Karnataka High Court
K P Manju vs Karnataka Power Transmission on 16 March, 2022
Bench: S.Sujatha, Ravi V Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI
W.A.No.618/2018 c/w
W.A.No.1221/2018 (S - RES)
IN W.A.No.618/2018:
BETWEEN :
1. K.P.MANJU
S/O K.T.PUTTASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT K.P.DODDI VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI POST, MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571422
2. G.C.MALLESHAPPA
S/O G.B.CHANDRASEKARA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO.49, GANJIGERE
K.R.PET TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571812
3. SAGAR
S/O VISHWANATH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/AT NO.80/A, NAGANATHAPURA
4TH CROSS, NEAR MARIAMMA TEMPLE
CENTRAL JAIL ROAD
BENGALURU-560 100
4. NAGENDRA BABU K.R.,
S/O REDAPPA K.N.,
-2-
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
KODIGAL VILLAGE & POST
CHINTAMANI TALUK
CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT-563123
5. SANDEEPA K.B.,
S/O BILLAPPA K.N.,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
KUNIGAL VILLAGE
SAKLESHPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTIRCT-573134 ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADV.)
AND :
1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE
AT CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD
BENGALURU-560 009
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. THE DIRECTOR
ADMINISTRATOR & HUMAN RESOURCES,
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD
BENGALURU-560 009 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.GURUPRASANNA, ADV. FOR R-1;
SRI S.S.NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SMT.SUMANA NAGANAND, ADV. FOR C/R-2.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED
16.01.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.P.Nos.41421-41425/2017 AND ETC.
-3-
IN W.A.No.1221/2018:
BETWEEN :
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 009
NOW REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR (ADMN. & HR) ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.S.NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SMT.SUMANA NAGANAND, ADV.)
AND :
1. Ms. SOWMYA E.,
D/O EERANNA P.N.,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/AT NEAR RAGHAVENDRA NURSING HOSTEL
RAGHAVENDRA COLONY
MADHUGIRI, TUMKUR - 572132
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560001
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI S.GURUPRASANNA, ADV. FOR R-1;
SMT.K.R.ROOPA, HCGP FOR R-2.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 05.04.2018 PASSED ON IA NO.1/2018 BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.56146/2017 [S-RES] AND
DISMISS IA NO.1/18 WITH COSTS.
-4-
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY,
S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Since common and akin issues are involved in these appeals, they are taken up together, heard and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. W.A.No.618/2018 has been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 16.01.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.41421- 41425/2017. W.A.No.1221/2018 is filed by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited ['Corporation' for short] challenging the interim order dated 05.04.2018 passed on I.A.No.1/2018 by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.56146/2017.
3. The Corporation invited the applications from eligible candidates for various posts including the posts of Assistant Engineer [Electrical]. The appellants in W.P.Nos.41421-41425/2017 applied for the said posts -5- of Assistant Engineer [Electrical]. The Corporation conducted objective type of examination through online on 07.07.2017 and 11.07.2017 at various centres across the State of Karnataka. The master questions and answer keys of the Online Aptitude Test were published on 14.07.2017. The original petitioners in W.P.Nos.41421- 41425/2017, raised their objections to some of these questions and filed their representations to correct the anomaly, revise the questions and issue fresh provisional list but in vain. Hence, Writ Petitions were filed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said Writ Petitions. Hence, W.A.No.618/2018 has been filed by the petitioners. W.P.No.56146/2017 and Connected Matters were filed by the candidates challenging the key answer to question No.83 contending the option 'D' is the right answer not 'C'. In the said proceedings, I.A.No.1/2018 was filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.56146/2017 seeking appointment of Commissioner to give response inasmuch as the correct answer to -6- question No.83. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties, allowed I.A.No.1/2018. The Vice Chancellor of Bangalore University was requested to refer the said question No.83 to subject expert in Mathematics, Head of the Department or any other person who is well versed in the subject to give his opinion as to the correct answer amongst the options given to the said question in an expedite manner and to forward the same to the Court. Being aggrieved by the said order, Corporation has filed W.A.No.1221/2018.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.618/2018 submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the question paper was set up by one Mr.K.B.Akhilesh, the Professor of Indian Institute of Science, in the department of Management Studies who had no knowledge in the field of Electric and Electronic Engineer. The Writ Court has decided the matter on preliminary issue of -7- maintainability referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission V/s. Mukesh Thakur and Another [(2010) 6 SCC 759] and Ran Vijay Singh and Others V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2018) 2 SCC 357] which indeed are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel argued that it is not only the answers which are provided in the master key answers are wrong but few questions on the face of it are erroneous. These aspects would illustrate prima facie without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization that some of the questions provided by the respondent No.1 - Corporation were wrong. The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate these vital aspects.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that during the pendency of the present Writ Appeal, appointment orders have been -8- issued in favour of 255 candidates to the posts of Assistant Engineer [Electrical], but the selected candidates are not arrayed as parties to the present proceedings. The matter relating to public employment which has been completed in the year 2018, would adversely affect not alone the functioning of the Corporation involving substantial loss but would dislodge the selected candidates from employment, if the select list is disturbed. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that larger public interest ought to prevail over individual interest of any private party. Any order if passed in favour of the petitioners will result in change of entire marks list where nearly 11,000 applicants had appeared in the examination resulting in considerable hardship and inconvenience.
