Soyyab Hussain vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

The primary grievance raised by the petitioner, and argued before us, is in respect of three questions, which formed part of the Question Paper in respect of the Uttarakhand Combined State Civil/Upper Subordinate Services (Pre) Exam-2021.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is confined to the deletion of Question Nos. 33 and 43, and the change in the answer-key in respect of Question No. 106. Question No. 33 reads as follows :-

“33.

In Mauryan Period ‘Pranayam’ was –

(a)

Emergency Tax

(b)

Love Marriage

(c)

Land Grant

(d)

Land Tax “

The aforesaid question has been deleted by the respondents, apparently on account of a spelling mistake inasmuch as instead of “Pranayam”, the word should have been typed as “Pranaya”, which is evident from the text produced by the petitioner himself at running page no. 85 of the record. In the light of the aforesaid, we do not find fault with the respondents in deleting the said Question No. 33.

The second question, in respect of which the petitioner has raised grievance, is Question No. 43, which reads as follows :-

“43.

In which language the famous work of Raja Rammohan Roy ‘Gift to Monotheists’ was written?

(a)  Persian

(b) English

(c) Arabic

(d) Bengali”

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the government publication, produced by him before us, namely, “Bharitya Swatantrata Andolan Ka Itihaas – Vol. 2”, at Page No. 236, the book states that the work “तुहफतुह मुवाहिदीन” was first published in “फारसी” i.e. “Persian”.

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the name of the work/ book was published as “तुहफतुह मुवाहिदीन”, and not “Gift to Monotheists”, which was the expression used in the Question No. 43. In the light of the said confusion, the Expert Committee has decided to drop the said question. Once again, we do not find any error in the approach adopted by the respondents.

The third question, in respect of which the petitioner has raised the grievance, is Question No. 106, which reads as follows :-

“106.

The Uttaranchal (Change of Name) Act, came into existence in which of the following years ?

(a) 2000

(b) 2003

(c) 2006

(d) None of these”

In respect of the said question, the first model answer, as per the answer-key, was the third option i.e. “(c) 2006”. After the respondents received certain objections, they re-constituted the Expert Committee, and the option was changed to “(d) None of these”.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Uttaranchal (Alteration of Name) Act, 2006 received the assent of the Governor on 21st December, 2006. However, it was enforced from 1st January, 2007.

We are conscious of the fact that it is not for this Court to normally sit in judgment over the decision taken by an Expert Committee. At the same time, we cannot shut our eyes to something that appears to us to be incorrect, particularly when the question relates to law. The Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. M/s Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd., AIR 2012 SC 2375, has held that “irrespective of the date of enforcement of a Parliamentary or State enactment, a Bill becomes an Act and comes on the Statute Book immediately on receiving the assent of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, which assent has got to be published in the official gazette”.

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that, in relation to the same question, which was Question No. 47 of Book-Series “A” – General Studies, this Court has already dismissed another Writ Petition being Writ Petition (S/B) No. 308 of 2022, Kamlesh Kumar and others v. State of Uttarakhand and Another decided on 20.06.2022, authored by one of us (R.C. Khulbe, J.).

We may observe that the attention of this Court was not drawn to the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Mar Appraem Kuri (supra) when Kamlesh Kumar (supra) was decided. In any event, we are not interfering with the decision of the Expert Committee, which has changed the answer-key of Question No. 106 from “(c) 2006” to “(d) None of these”. In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta & another v. State of Rajasthan & others, (2021) 2 SCC 309, we are only directing the Expert Committee of the respondents to re-examine their decision qua Question No. 106 keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Mar Appraem Kuri (supra).

We, accordingly, dispose of this Writ Petition while directing the respondents to place the matter with regard to consideration of the answer-key in respect of Question No. 106 of Book-Series “D” – Paper-I (General Studies) for reconsideration in the light of the present judgment and the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s Mar Appraem Kuri (supra). The reconsideration shall take place within two weeks of the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment.

In case the petitioner, and any other candidate, is found eligible for such reconsideration, he/she shall be permitted to participate in the main examination.

The Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

In sequel thereto, all pending applications also stand disposed of.