Allahabad High Court
Rohit Shukla And 110 Ors. vs State Of U.P. And 5 Ors. on 7 May, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 ALL 729
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RESERVED
AFR
In Residence
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4052 of 2020
Petitioner :- Rohit Shukla And 110 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Preet Pal Singh Rathore,Anil Tiwari (Senior Advocate)
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Alongwith
WRIA/625/2021, WRIA/1102/2021, WRIA/655/2021, WRIA/1230/2021, WRIA/824/2021, WRIA/1238/2021, WRIA/678/2021, WRIA/1570/2021, WRIA/1601/2021, WRIA/689/2021, WRIA/571/2021, WRIA/517/2021, WRIA/808/2021, WRIA/122/2021, WRIA/1684/2021, WRIA/983/2021, WRIA/1093/2021, WRIA/1310/2021, WRIA/1008/2021, WRIA/1554/2021, WRIA/179/2021, WRIA/616/2021, WRIA/393/2021, WRIA/737/2021, WRIA/1100/2021, WRIA/4612/2020, WRIA/4821/2020, WRIA/4615/2020, WRIA/4639/2020, WRIA/4651/2020, WRIA/4669/2020, WRIA/4746/2020, WRIA/9325/2020, WRIA/5026/2020, WRIA/4836/2020, WRIA/4846/2020, WRIA/4891/2020, WRIA/5090/2020, WRIA/4983/2020, WRIA/4939/2020, WRIA/4055/2020, WRIA/4968/2020, WRIA/5174/2020, WRIA/4995/2020, WRIA/9988/2020, WRIA/4073/2020, WRIA/4267/2020, WRIA/4970/2020, WRIA/5103/2020, WRIA/5113/2020, WRIA/8661/2020, WRIA/5189/2020, WRIA/5938/2020, WRIA/6908/2020, WRIA/8563/2020, WRIA/14119/2020, WRIA/4415/2020, WRIA/4532/2020, WRIA/4421/2020, WRIA/4761/2020, WRIA/5133/2020, WRIA/6679/2020, WRIA/5036/2020, WRIA/5457/2020, WRIA/5129/2020, WRIA/5131/2020, WRIA/5132/2020, WRIA/6730/2020, WRIA/7003/2020, WRIA/5591/2020, WRIA/4322/2020, WRIA/4309/2020, WRIA/13848/2020, WRIA/14953/2020, WRIA/13857/2020, WRIA/5952/2020, WRIA/4295/2020, WRIA/4077/2020, WRIA/13756/2020, WRIA/4198/2020, WRIA/4335/2020, WRIA/4080/2020, WRIA/4225/2020, WRIA/14010/2020, WRIA/4292/2020, WRIA/11073/2020, WRIA/4069/2020, WRIA/4068/2020, WRIA/4805/2020, WRIA/5955/2020, WRIA/4075/2020, WRIA/4078/2020, WRIA/4059/2020, WRIA/4067/2020, WRIA/4072/2020, WRIA/4053/2020, WRIA/5127/2020, WRIA/4240/2020, WRIA/14615/2020, WRIA/4274/2020, WRIA/4264/2020, WRIA/4099/2020, WRIA/4245/2020, WRIA/4901/2020, WRIA/4461/2020, WRIA/4244/2020, WRIA/4686/2020, WRIA/4189/2020, WRIA/13447/2020, WRIA/4311/2020, WRIA/5555/2020, WRIA/4368/2020, WRIA/4518/2020, WRIA/4191/2020, WRIA/4773/2020, WRIA/4753/2020, WRIA/5729/2020, WRIA/5982/2020, WRIA/12468/2020, WRIA/4886/2020, WRIA/4074/2020, WRIA/4096/2020, WRIA/4076/2020, WRIA/4766/2020, WRIA/4279/2020, WRIA/12663/2020, WRIA/5008/2020, WRIA/4256/2020, WRIA/12565/2020, WRIA/14262/2020, WRIA/9085/2020, WRIA/4054/2020, WRIA/6053/2020, WRIA/7800/2020, WRIA/4334/2020, WRIA/4290/2020, WRIA/10700/2020, WRIA/4211/2020, WRIA/5862/2020, WRIA/4061/2020, WRIA/10664/2020, WRIA/4079/2020, WRIA/4058/2020, WRIA/4056/2020, WRIA/13254/2020, WRIA/4081/2020, WRIA/4105/2020, WRIA/4116/2020, WRIA/4188/2020, WRIA/4196/2020, WRIA/4197/2020, WRIA/4205/2020, WRIA/4207/2020, WRIA/4210/2020, WRIA/4213/2020, WRIA/4402/2020, WRIA/4218/2020, WRIA/4224/2020, WRIA/4237/2020, WRIA/4238/2020, WRIA/4239/2020, WRIA/4315/2020, WRIA/4273/2020, WRIA/4259/2020, WRIA/4391/2020, WRIA/4314/2020, WRIA/4317/2020, WRIA/4497/2020, WRIA/4324/2020, WRIA/4319/2020, WRIA/4327/2020, WRIA/4330/2020, WRIA/4478/2020, WRIA/4348/2020, WRIA/4398/2020, WRIA/4440/2020, WRIA/4574/2020, WRIA/4589/2020, WRIA/4851/2020
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
This bunch of the writ petitions have been filed by thousands of candidates raising a challenge to the key answers in the final answer key published on 08.05.2020 in an examination conducted on 06.01.2019.The recruitment was held to fill up vacancies of the post of Assistant Teachers in different basic schools run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad in the State of U.P. pursuant to a notification dated 01.12.2018. The present set of writ petitions are second round of litigation by the candidates who seek to challenge the key answers displayed by the examining body after entertaining the objections raised by several candidates. The writ petitions filed in the month of May' 2020 and afterwards tagged in the present bunch, had been heard on 09.02.2021. At the very inception of the hearing, the Court had directed the counsels for the petitioners to sit together and find out the specific number of questions with reference to the booklet series ''A', key answers of which are subject matter of challenge in the present bunch.
At the time of hearing, the counsels for the petitioners had given the number of the questions of the booklet question series ''A' with corresponding questions of the booklet series ''B', ''C' and ''D', key answers of which are challenged as being incorrect. The question numbers and reference to the material which is the basis of challenge to the correctness of the key answers would be referred at the appropriate stage of the judgement.