6. Learned Senior Counsel argued that the objections to question No.32 was not submitted by the writ petitioners in response to the objections invited to -9- the question/answer keys dated 14.07.2017 but is raised for the first time in the Writ Petition and moreover, none of the writ petitioners had attempted to answer the said question No.32 and therefore, adjudication on this aspect would be only an academic exercise as none of the petitioners were adversely affected by this question and key answer on the basis of which marks were awarded. Similarly, no objections were raised with respect to question Nos.34 and 72. As regards the questions - 23, 29, 38, 46, 55, 59, 73, 78, 83, 87 and 98, the objections submitted to the key answers have been referred by Corporation to Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru [IISC] which had set the question paper and provided key answers. After considering the objections, question No.55 was nullified; question Nos.46, 59 and 78 were revised; question Nos.83, 29, 38, 83, 98, 23, 87 and 73 were retained.
7. Learned counsel argued that the settled legal principle that the Courts should refrain from examining the correctness or otherwise of academic issues relating
- 10 -
to any examination has been followed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.41421-41425/2017 and the same deserves to be confirmed by this Court.
8. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that the judicial discipline demands that the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of the same Hon'ble Court cannot be ignored. Despite bringing the decision of the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.41421-41425/2017 dated 16.01.2018, the Writ Court in W.P.No.56146/2017 entertained I.A.No.1/2018 and appointed the Commissioner to give his opinion regarding the correct answer to question No.83, allowing the I.A.No.1/2018. Accordingly, seeks to set aside the order passed on I.A.No.1/2018 confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.41421-41425/2017.
9. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Adithya Sondhi appearing for the original petitioner in W.P.No.56146/2017 submitted that the key answer issued by the Corporation to the question No.83 is
- 11 -
incorrect and the petitioner has produced the correct answer calculation, as such he is entitled to the additional one mark. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that Professor K.B.Akhilesh, Department of Management Studies is not the competent Professor to decide the correct answer. It is purely a mathematical question. The Corporation without considering the objections raised by the petitioners, has issued notification dated 13.11.2017 selecting the candidates in the ratio of 1:2. To set right the anomaly, the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.56146/2017, has rightly requested the Vice Chancellor of Bengaluru University to refer the above question to subject expert [Mathematics], Head of the Department, who is well versed in the subject to give his opinion as to the correct answer. Accordingly, the same has been complied with and the report is submitted in a sealed cover before the Writ Court. Considering the said opinion, the correct answer to the question No.83 could be decided. Thus,
- 12 -
submitted that no interference is warranted by this Court.
10. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in W.P.No.11216/2017 and Connected Matters, the Writ Court has stayed the further process of selection of appointment of candidates under the employment notification dated 08.09.2016 insofar as it relates to the Assistant Executive Engineer [Electrical], Assistant Engineer [Electrical]. Vide order dated 26.04.2017, the same was modified as per order dated 02.08.2017 whereby the Corporation and others were directed to clearly indicate in the appointment letter that the appointment shall be subject to the final decision of the Court in W.P.No.11216/2017 and Connected Matters. Learned counsel has relied on the clarification obtained from the academic persons in respect of the said question No.83 along with their respective profiles, in support of his submission i.e., the correct answer is 'D'.
