Yogendra Rajput vs Union Of India & Another

The present Writ Appeal is arising out of the order dated 19.06.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.7681/2015 (Yogendra Rajput v/s Union of India & Other).

The facts of the case reveal that the present appellant submitted an application for the post of Constable including the post of Constable Cook pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Border Security Force in the year 2014. A call letter was issued to the appellant and he appeared in the examination, however, his grievance is that he was not selected by the respondents. The appellant applied under the Right to Information Act and he was informed by the respondents that he has secured 56 marks under the unreserved category and the cut off marks under the unreserved category are 57, hence, he has not been appointed. The appellant came up before this Court by stating that the OMR sheet (answer sheet) has not been valued properly and it was stated that questions No.42, 74 and 95 are not correct.

The appellant, during the course of arguments before the learned Single Judge, confined his prayer in respect of question No.42 and by an order dated 15.03.2018, an expert valuer was called from the Department of Mathematics, Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore.

The correct answer, as per the valuer, was 0.12 as it was question of mathematics and the same was certainly not available in the option provided for this question. It was a question of the subject of mathematics and the answer was 0.12 and in spite of the aforesaid, the appellant has attempted the question.

The learned Single Judge has arrived at a conclusion that the appellant should not have attempted the question when he was sure that the answer provided is incorrect, and therefore, as he has attempted the question, he is not entitled for one additional mark.

Paragraph - 8 to 11 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge reads as under:-

As per this Court's order dated 23.1.2017, the respondents produced the OMR sheet of the petitioner. This Court has examined the OMR sheet, in which, petitioner attempted the answer to Question No.42 as 'C' i.e. 1.20, which is a wrong answer. The petitioner ought not to have attempted the question when he was assured that all the answers are wrong. Since the petitioner has attempted that question and gave a wrong answer, therefore, the allegations made by way of additional rejoinder are nothing, but an after thought and for which he is not entitled for one mark.

So far as other two questions i.e. Question No.74 and 95 are concerned, no expert valuer was called for the evaluation and the petitioner has insisted only for the reexamination of Question No.42.

So far as exercise of judicial review by a Court in respect of finding of Model Answers Key and direction to re-examine the answer-key is concerned, the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Nitin Pathak V/s. State of M.P. & others : 2017 (4) MPLJ 353, has held that the Court should not refer the matter to Court appointed expert as Courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against experts constituted to finalise answerkey. Para 26, 31 and 32 of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced below :-

"26. Therefore, while exercising the power of judicial review, this Court is not to take upon itself the revaluation of Model Answer Key either itself or through Court appointed Expert, who is none else but a delegate of the Court. The Court in exercise of power of judicial review, if sufficient material exists to return a finding that Model Answer Key is  palpably  incorrect  that  no  reasonable person would find the same to be acceptable, then the Court could direct the examining body to re-examine the answer key but cannot take over the function of the Commission in finalizing the answer key itself."

"31. In view of the discussion above, we hold that in exercise of power of Judicial Review,  the  Court  should  not  refer  the matter to Court appointed expert as the Courts have a very limited role particularly when  no  mala  fides  have  been  alleged against the experts constituted to finalize answer key. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the Courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts.

"32. In respect of the second question this Court does not and should not act as Court of Appeal in the matter of opinion of experts in academic matters as the power of judicial review is concerned, not with the decision, but with the decision-making process. The Court should not under the guise of preventing  the abuse  of  power  be itself guilty of usurping power."

In view of the foregoing discussion, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition taking into account the judgment delivered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Nitin Pathak v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others reported in 2017 (4) MPLJ 353.

This Court is dealing with the process of selection of the year 2014 in Writ Appeal and at the insistence of the appellant, an expert valuer was also called. The appellant has certainly made an attempt to answer the question, even though, all the answers given in the key were wrong.

Hence, as the appellant has attempted the question, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant is not entitled for one additional mark and the scope of judicial review in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case is quite limited.

In light of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, the present Writ Appeal stands dismissed.

Certified copy, as per rules.