Allahabad High Court
Randheer Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 30 October, 2019
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder, Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 7 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 779 of 2019 Appellant :- Randheer Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Khare,Senior Advocate, Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Srivastava,Girand Singh,Santosh Kumar Shukla,Vinod Kumar Shukla Hon'ble Biswanath Somadder,J.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
The instant Special Appeal is in respect of a judgment and order dated 16th May, 2019, passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ A No. 38804 of 2017 (Randheer Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.). By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge proceeded to dismiss the writ petition observing that the same lacked merit for reasons stated therein.
This Special Appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, we are of the view that the only issue which falls for consideration is whether this Court - in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - can interfere for the purpose of judicially reviewing the views expressed by an Expert Committee, which were rendered pursuant to an earlier order of the High Court dated 16th May, 2017, even if the same is contrary to the view of a subject matter expert, being a document at page 60 of the papers before us.
-2- Before we proceed to answer this issue, we need to take notice of the impugned judgment and order, which is reproduced hereinbelow:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the State. This petition has been preferred assailing the final results declared by the respondents for the post of Assistant Engineer (Trainee) Electronics and Telecommunication. A further writ is sought for constitution of an Expert Committee of renowned experts from different top Indian Universities, who may revisit the questions objected to by the petitioner. Undisputedly the petitioner had raised objections to various key answers which were formulated by the respondents. The objection as raised by him as well as others were placed for consideration of an Expert Committee whose report has been placed at page-118. The petitioner now assails the report as submitted by the Expert Committee. Despite repeated queries, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to convince the Court that it would have the authority and competence to evaluate the correctness of the conclusions arrived at by the Expert Committee. This aspect assumes significance since the petitioner seeks to raise issues in respect of papers which carried detailed questions in the field of Electronics and Telecommunication. It is in this context that the scope of judicial review in such matters assumes importance. The report of the Expert Committee is assailed on the ground that it is unreasoned. The Court finds itself unable to countenance that objection for the reason that the Committee of Experts has clearly recorded that the objections were irrelevant and have reiterated the correct answers which were carried in the original answer key. The Committee of Experts is not expected to frame an order carrying detailed reasons for rejection of such objections. Even otherwise and bearing in mind the scope of judicial review which must be borne in such matters, the Court finds no ground to issue the writs as prayed for.
The petition lacks merit and is dismissed. "
A bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals -3- that the learned Single Judge has considered the facts of the instant case extensively and also the report of the Expert Committee, which clearly stated that the objections were irrelevant and reiterated the correct answers which were carried in the original answer key. The answers provided by the subject matter Expert Committee which are at page 153, have been provided pursuant to an earlier order dated 16th May, 2017, which was rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ A No. 3050 of 2017 (Randheer Pratap Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. & 2 Ors.). This order dated 16th May, 2017 is required to be noticed and is, therefore, reproduced hereinbelow:
"The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that about 18 questions are wrong and consequently the evaluation of such questions has resulted an incorrect declaration of the successful candidates. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the errors were pointed out yet the respondents are still not finalizing the same.
Sri Ayank Mishra has placed before the Court the information dated 18.03.2017 praying for further time to process the aforesaid complaints and to take appropriate action in the matter.
It has been stated at the Bar that no appointments have been made pursuant to such selections. Consequently, we grant six weeks' time to the respondents to conclude the said process and also file an affidavit explaining the status of the correctness or otherwise of the questions or Key answers in relation to all the 18 questions.
The matter shall be listed in the first week of July, 2017. "
On enquiry, we are informed that Writ A No. 3050 of 2017 -4- (Randheer Pratap Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. & 2 Ors.) is yet to be disposed of. In such a fact situation, how a subsequent writ petition could have been at all filed is a question which baffles us since the document at page 153, which becomes the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition wherefrom the present Special Appeal emanates, has its genesis in the order dated 16th May, 2017. Be that as it may, so far as the issue framed by us is concerned, the answer to the same is clearly in the negative since the writ Court, in judicial review, would be loathed to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and question the wisdom of a committee of experts constituted on the basis of observations made by a Division Bench order of this Court. Moreover, the committee of experts has stated its clear and unequivocal view in respect of answers to the 18 questions and also noticed the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 16th May, 2017. These answers, which are based on inputs of the subject matter expert committee, could not have been assailed by the writ petitioner citing page 60 of the papers before us, which appears to be a document that was part of the pleadings before the Division Bench of this Court which passed the order dated 16th May, 2017, that eventually led to the compilation of the answers which appears -5- at page 153 of the papers before us.
The reasonings appearing in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned judgement and order, are cogent and justifiable. In an Intra-Court Special Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity. As such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 16th May, 2019. For reasons stated above, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and stands, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.10.2019 Deepak/ (Biswanath Somadder, J.) (Ajay Bhanot, J.)