:-
"3.13 DEFECTIVE QUESTION, THEIR CANCELLATION AND AWARD OF MARKS IN LIEU OF CANCELLED QUESTIONS After the completion of examination, Board gets each question of the question paper examined by a 11 group of subject experts along with the answer suggested by the paper setter and moderator. If any question is found defective by these experts, the question may be cancelled due to :-
(i) Construction of question is wrong;
(ii) More than one option are correct answers;
(iii) None of the option is correct answer;
(iv) The Hindi and English version are not in conformity;
(v) Printing errors due to which the correct answers cannot be arrived at;
(vi) Question being out of prescribed syllabus;
(vii) Any other appropriate reasons decided by the Committee.
In lieu of the cancelled questions, every candidate may be awarded marks in proportion to the marks obtained by him/ her, irrespective of the fact whether the candidate has attempted such cancelled questions or not. For example if 2 questions out of total 200 questions are cancelled in a particular question paper and if each correct answer carried 01 mark, then afrter evaluation it is found that the candidate has secure 90 marks from the remaining 198 questions considered for evaluation purpose then his / her marks for 200 question are computed as under.
90 x 200/ (200-2) = 90.90 rounded off 91.00 12 Note : All calculations shall be rounded off to two decimal places."
10. Grievance of the petitioners are that after completion of the examination the Board did not get each question of the question paper examined by the Group of Subject experts as contemplated in the aforesaid rules. The question is as to whether this is a mandatory requirement and whether non following of this procedure has resulted in any error which calls for interference by this Court. Admittedly, after the rules were notified and much before the examination was conducted on 11.3.2012 and even before the results were declared based on the decision taken by the Executive Committee of the Board on 10.2.2012 the procedure was changed and it was indicated that the model answer as suggested by the paper setter or the moderators will be notified, thereafter objections would be received and objections would be considered by a Expert Committee and a final answer key published. It was also indicated in this notification Annexure R2/II dated 10.2.2012 that in all the examination to be conducted by the Board after 10.2.2012 shall be conducted as per this procedure. This notice/ order passed by respondent No.2 Board vide Annexure R2/II on 10.2.2012 was loaded in the website of the Board immediately thereafter as is evident from Annexure R2/III, so also was published in the daily Newspaper and given wide publicity as is evident from the documents filed by the respondent Board represented by Shri P. K. Kourav. The documents available on record goes to show that much before the examination was conducted and even before the valuation took place and the 13 result was published on 17.3.2012, the change in the procedure as was contemplated initially in clause 3.13 was notified. This is evident from the advertisement available at page 119 of the additional return filed on 16.5.2013 i.e. Annexure R2/XIII dated 18.2.2012, the enclosures to the same and the advertisement published in the Newspaper available at page 122 which goes to show that the advertisement was published in the Newspaper in this regard bringing to the notice of all concern, the notification issued on 10.2.2012 in the matter of change of system of publication of model answer /key. Accordingly, it is a case where the respondents have much before conduct of the examination changed the rules for publication of the key answers and petitioners were aware of these facts. Inspite thereof none of the petitioners in this case raised any objection. It is pertinent to note that even after the notification was issued, publishing the model answers on 14.3.2012 and even after the corrected model answer was published on 17.3.2012 till filing of these writ petitions on 29th April, 2012, none of the petitioner raised any objection with the Board. The so called objection now raised by the petitioners are nothing but the objections which were earlier raised by certain students and it was considered by the Expert Committee of the Board. That being so, as far as the first ground is concerned, we are of the considered view that there is no violation, that apart, the rules and procedure are nothing but executive instructions and can be changed in the manner done. Even though these instructions were notified in the website of the Board much before conduct of the examination around 10/11 February 2012 they were amended and the 14 amended rules was given wide publicity in the website, Newspaper etc. and all concerned were notified about the same. That being so, the change in the executive instructions brought out cannot be termed as illegal warranting interference by this Court. That apart, the second alternate submission in this regard made by Shri P. K. Kourav has to be given due consideration. In the alternate Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned counsel, argued that even if the procedure for evaluating defects in the questions etc was changed, the same has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner, there is much force in this submission.
