AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J): By filing the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:
“(a)call for the record and perused the same;
(b)quash and set aside the impugned order dated 05/01/2021 issued by respondent No. 3 and order dated 17/09/ 2021, issued by respondent No. 4 communicated vide letter dated 24/09/2021 being contradictory, arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law;
(c)direct the respondent to correct their mistake and update the Final Answer Key after considering the 4 questions as contested by the applicant and accordingly upgrade the mark--list of the applicant:
(d)direct the respondents to appoint the applicant to the post of Chargeman NT (Stores) w.e.f. 12/11/2020 and grant pay, allowances and all other consequential benefits arising thereof including arrears of pay alongwith interest @ 12% p.a.
(e)grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunaldeems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”
Facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as a Lower Divisional Clerk (in short ‘LDC’) by way of direct recruitment vide Appointment Letter dated 29.12.2015 (Annexure A/2). Since his appointment, the applicant claims to have discharged his duties with due care and to the satisfaction of his superior officers.
In order to fill up the vacancies to the post of Chargeman (Technical and Non-Technical – OTS & Stores) through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (in short ‘LDCE’), in terms of SRO-13E dated 04.05.1989Central Administrative Tribunal13E dated 04.05.1989, SRO-191 dated 28.11.1994 and SRO-66 dated 27.05.2003, a notification dated 22.05.2020 (Annexure A/3) was issued for the vacancies arising up to 01.01.2020. The applicant, being eligible for the post of Chargeman (Non-Technical – Stores), applied for the said examination.
The applicant was issued an admit card on 22.09.2020 and he appeared in the written examination conducted from 05.10.2020 to 07.10.2020 in three subjects, namely, General Knowledge (GK), Labour Accounting and Factory Accounts (LAFA), and Store Procedure and Material Management (SPMM).
As per the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) governing the conduct of the LDCE for Chargeman (Technical and Non-Technical) 2020, a Model/Provisional Answer Key was to be published on the OFRC COMNET website within 48 hours of completion of the examination. The candidates were permitted to challenge the provisional answer key, along with supporting references/material, within one week of its publication. Such objections were to be examined by an Expert Panel, whereafter the Final Answer Key was to form the basis for evaluation of the OMR answer sheets.
Pursuant to the aforesaid procedure, the applicant challenged 20 questions, comprising 3 questions in GK, 6 questions in LAFA and 11 questions in SPMM, along with supporting material. The Final Answer Keys were thereafter published on 12.11.2020. According to the applicant, out of the 20 questions challenged by him, only 16 were considered, while no response was furnished in respect of the remaining four (4) questions.
Meanwhile, the respondents published the provisional factory-wise select list and, consequently, the Factory Order dated 12.11.2020 for promotion of the selected candidates to the post of Chargeman. On 17.11.2020, the OFRC provided a link enabling the candidates to view their individual scores. The applicant found that he had secured 209 marks out of 250, whereas the cut-off for the Unreserved (UR) category was 210 marks. Consequently, his name did not figure in the select list.
The applicant thereafter submitted a representation dated 03.12.2020 (Annexure A/6), through proper channel, seeking reconsideration of the Final Answer Key and re-evaluation of his answer sheet in respect of the questions which, according to him, had been incorrectly answered or left unconsidered. In particular, the applicant contended that in LAFA Set-A, Question No. 1, the modified answer ‘D’ mentioned in the Final Answer Key was incorrect; in GK, Question No. 44, option ‘A’ was the correct answer instead of option ‘B’; and in SPMM Set-A, Questions Nos. 90 and 94, the answers differed from those adopted for identical questions in the Chargeman LDCE 2016 examination. On the basis of the material relied upon by him, the applicant claimed that five additional marks ought to have been awarded to him, which would have increased his total from 209 to 214 marks, thereby bringing him within the zone of selection against the UR vacancy.
The applicant's representation dated 03.12.2020 was forwarded by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 4 on 15.12.2020. In response, the respondents, vide communication dated 05.01.2021 (Annexure A/7), informed the applicant that there was no provision for revaluation of the OMR sheets in the LDCE/Chargeman 2020 examination.
The applicant thereafter submitted another representation dated 18.01.2021 (Annexure A/8), seeking a copy of his OMR answer sheet. The OMR sheet was furnished to him through email on 29.01.2021 (Annexure A/9). The applicant subsequently submitted another representation dated 17.12.2021(Annexure A/10), reiterating his grievance regarding the correctness of the answers and the marks awarded to him.
