Court No. - 34
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1199 of 2012 Appellant :- State Of U.P. And Others Respondent :- Abhay Kumar Mishra And Another Counsel for Appellant :- SC Counsel for Respondent :- Ashutosh Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
1. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for appellants. No one is present on behalf of petitioners-respondents though the case is called in revise list. As requested and agreed by learned Standing Counsel, we proceed to hear and decide this case at this stage.
2. This Intra-Court appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 against judgment dated 10.01.2012 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ -A No. 40942 of 2011 holding that question No. 14 of 'D' Series was replied by petitioners-respondents correctly but it has been cancelled and no marks have been awarded on that question.
3. Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of appellants has contended that since examining body decided to cancel wrong questions in order to maintain uniformity and marks awarded against that question would not be adjusted towards other questions hence, learned Single Judge directing otherwise, has committed manifest error, inasmuch as, marks obtained by petitioners against question no. 14 in Series 'D' could not be adjusted towards other questions.
4. In the present case, question no. 3, of Series 'A', question no. 14 of Series 'D' was correctly printed but same question at serial no. 20 in Series 'B', question no. 4 in Series 'C' and question no. 21 in Series 'E' omitted the word 'Q' in third sentence. In order to make picture clear, said questions are quoted as under :-
Series – A.
“3. 1200 :0 dks P, Q vkSj R esa ckaVk gSA ih dks D;w vkSj vkj dks izkIr dqy jkf'k ls vk/kh jde feyrh gSA Q dk s P vkSj R dk s feyh dqy jkf'k l s ,d frgkbZ jde feyrh gS A R dks feyh dqy jde D;k gS\ (A) 400 (b) 500 (C) 300 (D) 600”
Series – D.
“14. 1200 :0 dks P, Q vkSj R esa ckaVk gSA ih dks D;w vkSj vkj dks izkIr dqy jkf'k ls vk/kh jde feyrh gSA Q dk s P vkSj R dk s feyh dqy jkf'k l s ,d frgkbZ jde feyrh gSA R dks feyh dqy jde D;k gS\ (A) 400 (b) 500 (C) 300 (D) 600”
Series – B.
“20. 1200 :0 dks P, Q vkSj R esa ckaVk gSA ih dks D;w vkSj vkj dks izkIr dqy jkf'k ls vk/kh jde feyrh gSA dk s P vkSj R dk s feyh dqy jkf'k l s ,d frgkbZ jde feyrh gSA R dks feyh dqy jde D;k gS\ (A) 400 (b) 500 (C) 300 (D) 600”
Series – C.
“4. 1200 :0 dks P, Q vkSj R esa ckaVk gSA ih dks D;w vkSj vkj dks izkIr dqy jkf'k ls vk/kh jde feyrh gSA dk s P vkSj R dk s feyh dqy jkf'k l s ,d frgkbZ jde feyrh gSA R dks feyh dqy jde D;k gS\ (A) 400 (b) 500 (C) 300 (D) 600”
Series – E.
“21. 1200 :0 dks P, Q vkSj R esa ckaVk gSA ih dks D;w vkSj vkj dks izkIr dqy jkf'k ls vk/kh jde feyrh gSA dk s P vkSj R dk s feyh dqy jkf'k l s ,d frgkbZ jde feyrh gSA R dks feyh dqy jde D;k gS\ (A) 400 (b) 500 (C) 300 (D) 600”
5. We find that this aspect has been considered by Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijai Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. & others in Civil Appeal No. 367 of 2017 and other connected appeals decided on 11.12.2017 wherein para 30 to 32 of judgment reads as under :-
30. 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 if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” 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 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.
31. 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 precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse – exclude the suspect or offending question.
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.”
6. Apparently, in Series B, C & E, letter “Q” is missing in third sentence of the questions hence, question is printed wrongly.
7. In these circumstances, if Selection Board in larger interest of ensuring fair and equitable process of recruitment has cancelled said questions in respect of all incumbents in order to maintain uniformity, we find no illegality in the decision taken by Board.
8. In view of discussions made herein above, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge in directing Chairman of U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotional Board, Lucknow for re- considering the grievance of petitioners-respondents is not justified and, therefore, the judgment under appeal cannot be sustained.
9. In the result, appeal is allowed. Judgment and order dated 10.01.2012 passed by learned Single Judge is hereby set aside.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 Siddhant Sahu