11. The petitioner does not show or demonstrate before this Court as to how and in what manner there could be any difference in the final outcome, if the question paper was examined by the Subject Experts even before publication of the key answers. Petitioner has not pointed out any question with regard to which a change could have been effected if the matter was referred to the Expert before publication of the model answer. On the contrary, the fact remains that even after publication of the model answers as was suggested by the paper setter, the notification was issued and all objections received have been scrutinized by an Expert Committee and by following this procedure, we see no error committed by the respondents which can be said to have caused any prejudice or bias to the petitioner or which would have had the result of changing the final outcome. On the contrary, except for making a vague allegation with regard to the procedure being not followed, no substantial error in the final outcome is pointed out.
12. We have to keep in mind that the procedure contemplated in Chapter III initially and which was changed by the 15 Executive Council on 10.2.2012, are not statutory rules or regulations. They are only executive instructions and an execution instruction could be changed in the manner done and as the change has been done well in time before conduct of the examination and further when this change has not resulted in any bias or prejudice to the petitioner, we see no reason to interfere into the matter on such consideration. Accordingly, the first ground canvassed does not warrant any consideration.
13. As far as the second ground is concerned, the same pertains to an exclusive field, which is occupied by the Experts. In the return submitted, the additional return and the overwhelming documents filed by the parties, it is seen that after the key answer were published for consideration and much before the answer sheets were evaluated, all the errors pointed by various candidates have been subjected to scrutiny by a team of Experts on various subjects. It is seen from Annexure R-II/8, summary of the representations received that in more than 60 questions, certain representations were received and action is taken. It is not necessary for us to refer to each and every aspect of the matter, suffice it would be if we refer to some of the material available on record to see as to how the Experts appointed took up the representation, and evaluated the matter.
14. From Annexure R-II/4 onwards, in the return, and thereafter from Annexure R-II/14 onwards, in the additional return filed on 16.5.2012, and again in the further additional return submitted on subsequent dates, various literatures, materials and opinion of the Experts have been submitted by Shri P.K. Kaurav to say that the Experts have gone into each and every aspect of the matter and it is only thereafter that a decision is taken.
15. We have gone through the aforesaid material and few of 16 the findings noted by us goes to show the following:
(i) In the subject of Pathology, defects were pointed out in about four questions, in various sets of questions papers.
A Five Member Expert Committee, consisting of the Head of Department, Pathology of Mahatma Gandhi Medical College, Indore; Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal; G.R. Medical College, Gwalior; Assistant Professor (Pathology), SS Medical College, Rewa; and, Assistant Professor (Pathology), NSCB Medical College, Jabalpur, was constituted. They evaluated all the questions and on 16.3.2012, gave their opinion, which is available as Annexure R-II/4.
(ii) Similarly, in the opinion given by them at Page 40 of the return, they have referred to various literatures and text-books in support of their contention; and, final opinion is submitted by them by referring to various materials.
(iii) Similar is the position with regard to the Subject of Pediatrics, wherein five questions were evaluated and opinion given by a Three Member Expert Committee, consisting of Senior Doctors of various Medical Colleges of the State have dealt with the matter elaborately, referred to various expert views collected by them from various texts and documents and a opinion formed.
(iv) In the subject of Community Medicine, a body of Five Experts was created and they have also considered the objection and given their opinion.
(v) Similar procedure has been followed in various other 17 subjects.
16. From a complete reading of all these material, it is clear that the Experts gave their opinion based on certain literature and material. When this was pointed out, petitioner filed a rejoinder and brought on record various other literatures to say that what is suggested by the Experts is not correct.
17. In rebuttal, Shri P.K. Kaurav has filed an additional return alongwith various other literature and opinion vide IA No.175/2012, wherein various additional literatures have been produced vide Annexure R-II/14 onwards to say that the opinion given by the Experts are correct. That being so, it is a case where apart from the fact that initially when objection to the question papers and the model answers published were given, the matter was referred to an Expert Body and when they gave their opinion, petitioner tried to rebut the same by referring to various other material. The respondents again filed an application and pointed out to this Court that the Experts have evaluated the material based on certain reports of authenticated authors and experts on the subject, and it is stated that once the body of experts have taken a decision, further indulgence into the matter by a writ court is not called for.
