Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mukul Dev vs Chandigarh Administration And Anr on 14 October, 2024
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Sudeepti Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:134123-DB
LPA-2297-202
2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA-2297
2297-2024 (O&M)
Reserved on 001.10.2024
Pronounced on: October 14, 2024
Mukul Dev ......Appellant
vs.
Chd. Administration and anr. .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Vikramjeet Brar, Advocate and
Mr. Vishavjeet S. Beniwal,
Beniwal Advocate
fo the appellant.
for
Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. Standing Panel counsel and
M
Ms. Aashna Gill, Jr. Standing counsel
for
or U.T. Chandigarh
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause Clause-X of the Letters Patent Appeal Act, is preferred against the judgment dated 17.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 22710 22710-2024 titled as 'Mukul Dev Vs. Chandigarh Administration and another', another', whereby prayer of the appellant for setting aside revised answers answers key dated 21.08.202 21.08.2024 of question No. 17 of TGT (Part-A A Examination) Booklet Code-C, Code C, has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case as stated in the Civ Civil Writ Petition are that the appellant, pursuant to an advertisement dated 09.02.2024, applied for the post of TGT in the stream strea of Physical Education. The appellant participated in the written test which was conducted on 22.06.2024. The respondent released 1 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2024 19:26:34 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:134123-DB LPA-2297-202 2024 -2- answers key on 01.07.2024. The candidates were free to file their objections to the answerss key.. Various candidates filed their objections to the answerss key uploaded by respondent. The committee of experts considered the objections of the candidates and made corrections in the answer key with respect to different questions of different subjects. Th Thee respondent issued revised answers key on 21.08.2024. The appellant filed objections on 22.08.2024 with respect to revised answers of question No.17 of TGT (Part (Part-A A Examination) Booklet Code-C. Code C. The respondent declared the merit list on 30.08.2024, wherein the name of the appellant did not figure. The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed and hence the present appeal. SUBMISSION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge has wrongly dismissed the civil writ petition, since the answer key given by the respondent-department respondent department to Question No. 17 in the revised merit list, is palpably incorrect.
incorrect
4. Per contra, contra learned counsel for the respondent respondents contend that the answers key was revised on account of the objections raised by various candidates. She further contends that the objections filed by the appellant were also considered and as per communication dated 09.09.2024 received from the National Institute of Electronics aand nd Information Technology, Chandigarh, which had conducted the examination, the correct answer of Question No. 17 is Option 'C'.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of the case.
2
2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2024 19:26:34 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:134123-DB LPA-2297-202 2024 -3-
7. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the arguments raised by both the parties and by relying upon the judgments, dismissed the writ petition. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
"5.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P.P.S.C and others Vs. Rahul Singh and others, 2018 AIR (Supreme Court) 2861 while adverting with correctness of answers key has held :
"12. The law is well settled 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 incorrect totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The Constitutional Courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to eentertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers."
6. Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2018) 2 SCC 357 while dealing with the question of revaluation or scrutiny of answer sheets has held :
"30. The law 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 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; 3
3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2024 19:26:34 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:134123-DB LPA-2297-202 2024 -4-
(ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation re evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permi permit reevaluation 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 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 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 r 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 4 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2024 19:26:34 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:134123-DB LPA-2297-202 2024 -5- 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 examinati 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 he 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 examinatio authorities. The present appeals are a classic examination 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 examina examination - whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or 5 5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2024 19:26:34 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:134123-DB LPA-2297-202 2024 -6- 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."
7. "Relying Relying upon plethora of judgments, a Division Bench of this Court vide vide judgement dated 01.06.2023 in CWP No.11695 of 2023 titled as "Navdeep Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others others"
has held that in the absence of allegations against the expert panel or malafide on the part of respondents, the Court cannot re re-
examine answers key key and interfere in the matter.
8. In the wake of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, a Division Bench of this High Court and the fact that respondent constituted a committee which had examined all the objections and there is no allegation of mala fide, fide, this Court does not find it appropriate to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction. The Court cannot invoke jurisdiction just because there is difference of opinion qua answer of a particular question.
9. Dismissed."
8. As held by Hon'ble the Supreme Cour Court in the judgments referred to above, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 17.09.2024 passed by the learned Single, Single, since the scope of judicial review is narrow.
6
6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2024 19:26:34 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:134123-DB LPA-2297-202 2024 -7-
9. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed and the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is upheld.
10. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SURESHWAR
SURESHWAR THAKUR)
THAKUR (SUDEEPTI
SUDEEPTI SHARMA
SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
October 14, 2024
G Arora
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
7
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2024 19:26:34 :::