- 13 -
11. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties have referred to host of cases which would be discussed infra.
12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
13. Indisputedly, question No.55 was nullified and answers to questions 46 and 78 were revised before filing Writ Petition. During pendency of the writ petition, answer to question No.59 was revised. Question No.32 is as under:
"32). Anjum is counting his last days, he keeps half his property for his wife and divides the rest equally among his three sons:
Bimar, Cumar and Danger. Some years later, Bimar dies, leaving half his property to his widow and half to his brothers, Cumar and Danger together, sharing equally. When Cumar makes his will, he keeps half his
- 14 -
property for his widow and the rest he bequeaths to his younger brother Danger. When Danger dies some years later, he keeps half his property for his widow and the remaining for his mother. The mother now has Rs.5,75,0000. What was the worth of the total property?
A] 3.9 crore
B] 2.9 crore
C] 2.8 crore
D] 2.4 crore"
14. The key answer is given as 'D'. In the clarification provided by the respondent at Annexure-
A4, the value is taken as 15750000 and the answer is arrived at 2.4 Crore i.e., item No.D. Though it is glaring that the first figure, No.1 is missing in the question paper, the argument of the learned Senior Counsel in this regard that no candidates have attempted to this question has some significance. None of the petitioners have challenged question Nos.32, 34 and 72 in response to the notification dated 14.07.2017 wherein an
- 15 -
opportunity was provided to the candidates up to 21.07.2017 to submit challenges if any by online mode to the questions/answer keys of Online Aptitude Test held for the posts of Assistant Engineers [Electrical]. It is significant to note that as per the statement provided by the Corporation, among the petitioners, Sri.G.C.Malleshappa, Sri.K.B.Sandeepa - appellant Nos.2 and 5 respectively in W.A.No.618/2018 have not challenged any question/answer keys in response to the said notification dated 14.07.2017. As far as the challenge made to question Nos.46, 59, 70 by the petitioner Nagendra Babu.K.R., the same has been accepted and the answer keys relating to these questions are revised. Similarly, question No.55 has been nullified accepting the challenge made by Mr.Sagar
- appellant No.3 in W.A.No.618/2018. the dispute thus remains with the question Nos.29, 38, 83, 98, 23, 55 and 73. The answer keys relating to these question are restored after considering the expert's opinion vis-à-vis
- 16 -
objections raised by the petitioners. Variable [a] is said to have been restored in the question No.72 but the said question was not challenged by the petitioners. Though it was alleged that there was an error found in question Nos.32, 34 and 72 but the said questions were not challenged by the petitioners in response to the notification dated 14.07.2017. Even assuming these questions are wrong, its effect would apply equally to all the candidates as well. In our considered view, giving additional marks to these questions to the petitioners alone would not be justifiable.
15. Judgments cited by respondent No.1 in W.A.No.1221/2018:
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kanpur University, through Vice Chancellor and Others V/s.
Samir Gupta and Others [(1983) 4 SCC 309], has held as under:
"16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University, contended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to
- 17 -
the correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. We agree that the key-answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The contention of the University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged text-books, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those text-books leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect.
17. Students who have passed their Intermediate Board Examination are eligible to appear for the entrance Test for admission to the Medical Colleges in U.P. Certain books are prescribed for the Intermediate Board Examination and such knowledge of the subjects as the students have is derived from what is contained in those text-books. Those
- 18 -
text-books support the case of the students fully. If this were a case of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong."
In the case of Subash Chandra Verma and Others Vs/. State of Bihar and Others [1995 Supp (1) SCC 325], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the High Court should have appointed an expert body and obtained its opinion about the confusing or controversial nature of questions. It has merely chosen to accept the version of the writ petitioners before it. The relevant paragraph is quoted here under:
"25 (3). Several controversial questions were set and in relation to some questions, there could be more than one answer: In an
- 19 -
objective type of test, more than one answer are given. The candidates are required to tick mark the answer which is the most appropriate out of the plurality of answers. The questions and answers were prescribed by the experts in the field with reference to standard books. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that a question will have more than one correct answer. Even if the answers could be more than one, the candidates will have to select the one which is more correct out of the alternative answers. In any event, this is a difficulty felt by all the candidates.
