Bombay High Court
Manoj Prabhakarrao Samag vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 31 January, 2024
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2024:BHC-AUG:2465-DB
*1* 911wp2224o23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2224 OF 2023
Manoj s/o. Prabhakarrao Samag,
Age : 43 years, Occ : Senior Clerk
in the Court of CJJD, Ghansawangi,
Dist.Jalna.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through the Principal Secretary,
Finance Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2. The Maharashtra Public Service
Commission, Seven and Eighth Floor,
Kuprej Telephone Nigam Building,
Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-21.
3. The Director of Accounts and Treasuries,
5th Floor, New Administrative Building,
Opposite Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Shri Balbhim R. Kedar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri P.K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondents 1 and 3/State.
Shri Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent 2/MPSC.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE :- 31st January, 2024
*2* 911wp2224o23
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.):-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioner has put forth prayer clause B as under:-
"B) By issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, the impugned judgment and order dated 17/11/2022, passed by the Ld. Division Bench of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O.A.NO.215/2020 and M.A. No. 49/2021 thereby dismissing the Original Application and Misc. Application may kindly be quashed and set aside and by allowing the writ petition, the respondents may kindly be directed to add 2 more marks in the 5 th paper for question No.4 (b) of the petitioner and by granting grace marks to him for which he is entitled for, his name to be included in the list of successful candidates of M.F.A.S. Departmental Examination part-II, by giving him consequential service benefits including the seniority in the cadre, by treating his date of passing as on 19.10.2019."
3. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order delivered by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 17.11.2022 by which, Original Application No.215/2020 was dismissed.
4. The case of the Petitioner can be compartmentalized into three parts:-
*3* 911wp2224o23 (A) Challenge to "No Revaluation" rule.
(B) Students be permitted to attempt more questions than the restricted limit and the best answers be taken into account.
(C) The examiner has wrongly denied one mark to the Petitioner when the Petitioner believes that he had answered correctly.
(A) Challenge to 'No Revaluation' Rule
5. The Petitioner had appeared for the 2018 examination by which, he was aspiring to be selected as an Assistant Accounts Officer in the Finance Ministry of the State of Maharashtra. This was a departmental examination. The clerks working in the District Courts, who had completed five years of service on the cut off date July, 2013, were eligible to appear for such examination, which was conducted in two parts. The first part of the examination was conducted in 2015 and the second part was conducted in 2018. Though the Petitioner has four attempts, the age limit of 40 years would prevent the Petitioner from taking any further attempt even if he had attempted lesser times.
*4* 911wp2224o23
6. The first part of the examination has been successfully cleared by the Petitioner. In the second part, for the subject "Paper on Precis and Draft (without books)", which was paper No.V, he has fallen short by one mark to score 40 marks and he would have been eligible for grace marks of five for which he would have obtained qualifying 45 marks. Precis writing is a summary that condenses a passage into a few words as possible. The word "Precis" comes from the French word "Preisi", which means "cut short".
7. As regards the first, the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) has published the Maharashtra Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 2014, which came into force on 16.05.2014. Under Rule 11(2), it has been provided as under:-
"11(2) For conventional examination, the candidates shall have the right to apply to the Commission for verification of their answer books. The action of verification shall be limited to:-
(a) ascertaining that every answer is assessed;
(b) totalling of all the marks.
Thus there shall be no revaluation of
answer books whatsoever:
Provided further that the
applicant/candidate shall be required to submit his application within a stipulated period of time and with the prescribed fees as laid down either in the Notification or in the Scheme of *5* 911wp2224o23 the examination as the case may be."
Rule 12 provides as under:-
"12. Method of Moderation:-
To ensure fair and equitable assessment of the Answer Books, the Commission may resort to moderation of the evaluated answer books in respect of all the conventional examinations. The modalities in which moderation is to be done have been spelt out by the Commission in its Standing Orders. The Commission may suitably modify any one the above orders based on the experience gained by them."
8. It is, thus, clear that the candidates have a right to apply to the MPSC for verification of their answer books and such verification is limited to ascertaining whether, every answer is assessed and the totaling of marks is correct. It is specifically provided that there would be no revaluation of answer books whatsoever.