However, before doing the same, it would be pertinent to note that the petitioners herein claim that they had submitted their objections to the answer key displayed by the examining body on 08.01.2019 but they were not adverted to. Much emphasis had been laid to the doubt expressed by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Lucknow Bench) in the judgement and order dated 03.06.2020 in Service Single No.8056 of 2020 (Rishabh Mishra & others Vs. State of U.P. & others) connected with 30 others writ petitions to support their submissions by the counsels for the petitioners on the correctness of the key answers under challenge, and it was pressed that in view of the said observations directions be issued for fresh evaluation by the experts.
With reference to the reasoning given therein, it is vehemently argued by the learned counsels for the petitioners that the final answer key displayed on 08.05.2020 with reference to the questions challenged therein is wrong and need fresh evaluation by the committee of experts as directed by the Bench in the aforesaid order.
It is important to note that the Division Bench of this Court in the judgement and order dated 12.06.2020 in Special Appeal No.154 of 2020 (Examination Regulatory Authority, Allahabad & others Vs. Rishabh Mishra & others) connected with others filed by the examining body had stayed the effect and operation of the judgement and order dated 03.06.2020 passed in the aforesaid matter.
It would be fruitful to note, at the outset, that the doubt expressed by the learned Single Judge in the judgement and order dated 03.06.2020 while evaluating the material put forth by the petitioners in the aforesaid bunch of the writ petitions cannot be made basis to sustain the challenge. It is well settled that in a case of challenge to the correctness of the key answer, burden is on the petitioners who brought such challenge before the Court to sustain the same by bringing contemporaneous material at the first instance. Any casual challenge to the correctness of the key answers cannot be entertained by the Constitutional Court. The legal position in this regard would be elaborately dealt with in the later part of this judgement. It would, however, be pertinent to note at this juncture that in the examination-in-question, held for the selection to the posts of Assistant Teachers in the State of U.P., out of total 150 questions objections to the correctness of key answer to 142 questions were filed by more than twenty thousand candidates. It seems that such an overwhelming number of objections had resulted in delaying the evaluation process and it took almost one year to the examining body to re-evaluate the key answer on the objections of candidates and final key answer was displayed on 08.05.2020. With the display of the final answer key, another set of litigation had started and this Court was flooded with the writ petitions challenging the correctness of the key answer. It took around two months to the Court to go through the records of the writ petitions in this Bunch to find out as to whether any relevant material has been placed by the petitioners to sustain their challenge. The Court is afraid to note, at the outset, that most of the writ petitions in the present bunch are lacking in material particulars and had been filed in a casual manner. The counsels have succeeded in getting their writ petitions tagged with the leading writ petition No.4052 of 2020 on the plea of pendency of the same challenging the correctness of the key answer. Some of the writ petitions are appended with the extract of random competition books available in the open market or the material downloaded by the petitioners from the internet or no material at all,only the question booklet. Many of the writ petitions have been filed by more than 100 candidates joined in one writ petition without even disclosing that they had filed objections before the examining body at the first instance. The challenge to some of the questions has been made on the ground that they are out of syllabus/curriculum set up by the examining body. Reference may be made to one of such writ petitions namely Writ Petition No.1238 of 2021 (Sanjay Kumar Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. & others) filed on 12.01.2021 which is connected to the leading writ petition No.4052 of 2020. No material whatsoever has been brought on the record of the said writ petition and only a copy of the question booklet series ''C' has been appended thereto.The Court is constrained to observe that such a casual challenge to the correctness of the key answer should be thrown out at the threshold i.e. on the first date of the admission of the writ petition. A candidate who disputes the correctness of an answer key must establish that an objection to the correctness thereof was raised at the earliest available opportunity or at least must satisfy the Court that he is in possession of sufficient/ contemporaneous material to establish patent or manifest error in the answer key published by the examining body.