Mr. Kamla Kant Tripathi in his counter affidavit talks of only two questions. The High Court had come to the conclusion that 24% questions are confusing and controversial and do not adhere to the multiple type of questions.
Mr. M.L. Verma, learned counsel relying on Kanpur University and Ors, v. Samir Gupta and Ors., [1984] 1 SCR 73 would submit that the finding of the High Court on this aspect is fully justified.
- 20 -
We are unable to uphold this contention. Normally speaking, the High Court should have appointed an expert body and obtained its opinion about the confusing or controversial nature of questions. For reasons best known, it was not done. It has merely chosen to accept the version of the writ petitioners before it. The reason why this Court has repeatedly pointed out such matters being referred to an expert body and its opinion sought, is that in academic matters like this, courts do not have the necessary expertise. In Kanpur University's case [supra] relied upon by Mr. M.L, Verma, the following observations occur at pp. 81-82: [SCCp. 316, paras 16 and 17]."
In the case of Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput V/s. Gulbarga University [(2014) 3 SCC 767], in the context of an expert body i.e., the Board of Appointment consisting of high academicians has found the candidate eligible and qualified and which has been approved by the syndicate, the High Court ought not to
- 21 -
have acted as Court of appeal, examined the pros and cons and come to a conclusion that the candidate did not possess the requisite qualification. In that scenario, it has been observed that when two views are possible and expert body has taken a view, the same deserves acceptance. However, the same is not subject to judicial review cannot be accepted. Board of Appointment cannot be said to be final and absolute. Moreover, the Hon'ble High Court had having shown the selected candidates as ineligible quashing his appointment had issued the writ of mandamus for appointment of another candidate.
In the case of Guru Nanak Dev University V/s. Saumil Garg and Others [(2005) 13 SCC 749], the litigation relating to the medical interns test conducted by the Guru Nanak Dev University alleging the key answers to 21 questions were incorrect out of 200 questions was considered. Having regard to facts and
- 22 -
circumstances of the case, in particular the stage of the admissions and the fact of the medical courses are supposed to commence, directed the university to re- value the eight questions with reference to the key answers provided by the CBSE and the University of Delhi which were same and not with reference to the key answers provided by the University. At paragraphs 9 and 13, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus:
"9. Insofar as the aforesaid eight questions are concerned, namely, Questions 36, 49, 109, 110, 128, 165, 167 and 168, there can be no doubt that the key answers provided by the appellant University are demonstrably erroneous. Insofar as key answers to Questions 41 and 152 are concerned, benefit of doubt, as per law well settled by this Court, has to go in favour of the examining body.
13. In view of the aforesaid, we modify the directions contained in the impugned judgment of the High Court and direct the appellant University to revaluate
- 23 -
the answer-books in terms of the aforesaid directions and, on that basis, prepare the ranking of the students, within two days."
16. Judgments cited by appellant-Corporation in W.A.No.1221/2018:
In the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus:
"20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question paper 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 appearing for the examination and not for respondent no.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.
- 24 -
Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court."
In the case of Central Board of Secondary Education through Secretary, All India Pre- Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination and Others V/s. Khushboo Shrivastava and Others [(2014) 14 SCC 523], the subject matter was the comparison made by the learned Single Judge with the answers of the respondent qua the model answers produced by the CBSE and awarding two marks for answers in the Chemistry and Botany papers. Further, the Division Bench had agreed with the findings of the learned Single Judge. In that background, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus:
"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
- 25 -
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 & Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Ors. [(1984) 4 SCC 27] has observed :[SCC pp. 56-57, para 29] "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
- 26 -
consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. ...""
In the case of Ran Vijay Singh and Others supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the legal position in the following terms;
"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
- 27 -
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 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 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate."
Further, in paragraphs 31 and 32, why the constitutional Court must exercise restraint in such matters is also explained, the same reads thus:
"31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error
- 28 -
is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse - exclude the suspect or offending question.