9. Having read Rule 11(2), more specifically the clause providing revaluation of answer books, we find that the said Rule cannot be faulted in view of Rule 12, which provides for method of moderation. In order to ensure a fair and equitable assessment of the answer books, the MPSC may resort to moderation of the evaluated answer books in respect of all the *6* 911wp2224o23 conventional examinations. The modalities in which moderation is to be done have been spelt out by the MPSC in it's Standing Orders.
10. The relevant Standing Order reads as under:-
"१. नि यम : नि नि ध स्पर्धा परीक्षांच्या पारंपारिक स्वरुपाच्या स्पध स्पर्धा परीक्षांच्या पारंपारिक स्वरुपाच्या परीक्ष ंच्य प रंप रिरक स्वरुपाच्या स् रुप च्य उत्तरपुस्तिस् क स्वरुपाच्या नि यम क स्वरुपाच्यारण्य ची पध्द ख लीलप्रम णे राहील र हील.
अ) (i) उत्तरपुस्तिस् क स्वरुपाच्या परीक्षक स्वरुपाच्या ंक स्वरुपाच्याडू प सू झ ल्य ं र ६०% त्य पे राहीलक्ष ज स् गुण निमळ ले राहीलल्य उत्तरपुस्तिस् क स्वरुपाच्या ंचे राहील से राहीलच ३०% े राहील ४०% मध स्पर्धा परीक्षांच्या पारंपारिक स्वरुपाच्याील स उत्तरपुस्तिस् क स्वरुपाच्या ंचे राहील उ रिर उत्तरपुस्तिस् क स्वरुपाच्या ंमध स्पर्धा परीक्षांच्या पारंपारिक स्वरुपाच्याील निक स्वरुपाच्याम ५% उत्तरपुस्तिस् क स्वरुपाच्या RANDOM पध्द ी े राहील क स्वरुपाच्या ढू त्य ंचे राहील नि यम क स्वरुपाच्यारणे राहील.
(ii) फक्त दिवाणी न्यायाधिश निद णी न्य य धिध स्पर्धा परीक्षांच्या पारंपारिक स्वरुपाच्याश (क स्वरुपाच्यानि ष्ठ स्तर स् र) न्य यदंड धिध स्पर्धा परीक्षांच्या पारंपारिक स्वरुपाच्याक स्वरुपाच्या री (प्रथम ग) (मुख्य) परीक्षे राहीलस ठी उत्तरपुस्तिस् क स्वरुपाच्या परीक्षक स्वरुपाच्या ंक स्वरुपाच्याडू प सू झ ल्य ं र ६०% त्य पे राहीलक्ष ज स् गुण निमळ ले राहीलल्य उत्तरपुस्तिस् क स्वरुपाच्या ंचे राहील से राहीलच ४०% े राहील ५०% मध स्पर्धा परीक्षांच्या पारंपारिक स्वरुपाच्याील स उत्तरपुस्तिस् क स्वरुपाच्या ंचे राहील उ रिर उत्तरपुस्तिस् क स्वरुपाच्या ंमध स्पर्धा परीक्षांच्या पारंपारिक स्वरुपाच्याील निक स्वरुपाच्याम ५% उत्तरपुस्तिस् क स्वरुपाच्या RANDOM पध्द ी े राहील क स्वरुपाच्या ढू त्य ंचे राहील नि यम क स्वरुपाच्यारणे राहील.
ब) ज्य नि षय च्य उत्तरपुस्तिस् क स्वरुपाच्या ंची संख्य २० किंक स्वरुपाच्या त्य पे राहीलक्ष क स्वरुपाच्यामी आहे राहील, अश नि षय ंच्य स उत्तरपुस्तिस् क स्वरुपाच्या ंचे राहील नि यम क स्वरुपाच्यारण्य य े राहील .