It would be apposite to notice the legal position as enunciated by the Apex Court in laying down the test that would apply while evaluating the challenge to key answer prepared in the course of a recruitment process. In a recent decision in U.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Rahul Singh and another reported in 2018 (7) SCC 254 while reiterating the principles enunciated in Kanpur University through Vice Chancellor & others Vs. Samir Gupta & others reported in 1983 (4) SCC 309, it was held that the onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. It was held therein that the Constitutional Courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answer in a casual manner.
The following observations in Kanpur University (supra) were noted therein as under:-
"..........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 rationalization. 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........."
In Ran Vijay Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. & others reported in 2018 (2) SCC 357, the Apex Court after referring to a catena of judicial pronouncements 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: (i) 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; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; (iii) 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; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.
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 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 tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination - whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the Court; whether they will get admission in a college or University or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers".
It was, thus, held that:-
(i) Key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong.
(ii) It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong and no inferential process of reasoning should be adopted by the Court to hold or show that the key answer is wrong.
(iii) The onus is such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard it as correct.
In the light of the above legal position, this Court proceeds to examine as to whether the challenge to the key answer in the present bunch would qualify the above test.
Having perused the record of the writ petitions, the reasoning given by the expert committee while finalising the key answer displayed on 08.05.2020 after analysing the objections made by candidates, as also the arguments of the learned counsels for the petitioners, this Court is afraid to record a categorical "NO" at the first instance, in as much as, the challenge to the key answer in the instant bunch is casual. No contemporaneous/relevant material has been placed on the record of the writ petitions to sustain the challenge. The petitioners have utterly failed in discharge of the onus laid on them. The material placed by the counsels in support of the challenge does not permit the Court to entertain the present bunch of the writ petitions, in as much as, it could neither be demonstrated nor proved that the final answer key displayed on 08.05.2020 was incorrect. The inferential process of reasoning as adopted by the counsels for the petitioners during the course of their arguments cannot be made basis to hold that the answer key finalised by the examining body is wrong. The material placed on record is not such which would even create any doubt in the mind of the Court so as to relegate the matter for fresh examination by an expert committee, as directed by the learned Single Judge in the interim order dated 03.06.2020 heavily relied upon by the learned counsels for the petitioners.
Reference to some of the material placed from the record before the Court would suffice in support of the conclusion drawn above.
The challenge to the correctness of the key answer of question Nos. 12, 47, 48, 60, 71, 76, 79, 106 & 111 of the booklet series ''A', corresponding to the same questions referred with different numbers in the booklet series ''B', ''C', & ''D', has been placed before the Court during the course of argument by the learned counsels for the petitioners with reference to the material brought by them on record. The respondents namely the examining body and the State, on the other hand, have brought on the record the reasoning given by the expert committee along with some material in support of the answer key. The material and the plea in support of the challenge in leading Writ Petition No.4052 of 2020 and writ petition No.4753 of 2020 would be referred hereinafter in support of the reasoning given for the conclusion drawn by the Court hereinbefore.