In the meantime, respondent No. 3, vide communication dated 24.09.2021, forwarded to the applicant the letter dated 17.09.2021 issued by respondent No. 4, whereby the applicant was informed that the Final Answer Key could not be changed and that there was no change in the marks obtained by him. Hence, this OA.
Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their reply opposing the claim of the applicant and the applicant has also filed his rejoinder reiterating the submissions as mentioned in the OA.
During the course of hearing learned counsel for the applicant argued that the impugned orders are illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
Learned counsel also argued that the applicant had submitted specific grievance regarding 4 questions which were not considered and no response on these questions were put-forth by the respondents and therefore, the impugned orders are mechanical, non-speaking and unreasoned orders.
Learned counsel further argued that the respondents have failed to furnish any report of Expert Panel as what material were considered by the Experts on penal to arrive at the Final Answers more particularly for the four (04) questions, which were contested by the applicant. As no material is provided which were considered by the Expert Panel which create suspicion in the mind of the applicant that whether experts have applied their judicious and independent mid in scrutinizing the contests of the applicant and therefore the contention of the respondents that Final Answer Keys cannot be changed and there is no change in marks which were obtained by the candidates is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents although has not disputed the factual matrix as noted above, however, submitted that the entire process of conducting the LDCE for the post of Chargeman (T&NT) was undertaken strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions notified by the competent authority. Referring to OFB Notification dated 24.04.2020, learned counsel submitted that the prescribed qualifying standard was 35% marks in each subject and 40% marks in aggregate. However, mere attainment of the qualifying marks did not confer any right of selection upon a candidate, as the final selection was dependent upon the merit/rank secured by the candidates in the LDCE in the respective trade vis-àà-vis the vacancies available in that trade.
Learned counsel further submitted that the procedure relating to objections/contests against the answer keys had been duly prescribed in the instructions issued to the candidates. In particular, reliance was placed upon OFRC letter No. 1480/OFRC/EXAMS/LDCE/CM/2020 dated 24.09.2020, as well as the earlier instructions forwarded to the Ordnance Factories/Units vide letter dated 23.06.2020. It was submitted that, in accordance with the established procedure, all contests received from the candidates in the prescribed manner were placed before an expert panel, which scrutinized the objections and, upon such consideration, finalized the answer keys.
Learned counsel further submitted that the final answer key was thereafter published vide OFRC letter dated 12.11.2020 after resolution of the contests by the expert panel. The said communication specifically stated that the answer keys finalized by the expert panel were final and that no further request for change thereof would be entertained. According to the respondents, the applicant's grievance essentially seeks a reconsideration of the final answer key after completion of the selection process, which was impermissible under the notified procedure.
Learned counsel also contended that the applicant, having participated in the LDCE with full knowledge of its terms and conditions, could not subsequently challenge those very conditions merely because he was unsuccessful in securing a place in the select list. Learned counsel also submitted that if the applicant was aggrieved by any of the conditions governing the examination or the procedure for determination of the answer keys, he ought to have questioned the same before participating in the examination. Having voluntarily participated in the selection process, he could not, after being unsuccessful, turn around and challenge the procedure adopted by the respondents. In support of the said contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in University of Cochin v. N.S. Kanjoonjamma & Others, reported 1987 SCC (L&S) 976, wherein, according to learned counsel, the principle was reiterated that a candidate who participates in a selection process and remains unsuccessful cannot thereafter question the correctness of the procedure adopted in the selection.
Learned counsel further submitted that the provisional select lists were prepared only after evaluation of the OMR sheets on the basis of the final answer keys determined after consideration of all the contests by the expert panel. Thus, according to the respondents, there was no irregularity or deviation from the prescribed procedureCentral Administrative Tribunal in the evaluation of the OMR sheets or preparation of the select lists.
He also submitted that the LDCE Chargeman (T&NT) 2020 was an independent examination and had no nexus with any earlier departmental examination. Therefore, the answer key or evaluation adopted in a previous examination could not constitute a basis for questioning the correctness of the answer key subsequently finalized for the LDCE 2020. Learned counsel emphasized that the respondents were required to evaluate the candidates on the basis of the rules and criteria applicable to the particular examination and not by reference to an earlier examination.