२. पु मुल्य ंक स्वरुपाच्या : प्रस् ु आदे राहीलश ील र ुदी ुस र नि नि ध स्पर्धा परीक्षांच्या पारंपारिक स्वरुपाच्या स्पध स्पर्धा परीक्षांच्या पारंपारिक स्वरुपाच्या परीक्ष ंच्य नि यम चे राहील क स्वरुपाच्या म पूण झ ल्य र परीक्षक स्वरुपाच्या ं ी निदले राहीलले राहील गुण नि य मक स्वरुपाच्या ं ी निदले राहीलले राहील गुण य १५% पे राहीलक्ष ज स् फरक स्वरुपाच्या पडल्य स त्य ची *7* 911wp2224o23 ज्ज्ञ-परीक्षक स्वरुपाच्या (मुख्य नि य मक स्वरुपाच्या) य ंच्य क स्वरुपाच्याडू पु मूल्य ंक स्वरुपाच्या / प सणी क स्वरुपाच्यारु घ्य ी े राहील गुण अंधि म समज े राहील .
३. च ळणी परीक्षे राहीलच्य उत्तरपुस्तिस् क स्वरुपाच्या ंचे राहील नि यम क स्वरुपाच्याे राहीलले राहील ज ण र ही."
11. It is common policy that where moderation methodology is utilized for equitable assessment of answer books, revaluation is normally not permitted. In such a backdrop, restriction on revaluation would not appear to be arbitrary considering that the method of moderation is being utilized for ensuring a fair and equitable assessment of answer books. On this count, therefore, since there is no specific challenge and there is no prayer put forth and in view of the fact that moderation methodology is applied, we do not find the Rule to be arbitrary.
12. The learned Advocate for the MPSC places reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Honourable Supreme Court (three Judges Bench) in Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman, Bihar Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and others, 2004 SCW 4541, wherein, it has been concluded in paragraphs 7 and 8 as under:-
"7. We have heard the appellant (writ-petitioner) in *8* 911wp2224o23 person and learned counsel for the respondents at considerable length. The main question which arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing re-evaluation of the answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper. 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 totaling 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. This question was examined in considerable detail in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth and others, AIR 1984 SC 1543. In this case, the relevant rules provided for verification (scrutiny of marks) on an application made to that effect by a candidate. Some of the students filed writ petitions praying that they may be allowed to inspect the answer-books and the Board be directed to conduct re-evaluation of such of the answer-books as the petitioners may demand after inspection. The High Court held that the rule providing for verification of marks gave an implied power to the examinees to demand a disclosure and inspection and also to seek re-evaluation of the answer-books. The judgment of the High Court was set aside and it *9* 911wp2224o23 was held that in absence of a specific provision conferring a right upon an examinee to have his answer-books re-evaluated, no such direction can be issued. There is no dispute that under the relevant rule of the Commission there is no provision entitling a candidate to have his answer-books re-evaluated. In such a situation, the prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition was wholly untenable and the learned Single Judge had clearly erred in having the answer-book of the appellant re-evaluated.
8. Adopting such a course as was done by the learned Single Judge will give rise to practical problems. Many candidates may like to take a chance and pray for re-evaluation of their answer-books. Naturally, the Court will pass orders on different dates as and when writ petitions are filed. The Commission will have to then send the copies of individual candidates to examiners for re-evaluation which is bound to take time. The examination conducted by the Commission being a competitive examination, the declaration of final result will thus be unduly delayed and the vacancies will remain unfilled for a long time. What will happen if a candidate secures lesser marks in re-
evaluation? He may come forward with a plea that the marks as originally awarded to him may be taken into consideration. The absence of clear rules on the subject may throw many problems and in the larger interest, they must be avoided."
13. On the aspect of revaluation, the view taken by the Honourable Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar (supra) is crystal *10* 911wp2224o23 clear. It was dealing with the Bihar Public Service Commission. In paragraphs 7 and 8, the Honourable Supreme Court has recorded that the revaluation of an answer-sheet is an independent exercise and if the students appearing for the examination, make such applications, the Commission will have to spend lot of time on revaluation and as a consequence, the results of such examination would be unduly postponed. Reference has been made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth and others, AIR 1984 SC 1543. We, therefore, conclude that the challenge to the aforesaid Rule 11(2)(b) fails. B. Students be permitted to attempt more questions than the restricted limit and the best answers be taken into account.
14. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner has strenuously canvassed that answering more questions than what is permissible, cannot be an anathema. If a student is supposed to answer only five questions and he answers six, there should be no controversy on this issue as it is the choice of the *11* 911wp2224o23 student/examinee to attempt as many number of questions that he may desire with the hope that the best answers would be taken into account while computing the marks.
15. The learned advocate for the Commission contends that where it is specifically permissible to attempt many number of questions and the best of the answers are to be taken into account, the candidates in such cases could do so depending upon the Rules that may be prescribed in this behalf. By relying on Pramod Kumar (supra), he submits that nobody can travel beyond the Rules and if it is not permissible to answer more than the prescribed number of questions or go against the procedure prescribed for the examination, it would not be appropriate for this Court to take a different view.
16. According to the Petitioner, the instructions cited by the MPSC before this Court, as well as before the Tribunal, were not specifically published for the said examination. We find that the MPSC has been uniformly following a particular pattern while issuing the instructions to the examinees. A notification bearing No.P-1(2)/(April, 2013)/1 dated 19.03.2018 is placed before us at page 47 indicating that these are the instructions with regard to the examinations held in 2018 in which, the Petitioner *12* 911wp2224o23 was one of the examinees. Clauses 4, 5, 6, 9 and 12 of the instructions read as under:-
"४) ज्य प्रश्नपनिEक स्वरुपाच्या ंची उत्तरे राहील पुस् क स्वरुपाच्या ंच्य सह य्य े राहील लिलह य ची आहे राहील . अश े राहीलळी उमे राहीलद र ं ी नि भ ग े राहील प्रम णिण क स्वरुपाच्याे राहीलले राहीलली श स प्रक स्वरुपाच्या णिश अधिध स्पर्धा परीक्षांच्या पारंपारिक स्वरुपाच्याक स्वरुपाच्याृ पुस् क स्वरुपाच्याे राहील (स् ःची ) (यथ स्तिस्थ ी क स्वरुपाच्याे राहील ळ बे राहीलअरॲक्ट्स आणिण / किंक स्वरुपाच्या रुल्स) पर ी. परं ु परीक्षे राहीलस ठी असले राहीलल्य क स्वरुपाच्याोणत्य ही प्रश्नपनिEक स्वरुपाच्याे राहील रील निPपण्य असले राहीलली पुस् क स्वरुपाच्याे राहील, म गदर्शिश क स्वरुपाच्या किंक स्वरुपाच्या पे राहीलजर, मोब ईल फो , प्रोग्र मे राहीलबल क स्वरुपाच्याॅलक्युले राहीलPर क स्वरुपाच्या श े राहील, इत्य निद स् ू परीक्ष क स्वरुपाच्याक्ष मध्ये राहील आणण्य ची उमे राहीलद र ं सक्त दिवाणी न्यायाधिश म ई आहे राहील. सदर सूच े राहीलचे राहील उल्लंघ झ ल्य चे राहील आढळल्य स ी ब ब णिश स् भंग असल्य चे राहील समजण्य ये राहीलईल आयोग म फ से राहीलच नि भ ग म फ क स्वरुपाच्या र ई क स्वरुपाच्याे राहीलली ज ईल. उमे राहीलद र ं आयोग क स्वरुपाच्याडू क स्वरुपाच्याोण ीही पुस् क स्वरुपाच्याे राहील पुरनि ली ज ण र ही ."
