Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 805
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, D. RAMESH, JJ.
N. Saidinesh and Others – Appellants
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal Nos. 388, 393, 394 of 2020
Decided On : 09-12-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri.
For the Respondent: R.V. Mallikarjuna Rao.
Point of law: As per Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an application for setting aside is required to be made within three (3) months from the date on which the party making the application received the arbitral award
Headnote:
Constitution of India 1950 – Article 226 - Power of High Court to issue Writ - Education matter - Public Service Commission - examination – Question paper - Action of respondents on various issues, namely, mistakes in translation of questions from English to Telugu language; not allowing non-programmable calculators to examination hall for solving certain questions; more than one correct answer in multiple choice questions etc., as illegal, improper and incorrect
Finding of the Court : It is very much clear that thirty days time was given to the candidates, who appeared for examination, to submit their objections to the questions and answers which appeared in preliminary examination and the objections made were dealt with and thereafter again another chance was given to raise objections to the revised key - A perusal of the above judgments would make it clear that courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters. In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible - Delay in finalization of appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a long period of time –
Result: Writ Appeals are dismissed
ORDER :
1. Originally, Writ Petitions came to be filed to declare the action of respondents on various issues, namely, mistakes in translation of questions from English to Telugu language; not allowing non-programmable calculators to the examination hall for solving certain questions; more than one correct answer in multiple choice questions etc., as illegal, improper and incorrect.
2. By an order dated 22.10.2020, the learned Single Judge, while postponing the main examination, which was scheduled to be held on 2.11.2020, directed the Public Service Commission to do as under:
“(1) The Public Service Commission shall take steps, in line with the observations mentioned above, to make appropriate corrections in the marks awarded to the candidates, who appeared for the examination.
(2) The Public Service Commission after making necessary corrections shall arrive at a new merit list/shortlist and fix the cutoff point thereafter. Those who qualify in the new shortlist will be eligible to write the main examination.
(3) The Public Service Commission shall not conduct the main examinations proposed to be held from 2.11.2020. It shall conduct the main examination only after the completion of the above exercise on the basis of the new merit list/short list.”
3. Challenging the same, the present Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent.
4. Though various grounds are raised in the Writ Appeals filed, Sri. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, would restricts his argument to the findings of the learned Single Judge, in holding that questions and answers to Q. Nos. 37, 48, 60 in paper-I and question Nos. 116 and 117 in paper-II are not only erroneously translated but they are incorrectly framed. He took us through the said questions and answers given to the said questions to show that they are not only erroneous in translation but even the questions framed and answers given are incorrect.
5. Insofar as the question No. 37 is concerned, the English version of the said question and answer reads as under:
“Regarding the Habeas Corpus, choose the wrong answer:
(1) Habeas Corpus safeguards the liberty not only of the citizens but also of the persons within the territory.
(2) Writ of Habeas Corpus is not to be entertained when a person is committed to judicial custody or public custody by the competent court.
(3) A petition of Habeas Corpus lies against the executive authority, not available against the private individuals.
(4) The Habeas Corpus petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of imperfect pleadings.”
6. Out of the four options given, the key showed the correct answer as option No. 2. But, the Telugu version of the said question is totally different, wherein the candidates were asked to choose the correct answer out of the multiple choices given. According to him, both these questions are quite opposite to each other and the answer given does not match the question in both the languages.
7. Similarly, he took us to question No. 48, which deals with the powers of the President. As per the key, the answer to the said question is option No. 2, but, according to the Senior Counsel, the question as well as answer were wrongly framed. Similarly, question No. 60 is also wrongly framed as the word “no” should have been incorporated before the words “such law” in the third line of that question, failing which, it carries no meaning. Likewise, he also took us through question No. 116 and question No. 117 and tried to demonstrate before us that in so far as question No. 117 is concerned, as per the material available on the website, the number of Municipal Corporations in Andhra Pradesh are 14 and not 16 as per the key and further the correct answer for question No. 116 is, option No. 3 and not option Nos. 1 to 3. Hence, pleads for postponing of the main examination, which is scheduled to be held on 14.12.2020.
8. Sri. R. Mallikarjun, learned counsel appearing for APPSC, would submit that, mistakes, if any, com
