Bharti Bhandari vs Uttarakhand School Education Board

K.M. Joseph, C.J.

Appellant is the writ petitioner. Appellant filed the writ petition being aggrieved by not passing muster in the test known as ''Teacher Eligibility Test'' which was necessary to become eligible to teach in an elementary school in a Government College in Uttarakhand, though the appellant appeared in the examination which was for 150 marks and the qualifying marks were 90 out of 150. Appellant initially got 88 marks. Thereafter, on revaluation she got 89 marks. The complaint of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that if the answer to question No. 78 had been correctly valued, appellant would have got qualifying marks of 90. The question involved was as follows:--

".........dog is a faithful animal."

There were four options. Option (A) was ''A'', option (B) was the word ''The'', option (C) was ''One'' and option (D) was ''An''. Appellant gave the answer to the said question as option (A). The respondent took the view that the correct answer would be option (B) and, therefore, the sentence would be as follows:--

"The dog is a faithful animal."

The learned Single Judge took the view that the answer, as found by the expert committee, is correct answer and the writ petition was dismissed. Hence, the appeal.

We have heard Shri Vijay Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant as also Ms. Shivangi Gangwar, learned counsel for the respondent.

Learned counsel for the appellant points out that this is not an obtrusively technical matter that the Court must pay undue obeisance to the view found by the experts. It relates to English grammar which can not be described as a technical matter where the general principle of the experts'' perspective being supreme in a proceeding in judicial review prevails. He would draw our attention to an English book for Class-V, wherein he would point out that the sentence is given as "A dog is a_____animal." He also drew our attention to page 7 of Chapter 1 of the book known as "English Guide to Intermediate English" by Dr. R.P. Tewari and S.P. Jain, wherein reference is made under the heading "The Indefinite Articles". He would refer to paragraph 7 of page 7 of Chapter 1 of the said book, which reads as follows:--

"In order to represent the whole species before the Singular Noun-

The dog is a faithful animal (=Dogs are faithful animals.)

There is only one meaning of the following three sentences;

A dog is a faithful animal.

The dog is a faithful animal.

Dogs are faithful animals."

Learned counsel for the appellant also drew our attention to "a course in English Grammar Advanced Level" by R.N. Bakshi, wherein reference is made under the heading "Articles and Generic reference" at page 49, which reads as follows:--

"An article along with the noun head may refer to the given noun in a generic sense:

Dogs are faithful animals. (40)

A dog is a faithful animal. (41)

The dog is a faithful animal. (42)

Sentences 40, 41 and 42 refer to the class dog without referring to an individual dog and therefore, dogs, a dog, the dog in the above sentences are said to have generic reference."

Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant also drew our attention to Lucent''s General English by A.K. Thakur at page 23, which reads as follows:--

"Rule (17): A/An is used before Singular Countable Noun to represent the class and species, e.g.

A cow is a domestic animal.

[A cow = all cows]

An ox is a very useful animal.

[An ox = all oxen]

Again

A cow is a domestic animal.

=cows are domestic animals.

=A11 cows are domestic animals.

=The cow is a domestic animal.

The meaning of above sentences is identical/common."

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that no interference is called for in view of the opinion of the experts which alone had been adopted by the Committee.

We find from the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition that a procedure has been followed by the respondent. Para 8 & para 10 of the counter affidavit read as follows:--

"8. That the contents of para 6 of the writ petition are not admitted, hence denied. The result declared by the respondent Board is based on the committee decision taken on 09.01.2013. The committee consists of relevant subjects experts who assessed the questions and answer based on universal acceptance of these questions and answers which are quoted in recognized books of the concerned subjects.

That the contents of para 8 of writ petition are not admitted, hence denied. The question No. 78 has been assessed by the Expert Committee who do not agree with objections filed by the petitioner as in the General English book approved by the School Education Board, Ramnagar. The answer to the disputed question is "The". The fact is also substantiated by the book "High School English Grammar and Composition" by Wren and Martin which displays the use of article "The" in English Grammar. Both books clearly states that the article "THE" is used when we talk about a particular person or thing. The word "dog" represents a whole class or specie existing on this earth having its separate and independent identity totally different from all other living species on this earth. Therefore the true answer is "The" to the question No. 78. That as far as question No. 38 is concerned all incumbents have been awarded 1 marks who attended this question. The question No. 31 answered by the petitioner is wrong as the true answer can be checked/sought from the book "Lokbharti Pramanika Hindi Kosh" by Acharya Shyam Chandra Verma and also from "Hindi Sampurna Pathyasamagri Kaksha 9 ke liye". This book is taught in Schools affiliated to School Education Board, Ramnagar."

Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the appellant, para 13 of which reads as follows:--

"13. That the contents of Para 10 of the counter affidavit are not correct, hence, denied. In reply it is submitted that question No. 78 has wrongly been assessed by the expert committee on the ground that the reference taken by the respondent from the book said to be authentic, it is nowhere stated that the use of Article ''A'' is wrong to the answer of the disputed question. Moreover, how it can be said that the reference book taken by the respondent is authentic, although the reference taken by the respondent from the books as annexed in the counter affidavit is not a hurdle in the case of the petitioner."

Judicial review does not tantamount to exercise of appellate powers by the High Court. The High Court does not sit, in other words, as an appellate body to review findings by the authority. If the High Courts were to sit as an appellate body, then probably in an appropriate case it will always be open to the High Court to hold the view that the finding of the authority in the impugned proceedings is incorrect and, therefore it warrants interference. In judicial review the Court is concerned with the decision making process. Be it the wednesbury''s doctrine, the doctrine of proportionality, the principle of legitimate expectation or the principle of promissory estoppel which are all tools which have been adopted in this country for the purpose of dealing with and striking down the administrative action, they are all based on certain criteria which can not clothe the writ Court with powers which are akin to that of an appellate body. Unless we remind ourselves injudicial review proceedings of the limitations that attach to the exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we are likely to stray and go beyond the bounds of our jurisdiction. In this case, apparently objections were received to the answer key which were referred to an expert body. The experts have opined that the correct answer is option (B). The reasoning has been given which we have already adverted to in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit. If we look at the view of the experts in the context of the jurisdiction that we exercise, we would think that though the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant may sound attractive, we may be erring in accepting the same. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.