"५) परीक्षे राहीलच्य नि यम मध्ये राहील प्रम णिण क स्वरुपाच्याे राहीलल्य प्रम णे राहील उमे राहीलद र ं प्रश्न ंची उत्तरे राहील इंग्रजी किंक स्वरुपाच्या मर ठीमध्ये राहील लिलनिहण्य ची मुभ आहे राहील. परं ु उत्तरपुस्तिस् क स्वरुपाच्याे राहील ज्य भ षे राहील उत्तर लिलनिहणे राहील सुरु क स्वरुपाच्याे राहीलले राहील असे राहीलल, त्य च भ षे राहील त्य उत्तरपुस्तिस् क स्वरुपाच्याे राहील श े राहील PपयX उत्तरे राहील लिलनिहली प निहजे राहील . परीक्षे राहीलच्य प्रश्नपनिEक स्वरुपाच्या इंग्रजी भ षे राहील च क स्वरुपाच्या ढल्य ज ील."
"६) उमे राहीलद र े राहील प्रश्न ंचे राहील उपप्रश्न सोडनि (अ, ब, क स्वरुपाच्या, ड निक स्वरुपाच्या १, २, ३, ४] सलगरिरत्य सोड े राहील . प्रश्न च एक स्वरुपाच्या भ ग एक स्वरुपाच्या पृष्ठ स्तर र दस ु र भग क स्वरुपाच्या ही पृष्ठ स्तरे राहील सोडू अथ क स्वरुपाच्या ही अन्य पृष्ठ स्तर र उपप्रश्न सोडनि ल्य स ो उपप्रश्न दल ु धिक्ष क स्वरुपाच्यारण्य ये राहीलईल अश प्रश्न ंच्य उत्तर ं श ून्य गुण समजण्य *13* 911wp2224o23 ये राहील ील."
"९) नि भ गीय परीक्षे राहीलच्य प रंपरिरक स्वरुपाच्या स् रुप च्य उत्तरपुस्तिस् क स्वरुपाच्याे राहीलक स्वरुपाच्यारिर गुण ंची पड ळणी क स्वरुपाच्यारण्य ये राहील े राहील. फे राहीलरमुल्य ंक स्वरुपाच्या क स्वरुपाच्याे राहीलले राहील ज ही."
"१२) आयोग े राहील नि भ गीय परीक्ष संदभ े राहील क स्वरुपाच्याे राहीलले राहीलल्य सूच ंचे राहील उमे राहीलद र े राहील अत्यं क स्वरुपाच्या ळजीपू क स्वरुपाच्या प ल क स्वरुपाच्यार े राहील . सूच ंचे राहील प ल क स्वरुपाच्यारणे राहील, उमे राहीलद र परीक्ष क स्वरुपाच्याक्ष ब हे राहीलर घ ल ू दे राहीलणे राहील, गुण ज क स्वरुपाच्यारणे राहील, पुढील परीक्ष ं प्रधि रोधिध स्पर्धा परीक्षांच्या पारंपारिक स्वरुपाच्या क स्वरुपाच्यारणे राहील, उमे राहीलद री रद्द करणे क स्वरुपाच्यारणे राहील, इत्य दी णिश क्ष दे राहीलण्य स ठरे राहीलल. णिश क्ष दे राहीलण्य च अधिध स्पर्धा परीक्षांच्या पारंपारिक स्वरुपाच्याक स्वरुपाच्या र स स् ी आयोग च र हील."
17. It is, thus, apparent that the instructions mandate a particular pattern to be followed even while answering questions in continuity under clause 6. Revaluation has been specifically refused in clause 9. In clause 6, it is made clear that the MPSC would have the right to ignore certain answers if systematic pattern/sequence, as was instructed, is not followed. In clause 12, it is mentioned that all instructions have to be scrupulously followed by the examinees.
18. The contention of the Petitioner is that when the instruction on the question paper was "Answer Any Five", it was clear that no examinee was restricted from answering more than five. Despite his strenuous submissions, we find that he is unable *14* 911wp2224o23 to persuade us. In matters of interpretation of any provision or any clause, a normal meaning has to be attributed to the sentence if language is plain and simple and not ambiguous. When the instruction to examinee is "Answer Any Five", in our view, he is expected to answer only five out of the available options. The instruction did not indicate that the examinee should answer any number of questions and the best five answers would be considered while evaluating his answer-sheet.
