Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 43727 of 2016
Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Patel Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Mohan,Harish Chandra Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,J.P. Pandey
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(ORAL) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.
The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the select list dated 24.08.2016 issued by the Electricity Service Commission, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. in pursuance of selections held for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) as advertised by Advertisement No. 2 dated 22.07.2016. The petitioner has further prayed for a mandamus to be issued to the respondents to produce his answer copy which may be directed to be examined by any competent authority by this Court and not to issue any letter of appointment to any candidate in pursuance of the final select list and to reserve one seat in pursuance of such selection for the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no. 3 had advertised 121 posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). The petitioner is B.Tech. from UPTCU, Luknow and he applied under OBC category. The computer based test was held by the respondents in which the petitioner secured more than cut-off marks and, therefore, he was called for interview. However, when the final selection list was declared his name did not find place therein. The petitioner conducted certain enquiries and found that the respondents had arbitrarily re-examined the answer-sheet of the petitioner without any complaint made by him or any other candidate as a result of which the petitioner was declared not selected.
It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially when his computer based test was declared, objections were invited by the respondent no. 3 the petitioner submitted objections to the answers of five questions as mentioned in the modular answer-key. Had the 05 questions being correctly marked by the respondent no. 3, the petitioner would have certainly secured more marks and would have been declared selected. It has been further submitted with respect to question no. 107, earlier the modular answer key had shown the correct answer as Option No. IV. Later on a second modular answer key had been published and it showed Option No. III to be correct. Because of this option being changed in the answer key for question no. 107, he secured 02 less marks than the cut-off marks of the OBC category candidates.
It has been submitted that due to the mistake of respondents, the petitioner got total of 137.85 marks instead of more than 139 marks and, therefore, he could not be selected.
The petitioner has mentioned the details of the questions to which he submitted his objections in paragraph 14 of the writ petition which questions are being given herein below :-
(a) The question I.D. 966458104
(b) The question I.D. 96645805
(c) The question I.D. 96645853
(d) The question I.D. 96645876
(e) The question I.D. 96645894 Learned counsel for the respondents however, has pointed out that initially a modular answer key was published by the respondent no. 3 inviting objections from various candidates. Several objections were received which were then examined and found that the candidates who had appeared had taken their objection to 18 questions out of 200 questions. The matter was referred to the 'Subject Matter Experts' and the Subject Matter Experts pointed out that the answer to two questions were incorrect namely Question I.D. No. 966458105 and Question I.D. No.
955458108. The answer-key was changed and the answer-copies of all candidates including the petitioner were re-evaluated and marks awarded thereafter. With respect to one question i.e. Question I.D. No. 96645814, the question was declared null and void and full marks were given to all candidates including the petitioner.
With regard to the 05 questions to which the petitioner had raised objections,the Subject Matter Experts said that no change was required in the modular answer-key.
In paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit the details of all the 18 questions which were referred to the Subject Matter Experts have given which is quoted herein below :-
"16. That the contents of paragraph no. 15 of the writ petition are denied and are ill-conceived and had made the allegations without any support, just to sensationalize the issue and that too after taking a calculated chance and appearing in the whole selection process of CBT (written test) and thereafter the oral interview. Only because the result is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and contend that the selection process was arbitrary. As stated in the preceding paras that after the CBT (computer based test) objections was received on-line with Question ID along with proof. Total objections received were sent for comments and scrutiny to subject matter experts (SME). The clarification given by the SME is being reproduced in herein under. The name of the working agency and expert team members are not being disclosed for the purpose of confidentiality.
Sl. No. Question ID Remarks by SME It is clear from the above table that objections were received against the above 18 questions out of 200 questions, and it includes the objections raised by the petitioner at Sl. No. 16, 7, 13, 10 and 8."
It has been submitted that the petitioner's marks in CBT after corrected evaluation was 114.25 and after such correction was made, the petitioner was called for interview as he had secured more marks in his OBC category.
There were 121 posts and the candidates were in the ratio of 3:1. The final cut-off for 120 selected candidates have been mentioned in paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit is being quoted herein below :-
The final cut-off for selected 120 candidates was as below :- Unreserved (UR) 149.50 OBC 139.00 SC 124.00 ST 100.75 The petitioner has obtained total 137.58 marks, which was lower than the last cut-off in his category. Consequently the petitioner did not find place in final select list, due to his poor performance, for which he himself is to be blamed. The petitioner has participated in all stages of the selection process, now he cannot roll back to challenge the selection process as he was waited up to the final declaration of result to ensure his selection. He is trying to challenge the selection process, now as such the instant writ petiton is legally not maintainable on his behest."
It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the select list without arraying any of the selected candidates as opposite parties in the writ petition and the writ petition ought to be dismissed on this ground alone for non-joinder of necessary parties.
Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that when the writ petition was filed only counter affidavit was called for and no interim order was passed. The results have been declared and all 120 candidates who were selected have been given appointment.
This Court having considered the rival submissions and having gone through the records of the present petition finds that no mala fides is alleged against the respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 3 had conducted the selections with all transparency and had given marks to all candidates after the Subject Matter Experts have corrected the answer keys. The petitioner now cannot turnaround and challenge the result at this late stage.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh & Others vs.State of U.P. & Others reported in AIR 2018 SC, 52 has observed that the law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re- evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re- evaluation or scrutiny only it it is demonstrated very clearly, without any 'inferential process of reasoning or by a process of nationalisation' and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; (iii) The Court should not at all re- evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate - it has no expertize 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.
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 prevision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse - exclude the suspect or offending question.
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 appeal 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.
Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 VR