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
- 29 -
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
- 30 -
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." In the case of Dr.Praveen Kumar I Kusubi V/s. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore and Others [ILR 2003 KAR 805], the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court has held thus:
"19. Therefore, it becomes clear that in academic matters this Court should be very slow to interfere with the decision arrived at by the experts in the field. When question papers are set, key answers to the said questions are provided by experts from outside the University, absolutely no motives could be attributed to such experts. Err is human. Even teacher may commit mistakes. Therefore, taking note of this hard fact of life in the scheme of examination a provision is made for announcement of key answers on the website after the examination and a carbon copy of the answer script is provided to the students who have taken the
- 31 -
examination to enable them to make self- assessment by comparing with key answers notified on the website. Fairness and transparency of the examination is beyond doubt. When a further provision is made for challenging the correctness of the answers notified on the website by giving a time of ten days from the date of notification of the key answers, a farther safeguard to the interest of the students is in built and their interest is taken care of. Thereafter, when the students challenge such key answers, a provision is made for review of such key answers by subject experts representing different branches of Medicine which has to be further approved by the P.G. Entrance Test Committee. All care is demonstrably taken to see that the students are not put to any injustice on account of a wrong key answer. If the challenge to the questions are accepted, then a modified key answer is published, and the results are declared on the basis of the modified key answers. Irrespective of the fact whether a student has challenged the correctness of a key answer or not, the
- 32 -
benefit of the corrected answer is given to all the students who took the examination. Thus, no one is discriminated in the process. It is thereafter the merit list is prepared. Merely because the students who had challenged some of the key answers are not happy with the modified key answers arrived at by an expert committee after referring to the relevant textbooks and reference books, it cannot be held that the key answers suggested by such students is the only correct answer. Though to substantiate their contentions, they relay on some passages from textbooks, it is to be noted that those passages are also nothing but an opinion by one such expert only. No book or no one expert's opinion can/he said to be final. Experts are bound to differ. Therefore, when a committee of experts is constituted and after considering the challenge to the key answers, if that committee of experts after referring to relevant textbooks and reference books suggests what is the correct answer, it is not open to the students to again find fault with the said answer and contend that the answer
- 33 -
suggested by the students alone is correct answer and that should be accepted and mark should be given on the basis of such answer. In all these matters at some stage there should be some finality. It is relevant to point out at this juncture that in the multiple choice objective type test, where four answers are given out of which the student has to select one answer, it is not as if the other three answers are patently and totally wrong.
All the four answers in different circumstances could be correct answers. But what the student is expected to do is to select one best response out of the four plausible alternatives. Here the experts in the field may differ, and they are entitled to stick to their opinion. It is because of this complex nature, the question papers are not set by individual but a group of a committee of experts who after due deliberation having reached a broad consensus set the questions and select one best response out of the four plausible alternatives, as the correct answer. Thus, all care is taken to minimise the human error and see that no injustice is done to students."
- 34 -
It is beneficial to quote the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Abhishek Pratap Ajay and Others V/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others [W.P.[Civil].No.7364 of 2011, D.D. on 05.10.2011], the relevant paragraph reads thus:
"5. Tribunal has accepted the reasoning and stand of the respondent. We agree with the findings of the tribunal in the impugned decision. The respondents in the examination paper were evaluating and examining the understanding of the candidates in English language and had expected the candidates to answer the questions not on the basis of their general understanding but on the basis of grammar and textbook English. It is not for the Court to determine and set the standards and question the nature of the questions and answers which were expected. This is entirely in the domain of the respondents. They have to determine and decide, keeping in view their needs and requirement. The question paper and key answers are set by experts in consultation with others in the
- 35 -
relevant field and as per the job requirements. Needless to state, we do not find any absurdity in the answers which have been treated as correct answers for the two questions. The respondents were obviously looking at certain amount of precision and exactness in the answers and not vagueness, as per the keys that have been treated as the correct answers. Moreover, any interference will upset the entire selection process itself."
17. In W.A.No.618/2018, the appellants have relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manish Ujwal and Others V/s. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University and others [(2005) 13 SCC 744], wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus:
"9. In Kanpur University, through vice-Chancellor and Ors. v. Samir Gupta and Ors.,[(1984) 4 SCC 309] considering similar problem, this Court held that there is an assumption about the key answers being correct and in case of doubt, the court would unquestionably prefer the key answer. It as for this reason that we have not referred to
- 36 -
those key answers in respect whereof there is a doubt as a result of difference of opinion between experts. Regarding the key answers in respect whereof the matter, is beyond the realm of doubt, this. Court has held that it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong. There is No dispute about the aforesaid six key answers being demonstrably wrong and this fact has rightly not been questioned by the learned counsel for the University. In this view, students cannot be made to suffer for the fault and negligence of the University.
