Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: key answer in Ragini Dwivedi And 8 Others vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others on 21 September, 2021Matching Fragments
4. Answers to fourteen (14) questions in the examination are disputed by the petitioners on the ground that they are wrong. To the extent of seven (7) out of these fourteen questions the Board has found substance in the challenge laid and those questions are deleted on the basis of expert opinion obtained and marks for these seven questions have been equally distributed to all candidates. Grievance, therefore, survives only in respect of seven questions.
5. At the outset, it would be worth noticing that written examination was conducted for the recruitment on 09.03.2019 and the first answer key was published on 26.03.2019. Objections were invited from the candidates between 27.03.2019 and 03.04.2019. After considering the objections raised a revised answer key was published on 25.10.2019. It appears that the corrected answer key published on 25.10.2019 was questioned in Writ Petition No.19059 of 2019, wherein a counter affidavit was invited from the Board. The Board appears to have called for a fresh opinion of experts in respect of the disputed questions and final answer key has been published on 12.02.2020, which is the basis of award of marks to the candidates.
(Emphasis supplied)
22. In Rishal and others vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others, (2018) 8 SCC 81, the Supreme Court again observed as under in paragraph nos.19, 24 and 26:
"19. The key answers prepared by the paper-setter or the examining body is presumed to have been prepared after due deliberations. To err is human. There are various factors which may lead to framing of the incorrect key answers. The publication of key answers is a step to achieve transparency and to give an opportunity to candidates to assess the correctness of their answers. An opportunity to file objections against the key answers uploaded by examining body is a step to achieve fairness and perfection in the process. The objections to the key answers are to be examined by the experts and thereafter corrective measures, if any, should be taken by the examining body. In the present case, we have noted that after considering the objections final key answers were published by the Commission thereafter several writ petitions were filed challenging the correctness of the key answers adopted by the Commission. The High Court repelled the challenge accepting the views of the experts. The candidates still unsatisfied, have come up in this Court by filing these appeals.
23. Yet, again in Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission through its Chairman and another vs. Rahul Singh and another, (2018) 7 SCC 254, the Apex Court reiterated the principles laid down in Kanpur University vs. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309 to observe as under in paragraph nos.12 to 14:
"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 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 entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers. In Kanpur University case [Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309] , the Court recommended a system of:
(1) moderation;
(2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions;
(3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions and no marks be assigned to such questions.
13. As far as the present case is concerned, even before publishing the first list of key answers the Commission had got the key answers moderated by two Expert Committees. Thereafter, objections were invited and a 26-member Committee was constituted to verify the objections and after this exercise the Committee recommended that 5 questions be deleted and in 2 questions, key answers be changed. It can be presumed that these Committees consisted of experts in various subjects for which the examinees were tested. Judges cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters. Unless, the candidate demonstrates that the key answers are patently wrong on the face of it, the courts cannot enter into the academic field, weigh the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides and then come to the conclusion as to which of the answers is better or more correct.