The question Nos.12, 71 & 79 are being challenged on the ground that they are out of syllabus and hence cannot be made basis for evaluation. It is contended that all the petitioners herein are, therefore, entitled to one mark each for the said questions. The question Nos.12, 71 & 79 are noted as under:-
"12. जदपि सुजाति सुलच्छनी, सुबरन सरस सुवृत भूषण बिनु न बिराजई , कविता बनिता मित्त ।
(1) केशवदास (2) बिहारीलाल (3) सेनापति (4) आचार्य दण्डी"
"71. Edible salt is made up of;-
(1) weak acid and weak base (2) strong acid and strong base (3) weak acid and strong base (4) strong acid and weak base"
"79. The volume of 4.4 g CO2 at NTP will be;-
(1) 22.4 L (2) 2.24 L (3) 224L (4) 44.8 L"
The expert committee has, however, found that the said questions pertain to the syllabus prescribed by the examining body. The reasoning given by the expert committee in support of its conclusion is also relevant to be noted herein under:-For question no.12-"हिंदी के पाठ्यक्रम व्याकरण एवं अपठित गद्यांश से सम्बंदित प्रश्न है। जो पाठ्यक्रम में है।"
Having perused the syllabus of the recruitment examination comprising of a vast variety of subjects which included हिंदी, संस्कृत व अंग्रेजी, विज्ञानं, गणित, पर्यावरण एवं सामाजिक अध्यन upto Class XII; शिक्षण कौशल बाल मनोविज्ञान सूचना तकनिकी जीवन कौशल प्रबंधन एवं अभिवृत्ति upto D.El.Ed. level , it cannot be accepted that the aforesaid questions were out of syllabus. To clarify, it is not possible for the Court to determine or examine the scope of the syllabus prescribed by the examining body and the question paper set up by the expert. Moreover, the reasoning put forth by the petitioners in support of their submissions with regard to the question No.12 being out of syllabus as the same pertains to Hindi Literature does not appeal to the Court.
Question No.71 has also been challenged on the ground that it is out of syllabus as it is alleged that it pertains to subject Chemistry. However, the reasoning given by the expert committee that the said question referred to the subject ''General Science/Science in daily life' seems to be more convincing. The challenge to the said question is, therefore, repelled.
With regard to the question No.79, it is stated that the same also pertains to subject Chemistry. Suffice it to say that such a microscopic evaluation of the question paper set up by the expert is not permitted to be made by the Court which is definitely not a subject expert. The arguments made by the counsels to challenge the said questions, therefore, cannot be sustained.
Further, on the correctness of the key answer of the following questions,it may be noted that:-
(a) "Question No.47:-
47. In India, poverty is estimated on the basis of;
(1) household consumption expenditure (2) per capita income (3) per capita expenditure (4) None of the above"
The material placed on the record of the Writ Petition No.4753 of 2020 (page 106 & 107) does not satisfy the test laid down by the Apex Court rather the same contains only a discussion on the subject as to how the evaluation of the poverty line has to be made. The answer to the specific question, noted above, cannot be found from the said material. Inference as sought to be drawn by the petitioners in the writ petition from the said material cannot be made basis to entertain the challenge to the key answer being wrong. The reasoning given by the expert in support of the key answer to question No.47 is found to be more justified and is relevant to be quoted as under :-
"विषय विशेषज्ञों द्वारा विकल्प सं 01 परिवार का उपभोग व्यय सही माना गया है। पूर्व में गरीबी का आंकलन प्रतिव्यक्ति आय के आधार पर किया जाता था। किन्तु कालांतर में अर्थशास्त्रियों द्वारा परिवार के उपभोग व्यय को गरीबी के आंकलन का आधार 2009-10 में तेंदुलकर समिति के रिपोर्ट के आधार पर माना गया"