With regard to the applicant's demand for revaluation, learned counsel submitted that there was no provision for revaluation of OMR sheets under the LDCE 2020. The OMR sheets were evaluated through an automated process without manual interference. He, however, submitted that where candidates specifically insisted upon verification/revaluation, the concerned OMR sheets were also manually tallied merely for the purpose of verifying the evaluation, but such exercise did not involve any alteration of the final answer key. Therefore, according to the respondents, there was no inconsistency in their stand regarding revaluation.
Learned counsel also submitted that the scanned images of the OMR sheets were supplied to the candidates on their respective email IDs wherever such email IDs had been furnished in the application forms. The respondents, therefore, contended that the applicants were afforded adequate opportunity to verify their responses and the evaluation thereof. Further, all representations/contests received from the candidates in the prescribed format were duly considered by the Expert Panel before the final answer key was published. Once the final answer key had been finalized after such consideration, there could be no endless reopening of the examination process by entertaining repeated objections against the same. Such a course, according to learned counsel, would render the finality attached to the examination process meaningless and would make it impossible to conclude the selection.
Learned counsel also produced, during the course of hearing, a copy of the reply dated 29.12.2022 furnished by the respondents to the applicant’s RTI application. It was submitted that, in the said reply, the respondents had reiterated that the answers to the questions referred to by the applicant were duly considered and finalized by the Expert Panel and that the answers so determinedCentral Administrative Tribunal were correct.
Learned counsel lastly submitted that the entire LDCE process, including conduct of the examination, consideration of objections, evaluation of OMR sheets and preparation of the select list, was undertaken in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions and all candidates were treated alike. He also contended that approximately 1080 candidates were declared successful through the process and no specific illegality, arbitrariness or discrimination had been established by the applicant.
In support of above contentions, reliance has also been placed by the respondents on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Subham Pal and others vs. Staff Selection Commission (LPA No.202 of 2024) decided on 27.05.2024.
On these premises, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant, having failed to secure a position in the select list, was attempting to question the sanctity of an otherwise duly completed selection process. The instant OA, therefore, being devoid of merit, liable to be dismissed by this Tribunal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings as well as the judgments on which reliance is placed.
The controversy involved in the captioned OA, in substance, is narrow. The applicant participated in the LDCE for the post of Chargeman (Non-Technical–Stores), obtained 209 marks out of 250, whereas the cut-off for the Unreserved category was 210 marks, and consequently his name did not find place in the select list. His grievance is essentially that four questions, which according to him were either wrongly answered or were not properly considered while finalizing the answer key, ought to have been decided in his favour and that, upon award of the consequential marks, he would have secured 214 marks and would have fallen within the zone of selection. The principal question, therefore, is whether this Tribunal, in exercise of its power of judicial review under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, can re-examine the correctness of the answers finalized by the Expert Panel and direct alteration of the final answer key and consequential re-evaluation of the applicant's OMR sheet.
At the outset, it is required to be noticed that the applicant was fully aware of the procedure prescribed for the said LDCE. The examination was conducted pursuant to the notification issued by the respondents and the candidates were permitted to submit their objections/contests against the provisional answer key along with supporting material. The applicant availed of that opportunity and, admittedly, challenged as many as 20 questions. The objections so received were thereafter placed before the Expert Panel and, after consideration thereof, the final answer key was published on 12.11.2020. Thus, the procedure contemplated for examination of objections to the provisional answer key was not dispensed with; rather, it was admittedly followed.
The applicant, however, seeks to contend that four of the questions raised by him were not properly considered and that the respondents have not furnished the report or material of the Expert Panel showing the manner in which those questions were examined. We have carefully considered this submission. It is true that the applicant has sought an explanation regarding the four questions and that the detailed deliberations of the Expert Panel have not been placed before us. However, the mere fact that the detailed internal deliberations of an Expert Panel have not been furnished to the applicant does not, by itself, establish that the objections were not considered. The respondents have specifically stated that all the contests received in the prescribed manner were placed before the Expert Panel and that the final answer key was prepared after resolution of such contests. The reply dated 29.12.2022 furnished to the applicant pursuant to his RTI application also reiterates that the questions referred to by him had been considered by the Expert Panel and that the answers so finalized were found to be correct.
