Back
2012 Supreme(Bom) 2229
In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
R.M. BORDE, & U.D. SALVI, JJ.
The Maharashtra Public Service Commission, through its Secretary
Versus
Tejrao Bhagaji Gadekar & Another
Writ Petition No.7883 of 2012
Decided on : 03-12-2012
For the Petitioner:S.P. Shah, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, S. Deshmukh, Advocate, R2, S.K. Tambe, A.G.P.
Tribunals should not substitute their own opinion in place of the opinion of the experts and should not exceed their jurisdiction by encroaching upon the field of experts.
Headnote:
Public Service Commission - Examination Dispute - [Maharashtra Public Service Commission] - [Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad] - [Maharashtra Public Service Commission Act, Section 5(1)(a); Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Act, Section 8(1)] - The court discussed the dispute arising from the examination process conducted by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission for the post of Education Officer. The court found that the Tribunal had encroached upon the field of experts and exceeded its jurisdiction by examining the correctness of the answers provided by the Commission. The court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & another, and emphasized that it was not permissible for the Tribunal to substitute its own opinion in place of the opinion of the experts. The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal were quashed and set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The Maharashtra Public Service Commission conducted a selection process for the post of Education Officer. A dispute arose when a candidate challenged the correctness of the revised answer key provided by the Commission for certain questions in the examination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by examining the correctness of the answers provided by the Commission and encroached upon the field of experts. The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal were quashed and set aside.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Tribunal had the authority to examine the correctness of the answers provided by the Commission and to substitute its own opinion in place of the opinion of the experts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that it was not permissible for the Tribunal to substitute its own opinion in place of the opinion of the experts and that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by encroaching upon the field of experts.
Final Decision: The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal were quashed and set aside.
R.M.Borde, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.
2. The petitioner – Maharashtra Public Service Commission is taking exception to the decision rendered by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad, in Original Application No.769/2011, decided on 13.12.2011. The Tribunal, while allowing the Original Application tendered by Respondent No.1 herein, granted a declaration that Respondent No. 1 has achieved the benchmark for general category prescribed by the Commission for holding him eligible to appear for the interview.
3. The Maharashtra Public Service Commission undertook selection process for filling up 74 vacancies of the post of Education Officer in State services. The Commission conducted screening test of the candidates and results were declared on 17.07.2011. The Commission published first answer key soliciting objections from the candidates and after receiving objections and on consideration of same with the assistance of experts in the field, published a revised answer key. The performance of candidates, appearing at the examination, was evaluated as per the revised answer key.
4. Respondent No.1 herein approached Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal at Aurangabad by filing Original Application No.769/2011. It is the contention of Respondent No.1 that the revised answer key provided by the Commission is erroneous so far as it relates to three questions, namely questions at Sr.Nos.17, 53 and 118. According to Respondent No.1, he has answered all the questions correctly and that he is entitled to get more marks.
5. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal considered the objection raised by Respondent No.1 in respect of answer to question no.53 provided under the revised answer key and found that the answer provided by the Commission is erroneous and that the answer recorded in the first answer key is the correct answer. The Tribunal, as such, granted interim relief and directed the Commission to conduct interview of the candidate. The Tribunal took up the matter for final disposal and recorded a finding that the answers provided by the Commission in the revised answer key relating to question nos.17 and 53 are incorrect and answers provided in the first answer key were the correct answers. The Tribunal granted a declaration that Respondent No.1, on the basis of revaluation of his performance at the instance of Tribunal, has secured 97.5 marks which are above the benchmark prescribed by the Commission and as such, he is eligible to contest further by appearing in the interview.
6. Question no.53 was, “as to which is the longest river in the World?” and options provided were, (1) Ganga, (2) Nile, (3) Amazon; and (4) Brahmaputra. The first answer key recorded the correct answer as (2) Nile, whereas, revised answer key recorded the correct answer as option no.(3) Amazon. The Tribunal took upon itself the task of examining the correctness of answer on the basis of literature relied upon by the Expert Committee and ruled that the answer provided by the Commission in the revised answer key is incorrect and that “Nile” is the longest river in the world. In paragraph no.6 of the judgment, the Tribunal has observed as below:
“6. Firstly, about the answer to question no. 53, the Commission has now placed on record (marked Exh.X) xerox copy of a document which runs into two pages. First is the noting of the Expert Committee accepting that option 3 (river Amazon) is the correct answer and not option 2 (river Nile). The second sheet is pertaining to literature relied upon by the Expert Committee and we reproduce the relevant portion as under:
“The length of a river can be very hard to calculate. There are many factors, such as the source, the identification or the definition of the mouth, and the scale of measurement of the river length between source and mouth, that determine the precise meaning of “river length”. As a result