(b) "Question No.48:-
48. Who among the following was the first President of the Constituent Assembly of India?
(1) Dr. Sachchidananda Sinha (2) Dr. Rajendra Prasad (3) Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (4) Prof. H.C. Mookerjee"
The plea of the petitioners in support of option No.2 being the correct answer is that Dr. Rajendra Prasad (option No.2) was the permanent President of the Constituent Assembly of India whereas Dr. Sachchidanand Sinha (option No.1) happened to be a temporary President of the Constituent Assembly of India. The said reasoning itself shows that the key answer is correct, in as much as, the catch words in the question are "First President" and not '' permanent or temporary President ''of the Constituent Assembly of India. In support of the key answer, the experts have given the following reasoning:-
"भारत का सांविधानिक विकास और सविंधान लेखक डा० सुभाष कश्यप की पुस्तक के अनुसार सविंधान सभा के अस्थायी पद पर डा० सच्चिदानंद सिन्हा को नियुक्त किया गया। डा० सच्चिनान्द सिन्हा के उपरांत डा० राजेंद्र प्रसाद सविंधान सभा के स्थायी अध्यक्ष नियुक्त किये गए. प्रस्तुत प्र्शन में स्थायी/अस्थायी अध्यक्ष का उल्लेख नहीं किया गया है। अतः विषय विशेषज्ञों की राय के मतानुसार डा० सच्चिनान्द सिन्हा सही उत्तर विकल्प है।"
(c) "Question No.54:-
54. Disability to read and write is;
(1) autism (2) dyslexia (3) dyspraxia (4) apraxia"
The plea of the petitioners is that none of the options to the said question are correct, in as much as, in another test conducted by the same examining body namely U.P. TET ''2011 wherein a question relating to' Dyslexia' was asked, the correct answer chosen by it was ''reading disorder'. Once the same examining body had treated "reading disorder" as the correct answer in a previous examination, the answer to the present question relating to ''disability to read and write' cannot be ''dyslexia' as the correct one. It is urged that as no correct answer was available, the petitioners in a state of utter confusion had attempted the said question and choose option No.'1' as the correct answer. The Court is afraid to accept this type of reasoning and the plea to assail the correctness of the key answer is found to be absurd, in as much as, in a multiple choice question the candidates are required to chose the best option out of the choices given in the question paper. It may be that two out of the four choices are so close to the correct answer that it may create some confusion in the mind of the candidates. In the opinion of the Court, the question paper is set up by the expert so as to test the knowledge of the candidates about the subject as also their ability of analytical reasoning. In a situation like this, only a candidate who has good knowledge of the subject would be able to choose the best answer. The choice of any alternative answer being close to the best answer on a detailed deliberation on the subject or topic may not be the correct approach while evaluating the correctness of the key answer and the question which may have two close options to test the acumen of a candidate . The material placed by the petitioners to challenge the correctness of option No.2 (Dyslexia) as the correct answer is not satisfactory. It is not possible to accept that the key answer is wrong or the question could create a serious doubt in the minds of the candidates so as to hold that all four options to the said question are wrong. The challenge to the correctness of the key answer to question No.54 is, therefore, repelled.
(d) "Question No.60:-
60. Educational administration provides appropriate education to appropriate student by appropriate teacher by which they can able to become the best by using available maximum resources" This definition is given by;
(1) S.N. Mukherjee (2) Carnbell (3) Welfare Grahya (4) Dr. Atmanand Mishra"
The said question pertains to the definition of the ''education administration' which is part of the curriculum 'शिक्षण कौशल'. The reasoning given by the expert in support of the said question and the correctness of the key answer (option No.3) is as under:-
"विषय विशेषज्ञ के अनुसार उत्तर विकल्प पर अंकित विकल्प संख्या 01, 02, 04 पर नामित विशेषज्ञ का इससे कोई सम्बन्ध नहीं है। जबकि विकल्प संख्या 03 पर अंकित विशेषज्ञ ग्राह्य सही उत्तर है। प्रश्न निर्माणकर्ता द्वारा इस बात को ध्यान में रख कर प्रश्न तैयार किया गया जिससे की उसके (परीक्षार्थी) अंदर तार्किक एवं परिस्थितियों के अनुसार निर्णय ले सकने की क्षमता को जाना जा सके। इसलिए उत्तर विकल्प 03 सही।"
Even the material brought on the record by the petitioner seems to be supporting the reasoning of the expert. Moreover, the Court is not a subject expert and no doubt could be created in the mind of the Court from the material brought on the record. The challenge to the correctness of the question No.60 or the key answer of the same, therefore, cannot be sustained.
(e) "Question No.76:-
76. Spiracles are used for breathing in;
(1) fish (2) cockroach (3) earthworm (4) pila"
The extract of the material appended to Writ Petition No.4753 of 2020 is not relevant whereas from the material brought on record of Writ Petition No.4052 of 2020 the key answer seems to be correct. The doubt raised by the petitioner regarding the correctness of the key answer or the plea of alternate choice of the correct answer is not convincing. The expert opinion supported with the material brought on the record by the respondent is as under:-
"जीव विज्ञान (एन.सी.ई.आर.टी) कक्षा-11 के पाठ्यपुस्तक के अनुसार तिलचट्टा (Cockroach) सही उत्तर है तथा अन्य विकल्प अमान्य है। केचुआ(Earthworm) एनिलिडा संघ का जंतु है। जिसके द्वारा श्वसन क्रिया त्वचा द्वारा की जाती है। अन्य जंतुओं द्वारा श्वसन क्रिया हेतु श्वास छिद्र का उपयोग श्वास के लिए नहीं किया जाता।"
For the said reasoning, correctness of the key answer of question No.76 cannot be doubted.