More importantly, the applicant has not placed before us any material of such unimpeachable character as would establish that the answers finalized by the Expert Panel are demonstrably and manifestly wrong. His principal contention is based upon his own interpretation of the questions and answers and, in respect of certain questions, upon the answers adopted in an earlier LDCE conducted in 2016. Such material may provide a basis for raising an objection before the competent examination authority, which the applicant in fact did, but it cannot, by itself, furnish a ground for this Tribunal to substitute its own view for that of the Expert Panel.
The law governing interference by Courts and Tribunals with answer keys in competitive examinations is by now well settled. In Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the key answer should ordinarily be presumed to be correct unless it is clearly demonstrated to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong merely by an inferential process of reasoning or rationalization. The test is whether the answer is such as no reasonable body of persons well versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. This principle has subsequently been consistently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In Ran Vijay Singh & Others v. State of U.P. & Others, (2018) 2 SCC 357, the Hon'ble Supreme Court comprehensively considered the issue of re-evaluation and interference with answer keys and summarized the legal position. It was held, inter alia, that where the applicable rules do not provide for re-evaluation or scrutiny, a Court may permit such exercise only in rare and exceptional cases where a material error is demonstrated clearly, without resort to an inferential process of reasoning or rationalization. It was further emphasized that the Court should not itself re-evaluate or scrutinize answer sheets since it does not possess the requisite expertise and academic matters are best left to academics. The correctness of the key answer is to be presumed and, in case of doubt, the benefit should ordinarily go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.
The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in U.P. Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 254, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the burden upon a candidate challenging a key answer is a heavy one. The candidate must demonstrate not merely that the answer is capable of being disputed, but that it is a glaring mistake which is apparent without any inferential process or reasoning. Constitutional Courts are required to exercise great restraint and should be reluctant to entertain challenges to the correctness of answer keys. This principle squarely applies to the present case, where the applicant has not demonstrated any such patent or glaring error. It is apt to reproduce the relevant para of the said judgment as follows:
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.”
The same approach was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Another v. State of Rajasthan & Others, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 309. The Hon'ble Supreme Court deprecated the practice of Courts themselves examining question papers and answer keys in academic matters and emphasized that the opinion of an expert committee deserves due deference. The Court held that it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the correctness of questions and answers itself and substitute its opinion for that of the experts. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
“13.The point that arises for the consideration of this Court is whether the revised select list dated 21-5-2019 ought to have been prepared on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key. The appellants contend that the wait list also should be prepared on the basis of the 3rd Answer Key and not on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key. The 2nd Answer Key was released by RPSC on the basis of the recommendations made by the expert committee constituted pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court. Not being satisfied with the revised select list which included only a few candidates, certain unsuccessful candidates filed appeals before the Division Bench which were disposed of on 12-3-2019 [Bhunda Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 7416] . When the Division Bench was informed that the selections have been finalised on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key, it refused to interfere with the select list prepared on 17-9-2018. However, the Division Bench examined the correctness of the questions and the answer keys pointed by the appellants therein and arrived at a conclusion that the answer key to 5 questions was erroneous. On the basis of the said findings, the Division Bench directed RPSC to prepare the revised select list and apply it only to the appellants before it.
14.Though re-evaluation can be directed if rules permit, this Court has deprecated the practice of re-evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the courts which lack expertise in academic matters. It is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when the Commission has assessed the inter se merit of the candidates (H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur [H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur, (2010) 6 SCC 759 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 286 : 3 SCEC 713] ). Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of the expert committee who have the expertise to evaluate and make recommendations (see Basavaiah v. H.L. Ramesh [Basavaiah v. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC 372 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 640]).
15.Examining the scope of judicial review with regards to re-evaluation of answer sheets, this Court in Ran Vijay Singh v.v. State of U.P. [Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] held that the court should not re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matters and the academic matters are best left to academics. This Court in the said judgment further held as follows : (Ran Vijay Singh case [Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] , SCC pp. 369-70, paras 31-32)
“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.”
16.In view of the above law laid down by this Court, it was not open to the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of the questions and the answer key to come to a conclusion different from that of the expert committee in its judgment dated 12-3-2019 [Bhunda Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 7416]. Reliance was placed by the appellants on Richal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission [Richal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (2018) 8 SCC 81 : (2018) 2 SCC (L&S) 456] . In the said judgment, this Court interfered with the selection process only after obtaining the opinion of an expert committee but did not enter into the correctness of the questions and answers by itself. Therefore, the said judgment is not relevant for adjudication of the dispute in this case.
