AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the final result dated 01.11.2020 (Annexures P-6) qua the petitioner announced by the Respondent No. 2, in respect of the advertisement no. 12/2015 for the direct recruitment for 112 posts of forester in Cat no. 12, that has been declared/announced by the respondent no. 2 without proper scrutiny and perusing the OMR Sheet (Answer Sheet) and Answer Key of the petitioner, consequently did not include the Roll Number of the petitioner in the selection zone despite securing more than cut-off marks, whereas the petitioner applied the category EBPGC which is malafide, arbitrary and discriminatory and against the principles of natural justice; And issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent no. 2 to include the roll number of the petitioner in the final result dated 01.11.2020 and further directing the Respondent no. 2 to publish the revised result on the website i.e. www.hssc.gov.in.
It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance to the Advt.No.12/2015 dated 10.12.2015 (Annexure P-1), petitioner had applied for recruitment on the post of Forester in Category No.12. As per the application form (Annexure P-2), petitioner had applied under the EBPG Category. Admit card dated 09.10.2017 (Annexure P-3) was issued to the petitioner; and Roll No. was allotted in pursuance to which petitioner had duly appeared in the written examination held on 29.10.2017. OMR Sheet of the petitioner is on record as Annexure P-4. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 had released Answer Key dated 29.10.2017 (Annexure P-5) and the same was also uploaded on the website.
Learned counsel contends that upon comparing his OMR Sheet (Annexure P-4) with the Answer Key (Annexure P-5), petitioner found that he has secured 128 marks in the written examination. However, in the Final Result dated 01.11.2020 (Annexure P-6) declared by respondent No.2, petitioner was shown to have secured 126 marks in the written examination + 15 marks in the interview i.e. total 141 marks. As such, petitioner’s Roll No. was shown in the waiting list - despite the fact that cut off marks of the last selected candidate under the EBPG Category were also 141 marks. It is submitted that the reason given by the respondents was that petitioner was younger in age than the last selected candidate under the EBPG Category.
Learned counsel submits that had the marks of the petitioner in the written test been calculated correctly as 128 marks, petitioner would have been selected in the Final Result and would not have to be in the waiting list. It is submitted that the marks of the petitioner in the written examination were wrongly shown as 126 marks as the marks for Question No. 20 have not been given to the petitioner. Thus, there is a difference of 2 marks which ultimately affects the result. Accordingly, petitioner had submitted Representation dated 15.07.2021 (Annexure P-7) stating his grievance. However, to no avail. It is accordingly prayed that rechecking of OMR Sheet of the petitioner and Answer Key be done and, thereafter, also check and verify the correctness of the Final Result dated 01.11.2020 (P-6).
Per contra, learned State Counsel has opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and has pointed out that self-assessment has been done by the petitioner based on the initial Answer Key. It is submitted that petitioner has actually secured 126 marks only as per the assessment of the Commission. It is also pointed out that although petitioner had secured 141 marks which are the cut off marks in EBPG Category of last selected candidate however, he has not been selected as, admittedly, petitioner is younger in age than the last selected candidate. It is further contended that the law in this regard is well settled in-as-much as final Answer Key given by the Commission, cannot be interfered with and opinion of the Court cannot replace Expert opinion of the Commission.
In support, learned counsel for the State relies upon following judgments: -
Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (SC): Law Finder Doc Id # 944245;
H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur (SC): Law Finder Doc Id # 210297;
U.P.P.S.C. through its Chairman v. Rahul Singh, (SC): Law Finder Doc Id # 1065238; and
Civil Appeal No. 7727 of 2019 titled as Haryana Public Service Commission vs. The State of Haryana and others, decided on 30.09.2019.
He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ Petition.
No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions of the petitioner.
Admittedly, in the Final Result dated 01.11.2020 (Annexure P-6), petitioner has secured total 141 marks i.e. 126 marks in the written examination and 15 marks for interview. The cut off marks under the EBPG Category of the last selected candidate are 141 marks. However, petitioner does not fall in the selection zone as the petitioner is younger in age than the last selected candidate under the EBPG Category. As per Resolution dated 25.09.2015 passed by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission it was decided that where there are 2 or more candidates having equal cut off marks, in such case, benefit will be given to a candidate who is older in age. Admittedly, date of birth of last selected candidate who had secured 141 marks, which are equal to the petitioner is, 18.04.1992; whereas date of birth of the petitioner is 07.12.1992. As such, petitioner does not fall in the selection zone and has been kept in the waiting list. No error can be found in the same.