18. In this regard, we may at this juncture, refer to certain judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, in the matter of considering the question of interfering into the opinion given by the expert bodies. A Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Anjali Vs. Chairman, Professional Examination Board, AIR 1990 MP 253, considered similar question and the principle evolved by the Division Bench in the said case reads as under:
18"5. Coming now to the question of correctness of the answers to the various questions, we may usefully refer to the scheme of the examination. The pattern of examination is what is called 'multiple choice of objective type test'. A number of questions are set and 4 alternative answers are indicated against each question. A committee of three experts in the subject concerned is appointed to choose the correct answer to each question. This correct answer is called 'key answer'. The committee then meets and after due deliberations, sorts out the correct answers (key answers), which are then kept in a sealed cover to be opened at the time of valuation of the question papers. Thus, all care is ensured while choosing the key answer to a given question. This key answer selected, by the committee has to be accepted, as the correct answer for the purpose of valuation, unless it is shown to be entirely incorrect. The other three answers by some process of reasoning may also be shown as the possible answers to the question and those may hot be wholly incorrect. Nevertheless, under the scheme of the examination, the key answer cannot be rejected, unless it is shown to be entirely incorrect. The examinee is required to indicate by some sign or mark the correct answer. For each correct answer the examinee gets 3 marks and loses one for incorrect marking."
(Emphasis supplied)
19. Thereafter, in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and another, (2010) 6 SCC 759, Supreme Court has laid down the principle in the following manner:
"20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates 19 appearing for the examination and not for Respondent 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a court was not permissible to the High Court."
(Emphasis supplied)
20. The judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Anjali (supra) and another judgment of a Division Bench in the case of Vivek Jain Vs. Professional Examination Board, AIR 1994 MP 164, was considered by the Single Bench of this Court on 2.12.2011, in Writ Petition No. 7169/2011 (Ajay Gupta Vs. MP Professional Examination Board and others), and after relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur University Vs. Samir Gupta and others, AIR 1983 SC 1230, in paragraph 18 has dealt with the question in the following manner:
"18. In the light of the aforesaid legal position, it is crystal clear that the questions and answers derived by the experts from certain book cannot be said to be impermissible in the teeth of examination regulations nor can it be said that the experts have committed any error in doing the same, because it was in the province and prerogative of these experts. In absence of any malice being alleged against said experts or it is shown that said questions/answers are per se incorrect, this Court is under no obligation to sit as an appellate authority to examine either the correctness of the questions/answers or the authenticity of the book. It is 20 in the domain of the experts."
21. From the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that when an Expert Body gives its opinion based on certain material collected from books or other expert reports, in the absence of malafides or bias being alleged against the Expert, a writ court is not obliged to sit over the same by exercising the powers of an appellate authority and evaluate the correctness or otherwise of the opinion given by the Experts. Once the Experts have taken a decision based on due consideration of the material as was available with them, in the absence of any provision statutory in nature being shown to be violated, re-appreciation of the same and coming to a different conclusion by the writ court is not permissible. In view of the above, we are unable to accede to the second ground canvassed by Shri Ajay Mishra. If the contentions advanced by Shri Ajay Mishra in this regard are to be appreciated or accepted, it would amount to this Court substituting its decision to that of the Expert Body and thereafter coming to a decision contrary to the decision of the Expert Body, which is not permissible.
22. Judicial review in such matters wherein administrative decision is taken on the basis of an expert opinion is not an appellant review of the decision but it is is only a review of the decision making process and if the process is found to be reasonable and fair, no interference can be made by a Writ Court, particularly when the procedure followed is based on a objective criteria. This Court does not interfere with an administrative decision taken as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Tata Cellulars Vs. Union of India - AIR 1966 SC Page 11 21 and the mode of approach in such cases is to observe restrain from interferring with administrative decision.
23. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere into the matter. For the reasons as indicated hereinabove, finding no merit in the claim made by the petitioner warranting consideration, the petitions are dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon) (Mrs. Vimla Jain)
Judge Judge
mrs.mishra