IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA WRIT PETITION NO.4321/2017 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
SRI RAVEENDRA B HOSALLI S/O BASAPPA HOSALLI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS PLOT NO.166, BEHIND BUDA COMPLEX T.V.CENTRE, BELAGAVI ... PETITIONER (BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT VIKASASOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR EXCISE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SHANTI NAGAR BUS STAND BANGALORE – 560 002 3. THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY UDYOG BHAVAN, RESIDENCY PARK ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (GA SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.10.2016 IN APPLICATION NO.5666/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, H.G.RAMESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.10.2016 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore, whereby it has dismissed the petitioner’s application No.5666 of 2006.
2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the record.
3. The question that fell for consideration before the Tribunal was as to whether the key answers given to the two questions in respect of a subject relating to the competitive examination held by the Karnataka Public Service Commission in the year 2002 are erroneous.
4. The Tribunal has considered the matter in detail by referring to the two judgments of the Supreme Court and has found that the key answers cannot be said to be erroneous. It is relevant to refer to the following reasoning of the Tribunal in dismissing the petitioner’s application:
“5. ………….……………………………………………………………….
……….. The only issue that arises for our consideration is whether applicant’s answers for the two questions could be considered as right and directions can be issued to reconsider his case for inclusion in the main selection list. We find merit in the submission of KPSC that the issue in the matter is squarely covered in the judgments of the Supreme Court in Subhashchandra and Kanpur University cases cited supra by the learned counsel for KPSC. In Subhashchandra case, it was inter-alia observed by the Supreme Court that:
….”In an objective type of test more than one answer are given. The candidates are required to tick mark the answer which is most appropriate out of plurality of answers. The question and answers were prescribed by the experts in the field with reference to standard books. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that a question will have more than one correct answer. Even if the answers could be more than one, the candidates will have to select the one which is more correct out of the alternative answers.”
6. Further, the Supreme Court was more categorical in case of Kanpur University and it was, inter-alia held that:
“……… that the key answers should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct ”.
7. In this case, pursuant to the order dated 20.12.2005 of KAT in A.No.2089/2003, directions were issued to the 3rd respondent to dispose of the representation of the applicant. By impugned letter dated 6.4.2006 the said representation has been disposed. The said letter dated 6.4.2006 draws attention to related issues in fair detail and explains the rationale behind the decision of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent-KPSC cannot is not expected to give a more detailed explanation to a candidate then what is given by the impugned letter to the applicant. Moreover, as observed by Supreme Court in Kanpur University case cited supra, unless the key answer selected is shown to be totally unreasonable, the court/tribunal has no competence or jurisdiction to arrive at a conclusion that a particular answer is correct or better. We do not find any reasons for our interference in the matter.”
(Underlining supplied) 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid competitive examination held in the year 2002, the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Excise and later promoted as Inspector of Excise and he has been working in the said promoted post. On the facts of the case, we find that this is not a fit case to warrant interference in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.
Petition dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE hkh.