17.A perusal of the above judgments would make it Central Administrative Tribunalclear that courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters. In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. The delay in finalisation of appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a long period of time. The cascading effect of delay in appointments is the continuance of those appointed on temporary basis and their claims for regularisation. The other consequence resulting from delayed appointments to public posts is the serious damage caused to administration due to lack of sufficient personnel.
18.The submission made by the respondents that the appellants are not entitled to any relief as there is inordinate delay in approaching the Court is not necessary to be adjudicated upon in view of the findings in the preceding paragraphs.
19.It is clear from the statement filed by RPSC that there are vacancies existing which can be utilised for appointing the appellants. We are not inclined to give any direction except leaving it open to RPSC and the State Government to fill up the existing vacancies from the wait list in accordance with the merits of the candidates.
20.The selection process which was stalled in view of the interim order passed by this Court should be completed within a period of 8 weeks from today. The Division Bench by its judgment dated 12-3-2019 [Bhunda Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 7416] committed an error in recording findings on the correctness of 05 questions by holding the opinion of the experts to be wrong. We are not setting aside the judgment as we are informed that 05 out of 21 appellants therein have already been appointed and we are not inclined to upset their appointments.”
We also find the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Shubham Pal & Others v. Staff Selection Commission & Another, LPA No.202/2024, decided on 27.05.2024, particularly apposite to the controversy before us. In that case also, the candidates challenged several answers in a competitive examination and sought revaluation/constitution of an independent expert committee. The Hon’ble High Court considered plethora of cases on the issue and held as under:-
“ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS”
14.According to us the short, but, prime issue for consideration before this Court in the present proceedings in a nutshell is whether this Court is competent to consider the issues relating to examinations, especially, when the appellants herein are seeking revaluation of answers to the questions in the CGLE 2023 opposite to what has been provided by the respondents and as to whether such claims of the appellants are falling within the purview of Article 226 of The Constitution of India or not.
15.At the outset, this Court emphasises that in view of the settled position of law laid down repeatedly by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the various High Courts, the appellants have a very small window for seeking relief/s of the kind for which they have approached this Court and that too when they are in appellate jurisdiction, when their claims, barring one of them, have already been negated by the learned Single Judge. There can be no gainsaying about the factum that generally the Courts, as a matter of course, should be extremely circumspect in interfering with matters relating to competitive examination, especially since they are very much involving issues qua paper/s, article/s, question/s, procedure/s, answer/s, mark/s obtained or like and ought not to get into the realm of either doubting and or questioning their veracity and/ or (in)correctness save and except in rare and/ or exceptional circumstances whence it is found that there is something unnerving and/ or glaring staring at the face.
16.Meaning thereby, such interference by the Courts is only possible in case/s of some rare, exceptional and/ or under extreme circumstances which shocks the conscience of the Court or where there seems to be an apparent error on the face of the record or which starkly shows non application of mind or which is against the basic settled, well-established principles of law or which is against the principles of natural justice, fair play and/ or equity or like.
17.What follows from the aforesaid is that, generally the Courts while exercising judicial review, should refrain from interfering with the evaluation of the answer/ questions by the experts.
18.In this regard, the said view has been recently reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) bearing no. 1951/2022 dated 28.02.2022 titled Mahesh Kumar vs Staff Selection Commission & Anr.; as also in High Court of Tripura through the Registrar General vs Tirtha Sararthi Mukherjee & Ors. (2019) 16 SCC 663; State of Uttar Pradesh vs Karunesh Kumar & Ors. (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1706; Union of India vs N. Mugugesan Etc. (2022) 2 SCC 25 which was also followed by this Court in Mahesh Kumar vs Staff Service Commission & Anr. 2021:DHC:861-DB and Ashish Singh & Ors. vs Union of India Ors. 2023:DHC:000778 wherein it has broadly been held that the Courts should not enter into evaluation of answer keys as it is for the experts of said field to deal with these aspects.