19. There are certain examinations wherein, the Authorities prescribe vide the rules, of taking the best answers or scores, like 'best five' or 'best seven' while evaluating an examinee. When the instructions mandate the examinee to answer any five, in our view, it goes without saying that he is not supposed to answer more than five. This interpretation is fortified by clause 6 of the instructions. Clause 9 of the instructions for the examinees for the departmental examination, at page 91-D of the petition paper book, reads as under:-
"9) सोडनि ण्य च्य प्रश्न ंची संख्य :- प्रत्ये राहीलक स्वरुपाच्या प्रश्नपनिEक स्वरुपाच्या रील सूच े राहीलप्रम णे राहील उमे राहीलद र े राहील प्रश्न सोडनि ले राहील प निहजे राहील जर नि निह संख्ये राहीलपे राहीलक्ष अधिध स्पर्धा परीक्षांच्या पारंपारिक स्वरुपाच्याक स्वरुपाच्या प्रश्न सोडनि ले राहील र नि निह संख्य पयX अगोदर सोड ले राहीलल्य प्रश्न ंची उत्तरे राहील प सली ज ील. उरले राहीलल्य प्रश्न ंची उत्तरे राहील उत्तरे राहील दल ु धिक्ष क स्वरुपाच्याे राहीलले राहील *15* 911wp2224o23 ज ील. उमे राहीलद र े राहील एक स्वरुपाच्या प्रश्न चे राहील उत्तर दो द लिलनिहल्य स पस यचे राहील सले राहीलले राहील एक स्वरुपाच्या उत्तर रद्द करणे समजण्य ब ब उमे राहीलद र े राहील त्य उत्तर र उत्तर रद्द करणे अस श े राहीलर मूद क स्वरुपाच्यार ."
20. It is apparent that if an examinee answers more than the prescribed number of questions, the first of those answers would be taken into account and any answer beyond the prescribed number, would not be even evaluated. Since such examination rules are held to be having a binding force on the examinees in Pramod Kumar (supra), we do not find that the learned Tribunal has erred in passing the impugned order in refusing to scrutinize the excess answers. We answer issue no.2 accordingly.
(C) The examiner has wrongly denied one mark to the Petitioner when the Petitioner believes that he had answered correctly
21. On the third issue, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner has drawn our attention to the copy of the answer-sheet that he has received from the MPSC, placed at page No.57 in the petition paper book. His grievance is with regard to an answer *16* 911wp2224o23 offered to a word at serial No.4 under the caption of answering 'opposite meaning of the words'. To write an opposite word to the word "compulsory", the Petitioner has answered as "optional/ mandatory". According to the Petitioner, the examiner was not satisfied with the word "optional" since he preferred the word "voluntary", which is on the basis of the expert opinion.
22. The contention of the Petitioner twofold. Firstly, that the examiner should have ignored the word "mandatory" and should have accepted the word "optional". Secondly, that the Petitioner has attempted one more answer at serial No.6 when he wrote the word "horizontal" as the opposite to the word "vertical". If not serial No.4, the examiner should have accepted the answer at serial No.6.
23. On the first count, we hold that since optional and mandatory are self contradictory words offered together by the Petitioner as an answer, we would not find any fault with the examiner. Moreover, we would not step into the shoes of the examiner to decide which is the correct answer notwithstanding the reliance placed by the Petitioner on the "Shasan Vyavahar Kosh" (Government Administrative Dictionary), which mentions the word "optional" as having an opposite meaning to the word *17* 911wp2224o23 "compulsory".
24. The second contention also cannot be accepted since the Petitioner was under a mandate of answering any five and not to attempt unlimited questions. Having interpreted the meaning of "Answer Any Five" and taking into account the specific instructions in clause 9 reproduced above, which does not oblige the examiner to evaluate the extra answers given by the examinee, answer at serial No.6 will have to be ignored.
25. In view of the above, we do not find that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in delivering the impugned order. Merely because a second view is possible, this Court would not be justified in exercising it's supervisory jurisdiction in interfering in the impugned order considering the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S.Radhakrishnan and others [AIR 1964 SC 477] and Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai [2003(6) SCC 682].
26. This Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
27. No order as to costs.
kps (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)