9. The High Court has committed a serious illegality in coming to the conclusion that "it cannot be said with certainty that answers to six questions given in the key answers were erroneous and incorrect". As already noticed, the key answers are palpably and demonstrably erroneous. In that view of the matter, the student community, whether the appellants or intervenors or even those
- 37 -
who did not approach the High Court or this Court, cannot be made to suffer on account of errors committed by the University. For the present, we say no more because there is nothing on record as to how this error crept up in giving the erroneous key answers and who was negligent. At the same time, however, it is necessary to note that the University and those who prepare the key answers have to be very careful and abundant caution is necessary in these matters for more than one reasons. We mention few of those; first and paramount reason being the welfare of the student and a wrong key answer can result in the merit being made a casualty. One can well understand the predicament of a young student at the threshold of his or her career if despite giving correct answer, the student suffers as a result of wrong and demonstrably erroneous key answer; the second reason is that the courts are slow in interfering in education matters which, in turn, casts a higher responsibility on the University while preparing the key answers; and thirdly, in cases of doubt, benefit goes in favour of the
- 38 -
University and not in favour of the students. If this attitude of casual approach in providing key answer is adopted by concerned persons, directions may have to be issued for taking appropriate action, including the disciplinary action, against those responsible for wrong and demonstrably erroneous key answers but we refrain from issuing such directions in the present case."
In the light of these judgments, we have analyzed the issue on hand.
18. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 29.06.2021 has dismissed the W.P.Nos.11216/2017 and Connected matters filed by similarly situated candidates. Much emphasis was placed by the appellants - candidates on the interim order passed in the said writ petition which reads thus: "Keeping in mind the rights and claims of the petitioners to challenge the assessment of their answer sheets by the respondents, keeping in mind that the respondents also need
- 39 -
necessary hands for the smooth functioning, the respondents are directed to clearly indicate in the appointment letter that the appointment shall be submit to the final decision of the Writ Court in Writ Petition No.11216/2017 & Connected Matters." Now, the said W.P.No.11216/2017 has been dismissed.
19. Subsequent to the memo filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.56146/2017 along with the opinion of academicians in support of her claim, Professor K.B.Akhilesh, Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru who has finalized the key answers has provided a detailed justification vide letter dated 17.03.2018 as per Annexure-A4 [in W.A.No.1221/2018]. Concept to the answer taken from the text book quantitative Aptitude by Arun Sharma is also placed on record by the Corporation. However, this Court cannot sit in the armchair of an academician to examine the correctness of the opinions furnished by both the sides, experts may bound to differ. As held by
- 40 -
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kanpur University supra, key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation.
20. In our considered view, calling for opinion of experts would be endless exercise unless it is such glaring error demonstrated to be wrong. As observed in Dr.Praveen Kumar I Kusubi supra, no book or no expert's opinion can be said to be final. If opinion is sought on the opinions of two experts again which opinion is correct would be a question. The settled legal principles that the Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption and in the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate squarely applies to the case on hand.
21. In the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar V/s. Staff Selection
- 41 -
Commission and Another [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.1951/2022], decided on 28.02.2022, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus:
"The grievance voiced by the petitioner before the High Court was that certain marks which were deducted ought not to have been deducted. Basically, the issue before the High Court was evaluation of the answer scripts of the petitioner. The High Court has rightly refused to entertain the writ petition by observing that when the conscious decision has been taken by the experts and the courts have no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to the academics, we see no reason to interfere with the same. Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed."
In the light of this judgment, our view is fortified that the conscious decision taken by the expert should not be disturbed by the Courts which has no expertise in the academic matters.
22. Given the circumstances, reasoning of the learned Single Judge in refraining to go deeply into the
- 42 -
correctness of the answer keys while exercising the writ jurisdiction does not call for any interference. Moreover, such interference will upset the entire selection process which has already been done.
23. For the reasons aforesaid, we pass the following:
ORDER i] W.A.No.618/2018 is dismissed.
ii] W.A.No.1221/2018 is allowed.
iii] The interim order of the learned Single Judge dated 05.04.2018 passed in W.P.No.56146/2017 impugned herein, is set aside.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE NC.