19.Reliance for the above proposition is placed upon the dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in H.P. Public Service Commission (supra) wherein it has been held as under:-
“20.In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers 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 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. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Cour. xxx
24.The issue of revaluation of answer book is no more res integra. This issue was considered at length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27 : AIR 1984 SC 1543] , wherein this Court rejected the contention that in the absence of the provision for revaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for rechecking/verification/revaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Court held as under : (SCC pp. 39-40 & 42, paras 14 & 16)
“14.… It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act. … ***
16.… The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision
incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act.” xxx
26.Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that in the absence of any provision under the statute or statutory rules/regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation”
20.Reliance is further placed upon Pramod Kumar Srivastava (supra) wherein it has been held as under:-
“7.We have heard the appellant (writ petitioner) in person and learned counsel for the respondents at considerable length. The main question which arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing re-evaluation of the answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper. Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer-book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer-book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answerbooks in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. This question was examined in considerable detail in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27 : AIR 1984 SC 1543] . In this case, the relevant rules provided for verification (scrutiny of candidate. Some of the students filed writ petitions praying that they may be allowed to inspect the answer-books and the Board be directed to conduct re-evaluation of such of the answer-books as the petitioners may demand after inspection. The High Court held that the rule providing for verification of marks gave an implied power to the examinees to demand a disclosure and inspection and also to seek re-evaluation of the answer-books. The judgment of the High Court was set aside and it was held that in absence of a specific provision conferring a right upon an examinee to have his answer-books re-evaluated, no such direction can be issued. There is no dispute that under the relevant rule of the Commission there is no provision entitling a candidate to have his answer-books reevaluated. In such a situation, the prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition was wholly untenable and the learned Single Judge had clearly erred in having the answer-book of the appellant re-evaluated.
8.Adopting such a course as was done by the learned Single Judge will give rise to practical problems. Many candidates may like to take a chance and pray for re-evaluation of their answer-books. Naturally, the Court will pass orders on different dates as and when writ petitions are filed. The Commission will have to then send the copies of individual candidates to examiners for re-evaluation which is bound to take time. The examination conducted by the Commission being a competitive examination, the declaration of final result will thus be unduly delayed and the vacancies will remain unfilled for a long time. What will happen if a candidate secures lesser marks in re--evaluation? He may come forward with a plea that the marks as originally awarded to him may be taken into consideration. The absence of clear rules on the subject may throw many problems and in the larger interest, they must be avoided.
9.Even otherwise, the manner in which the learned Single Judge had the answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper re-evaluated cannot be justified. The the Registrar of Patna University or to the Principal of Science College. A photocopy of the answer-book was handed over to the Standing Counsel for Patna University who returned the same to the Court after some time and a statement was made to the effect that the same had been examined by two teachers of Patna Science College. The names of the teachers were not even disclosed to the Court. The examination in question is a competitive examination where the comparative merit of a candidate has to be judged. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary that a uniform standard is applied in examining the answer-books of all the candidates. It is the specific case of the Commission that in order to achieve such an objective, a centralised system of evaluation of answer-books is adopted wherein different examiners examine the answer-books on the basis of model answers prepared by the Head Examiner with the assistance of other examiners. It was pleaded in the letters patent appeal preferred by the Commission and which fact has not been disputed that the model answer was not supplied to the two teachers of Patna Science College. There can be a variation of standard in awarding marks by different examiners. The manner in which the answer-books were got evaluated, the marks awarded therein cannot be treated as sacrosanct and consequently, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the Commission to treat the marks of the appellant in General Science paper as 63 cannot be justified. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court is correct and calls for no interference.”
21.From the records before this Court as also from what has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is apparent that, the appellants have not been able to show and/ or exhibit anything of that sort which is/ can be rare and/ or which is/ can shock the conscience of this Court or which is/ can be against the basic tenets of law or which shows any non-application of mind by the respondents or which is/ can be against the established principles of natural justice, fair play and/ or equity or the like for interfering with the answer keys of tier-2 of the CGLE 2023 as formulated by the respondents and allow the present appeal.
22.Therefore this Court, cannot interfere with the opinion of the experts by simply presuming that the answers sought to be now substituted by the appellants can be ‘right’ as they have nowhere been able to prove that the answers as per the revised answer key are ‘wrong’. The same by itself and that too on the basis of analysis by the appellants can certainly not be sufficient for this Court to accept what is contended by them for entering the domain of evaluation of answer key by the experts and seek to alter the answers in the CGLE 2023 as formulated by the respondents.
23.Besides the aforesaid, the appellants have neither been able to show or exhibit anything which is and/ or can be glaring and/ or which depicts any manifest error, in the evaluation process of the CGLE 2023 undertaken by the respondents, for this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.