It has next been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he has not been awarded 2 marks for Question No.20. However, even the said contention of the petitioner is not acceptable as admittedly, in pursuance to the written examination held on 29.10.2017, Answer Key was released by respondent No.2 on 29.10.2017 (Annexure P-5) and objections were invited. On a Court query, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in response to the same, petitioner had duly submitted his objections. However, petitioner has been unable to point out any such objections on record. Accordingly, self-assessment made by the petitioner based on the initial Answer Key cannot be accepted. It is undisputed that respondent-Commission has evaluated OMR Sheet of the petitioner on the basis of the revised Answer Key and declared Final Result on 01.11.2020 (Annexure P-6); wherein the petitioner is shown to have secured 126 marks in the written examination. The same cannot be interfere with by this Court.
The legal position in this regard is crystal clear; and is in fact not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh’s case (supra) while referring to case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27, has held as under: -
“20.Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27 is perhaps the leading case on the subject and concerned itself with Regulation 104 of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulations, 1977 which reads:
"104. Verification of marks obtained by a candidate in a subject.-(1) Any candidate who has appeared at the
Higher Secondary Certificate examination may apply to the Divisional Secretary for verification of marks in any particular subject. The verification will be restricted to checking whether all the answers have been examined and that there has been no mistake in the totalling of marks for each question in that subject and transferring marks correctly on the first cover page of the answer book and whether the supplements attached to the answer book mentioned by the candidate are intact. No revaluation of the answer book or supplements shall be done.
(2)Such an application must be made by the candidate through the head of the junior college which presented him for the examination, within two weeks of the declaration of the examination results and must be accompanied by a fee of `10 for each subject.
(3)No candidate shall claim, or be entitled to revaluation of his answers or disclosure or inspection of the answer books or other documents as these are treated by the Divisional Board as most confidential."
21.The question before this Court was: Whether, under law, a candidate has a right to demand an inspection, verification and revaluation of answer books and whether the statutory regulations framed by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education governing the subject insofar as they categorically state that there shall be no such right can be said to be ultra vires, unreasonable and void.
22.This Court noted that the Bombay High Court, while dealing with a batch of 39 writ petitions, divided them into two groups:
(i)Cases where a right of inspection of the answer sheets was claimed; (ii) Cases where a right of inspection and re-evaluation of answer sheets was claimed. With regard to the first group, the High Court held the above Regulation 104(3) as unreasonable and void and directed the concerned Board to allow inspection of the answer sheets. With regard to the second group of cases, it was held that the above Regulation 104(1) was void, illegal and manifestly unreasonable and therefore directed that the facility of re-evaluation should be allowed to those examinees who had applied for it.
23.In appeal against the decision of the High Court, it was held by this Court that the principles of natural justice are not applicable in such cases. It was held that: "The principles of natural justice cannot be extended beyond reasonable and rational limits and cannot be carried to such absurd lengths as to make it necessary that candidates who have taken a public examination should be allowed to participate in the process of evaluation of their performances or to verify the correctness of the evaluation made by the examiners by themselves conducting an inspection of the answer books and determining whether there has been a proper and fair valuation of the answers by the examiners."
24.On the validity of the Regulations, this Court held that they were not illegal or unreasonable or ultra vires the rule making power conferred by statute. It was then said:
"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 and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy 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. The Legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity, in the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope of the regulation-making power or its being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitations imposed by the Constitution. None of these vitiating factors are shown to exist in the present case.....".
It was also noted by this Court that:
"..the High Court has ignored the cardinal principle that it is not within the legitimate domain of the Court to determine whether the purpose of a statute can be served better by adopting any policy different from what has been laid down by the Legislature or its delegate and to strike down as unreasonable a bye-law (assuming for the purpose of discussion that the impugned regulation is a bye-law) merely on the ground that the policy enunciated therein does not meet with the approval of the Court in regard to its efficaciousness for implementation of the object and purposes of the Act."”
Again, in very same case of Ran Vijay Singh’s case (supra) while referring to numerous case laws such as Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 714; Secy., W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das, (2007) 8 SCC 242; and Central Board of Secondary Education v. Khushboo Shrivastava, (2014) 14 SCC 523, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had inter alia held that: -
“30.The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: ..... (iii) The Court should not at all 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 that assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court further went on to hold that :-
“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.”
The above said position in law has been reiterated ad infinitum; including in U.P.P.S.C. through its Chairman v. Rahul Singh, (SC): Law Finder Doc Id # 1065238; wherein it is held that:-
“Constitutional Courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain plea challenging correctness of key answers...........When there are conflicting views, then Court must bow down to opinion of experts -Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset opinion of experts.”
Keeping in view the afore-noted undisputed factual and legal position, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed.
Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.