(f) "Question No.106:-
106. Who was the originator of a cult named ''Nath Panth'?
(1) Matsyendranath (2) Gorakhnath (3) Shri Nath (4) Vasav"
The claim of the petitioners is that both the option Nos.1 & 2 of the said question are correct. Whereas the expert opinion states as under:-
"मत्स्येन्द्रनाथ गोरखनाथ के गुरु थे जोकि नाथपंथ समप्रदाय के संस्थापक थे। (डा० के० सी० श्रीवास्तव के प्राचीन इतिहास एवं संस्कृति मत्स्येन्द्रनाथ द्वारा नाथपंथ की शुरुआत की गयी। जिसका प्रचार-प्रसार गोरखनाथ द्वारा किया गया।"
A perusal of the material placed on record by the petitioners also indicate that the option No.'1' is the correct answer, in as much as, the question was "Who was the originator of a cult named Nath Panth". The origin of ''Nath Panth' is to the credit of Matsyendranath, the teacher of "Gorakhnath" who later became propagator of the Nath Panth. There is a difference between ''originator' and ''propagator' which has been clearly spelt out in the report of the expert.
The challenge to the correctness of the key answer of question No.106, therefore, cannot be sustained.
"Lastly, (g) question No.111:-
111. Central Glass and Ceramic Research Institute is located at:-
(1) Agra (2) Khurja (3) Kanpur (4) Ferozabad"
The challenge to the correctness of the key answer of the said question is that the Central Glass and Ceramic Research Institute is located in Kolkata whereas Kolkata is not an option. The reason given by the expert that one unit of the said institute is situated in Khurja, Bulandshahar in the State of U.P. could not be assailed by the petitioner. The reasoning given by the expert regarding the correctness of the key answer, therefore, cannot be disbelieved or stated to be wrong.
For the aforesaid reasons, the key answer of none of the questions under challenge can either be said to be incorrect or doubtful. The challenge to the final answer key displayed on 08.05.2020, therefore, is turned down.
However, before parting with the judgement, the Court is constrained to note that:-
i. Certain self checks and self restraints are to be observed by the Court while entertaining a writ petition where the correctness of the key answer to a set of questions is challenged as entertaining a writ petition in a casual manner simply derails the whole selection process. As a self check measure, in each and every matter, the Court at the threshold, has to examine the merits of the objections of a candidate regarding the correctness of the key answer and to ask whether they are supported by any contemporaneous material so as to entertain the challenge to the decision of the expert. The controversy should be put at rest at the very beginning, i.e.at the stage of the admission of such a writ petition.
ii. Candidates who have not approached this Court well within a reasonable time (from the date of declaration of the answer key) should not be allowed to maintain their writ petition.
iii. The Court is not an expert of all subjects and has no expertise to evaluate the answer on its own. It is the duty of a petitioner to place relevant material and in absence of such material a writ petition should not be entertained simply on the ground that other writ petitions raising similar challenges have been entertained or pending.
iv. The contemporaneous material means authentic text book of the known established writer on the subject as the random competition books available in the open market cannot be relied upon by the Court to dispute the opinion of the expert who moderate the question papers and decide objections of the candidates.
v. In any case, the Court has to be circumspect before entertaining the writ petition of this nature which have to be maintained at a higher pedestal.
Every casual challenge can be turned down by perusal of the record of the writ petition on the first date of the admission of a writ petition.
Looking to the record of the writ petitions in this bunch, it seems as if it has now become a fashion to assail the correctness of the key answer on flimsy or non sustainable grounds.
In the recruitment in question, first and second phase of the appointment of Assistant Teachers in the State of U.P. could be completed only in the month of October' 2020 and January' 2021 and the selection process had to wait for about one year on account of objections filed by more than twenty thousand candidates to the correctness of key answers to 142 questions out of total 150.
It would not be an exaggeration to say that the candidates who had participated in the selection process in question had created a mess of the whole process.
This Court can only hope that the controversy is put to rest with this decision.
With the observations and conclusion drawn above, all the writ petitions in this bunch are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 07.05.2021 Himanshu