24.In the present case, it is not in dispute that the respondents have to setup an expert body/ committee consisting of skilled and specialist minds, which/ who have the expertise in their respective field/s and therefore this Court cannot venture to revaluate the answers by giving its own interpretation.
FINDINGS:
25.In view of the present factual scenario as also the settled position of law, we are of the view that this Court ought not to reassess the answers of the appellants in the CGLE 2023 when the said exercise has already been done by an expert body appointed by the respondents. This Court can neither substitute the actions of the respondents nor sit over appeal and/ or adjudicate over the decisions taken by the respondents, especially in matters of the present nature involving competitive examination where final decisions are left upon the insight and consideration of such expert/s, body or committee like the respondents involved. At the end of the day, the experts are the best judges in such matters and no interference is called for and that too merely because another interpretation and/or meaning can be carved out or is possible as urged by the appellants.
26.In the considered opinion of this Court, this Court can surely not enter into speculation of any of the above discussions once taken and arrived at by the respondents involving such a body/ committee of experts.
27.At the cost of repetition, it may be observed that this Court cannot be called upon to adjudicate on one of the interpretations as being correct merely because it is favouring the appellants. The same, thus, cannot be given precedence, more so, whence the same is based only on basic unauthorised reading materials produced by the appellants. In our considered view, even otherwise, the appellants have been unable to show as to how and why the answers provided by the respondents are, in fact, arbitrary or irrelevant or inappropriate, if at all.
28.We may also note that since there is no stipulation of revaluation as sought by the appellants anywhere in the concerned advertisement issued by the respondents for the CGLE 2023, the same leaves hardly any scope for this to Court scrutinise/ or interfere at all, and that too with respect to questioning the competence of the adjudicating authority i.e. the respondents.
29.The aforesaid, without fail draws this Court to conclude that there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the impugned judgement passed by the leaned Single Judge in the present appeal.
30.Lastly, needless to mention, this Court, while hearing the learned counsels for the parties at length, despite being well aware that there was no such necessity of going into the merits of the type of questions or the type of the answers, still had the occasion to go through them coupled with the summary given by the appellants as well as the documents in support thereof. This Court was however unable to find any such infirmity with the answer key provided by the respondents to the 6 questions under challenge by the appellants.
31.We are, therefore in consonance with the finding of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgement and find no reason to interfere with the same. 32. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any. No orders as to cost.”
In Shubham Pal (supra), the Delhi High Court further held that where the disputed questions had already been examined by an expert body, the Court ought not to reassess the answers merely because another interpretation was possible or because the interpretation suggested by the candidates was favourable to them. It was specifically observed that the Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the expert body and that, in the absence of a stipulation permitting revaluation, there is hardly any scope for judicial interference with the finalized answer key. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court ultimately found no glaring or manifest error in the answers under challenge and dismissed the appeal.
The aforesaid judgment is particularly relevant to the present case because the factual foundation is substantially similar. Here also, the applicant was given an opportunity to challenge the provisional answer key; he exercised that opportunity by raising objections to as many as 20 questions; the objections were considered by an Expert Panel; thereafter, the final answer key was published; and the respondents have consistently maintained that the answers finalized by the Expert Panel were final. The applicant is essentially seeking a second round of examination of the same objections after having failed to secure the minimum marks required for inclusion in the select list.
We are also unable to accept the submission of the applicant that merely because the detailed report of the Expert Panel has not been supplied, this Tribunal should presume that the Expert Panel did not apply its mind. Such a presumption cannot be drawn in the absence of cogent material. There is a presumption that an official act has been regularly performed, particularly when the respondents have specifically stated that the objections were considered by the Expert Panel and the final answer key was prepared thereafter. The RTI reply dated 29.12.2022 produced during the course of hearing further supports the respondents' stand that the disputed questions had been considered and the answers finalized by the Expert Panel were found to be correct.
The applicant has also relied upon the answers adopted in the earlier LDCE conducted in 2016. In our considered view, the answer adopted in an earlier examination cannot, by itself, establish that a subsequently constituted Expert Panel committed an error in finalizing the answer key for the LDCE 2020. Each examination is governed by its own notification, question paper, instructions and evaluation procedure. Unless the applicant demonstrates that the very same question, in the very same context, necessarily admits of only one legally or objectively correct answer and that the answer adopted in 2020 is demonstrably impossible or patently erroneous, comparison with an earlier examination cannot justify judicial interference.
We also find considerable force in the respondents' submission that the LDCE 2020 did not contain any provision conferring a right upon a candidate to seek revaluation of his OMR answer sheet. The respondents have stated that the OMR sheets were evaluated through an automated process and that, where candidates insisted upon verification, the concerned OMR sheets were manually tallied only for the purpose of checking the evaluation and without altering the final answer key. Thus, the distinction between verification of the OMR evaluation and revaluation of answers has to be maintained.
In this regard, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27, assumes significance. As noticed and reiterated in Shubham Pal (supra), in the absence of a specific provision conferring a right of revaluation, the Court ordinarily ought not to direct revaluation merely because a candidate seeks it. The examination authority is entitled to prescribe a uniform procedure for evaluation, and such procedure cannot be interfered with merely because an unsuccessful candidate considers another procedure more desirable.
Likewise, in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 714, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the applicable rules did not provide for revaluation, a candidate had no right to claim revaluation. The Court also noticed the practical consequences of permitting repeated revaluation in competitive examinations, including delay in finalization of results and uncertainty in the selection process. The said principle has been expressly relied upon by the Delhi High Court in Shubham Pal (supra).
We are conscious that the applicant is only one mark short of the cut-off and that, if the four disputed questions were answered in his favour, he claims that he would secure 214 marks and consequently become entitled to consideration for selection. However, proximity to the cut-off cannot by itself constitute a ground for judicial interference. If such an approach were adopted, every candidate who falls short of the cut-off by one or two marks could seek re-examination of questions and answer keys, thereby defeating the requirement of finality and uniformity in a competitive examination.
The argument that the impugned communications dated 05.01.2021 and 17.09.2021 are non-speaking also does not persuade us to interfere with the selection process. The communication dated 05.01.2021 primarily informed the applicant that there was no provision for revaluation of the OMR sheets, while the subsequent communication reiterated that the final answer key could not be altered and that there was no change in the marks obtained by him. The adequacy of reasons in such an administrative communication has to be examined in the context of the nature of the decision. The applicant cannot convert the absence of a detailed exposition of the Expert Panel's internal deliberations into a substantive right to have the final answer key reconsidered, particularly when the applicable procedure itself contemplated finality after consideration of objections.
It is equally important that the applicant has not alleged any mala fides against the members of the Expert Panel, nor has he demonstrated that the Expert Panel acted contrary to the prescribed procedure, ignored the material submitted by him, or adopted different standards for similarly situated candidates. His grievance essentially seeks substitution of the answers accepted by the Expert Panel with answers which, according to him, are more appropriate. Such an exercise falls outside the permissible limits of judicial review.
The contention of the respondents based upon University of Cochin v. N.S. Kanjoonjamma & Others(supra) also merits consideration, though we do not consider it necessary to rest our decision solely on the principle of estoppel. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case held that a candidate who participated in the selection and remained unsuccessful was estopped from subsequently challenging the correctness of the procedure. However, in the present case, the applicant is not principally challenging the foundational eligibility conditions of the examination; rather, his grievance concerns the correctness of certain answers and the treatment of his objections. Therefore, the more directly applicable principle is the settled law governing judicial review of answer keys and revaluation, as discussed hereinabove.
On an overall consideration of the matter, we find that the respondents adopted a structured mechanism for dealing with objections to the provisional answer key. The applicant availed himself of that mechanism. His objections were considered by the Expert Panel and the final answer key was thereafter published. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the answers finalized by the Expert Panel suffer from any patent, manifest or glaring error which would justify interference by this Tribunal. We cannot ourselves enter into the correctness of the four disputed answers or undertake an independent evaluation of the material relied upon by the applicant, as that would amount to substituting our own academic assessment for that of the duly constituted Expert Panel.
The principle of judicial restraint is not merely a matter of institutional convenience; it is necessary to preserve uniformity and finality in competitive examinations. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra), an error in an answer key potentially affects the entire body of candidates and the examination process ought not to be derailed merely because an individual candidate perceives that an erroneous answer has prejudiced him. The same principle is reflected in Shubham Pal (supra), where the Delhi High Court declined to interfere despite the candidates challenging several answers, holding that the Court cannot enter the domain of expert evaluation in the absence of a glaring or manifest error.
In the result, for the forgoing discussion, we find that the present OA is bereft of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. We order accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs.