Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.
Rahul Ranjan Devender Singh Vipin Kumar - Appellant
Versus
University Grant Commission Through Its Chairperson - Respondent
W.P.(C) 839 of 2020
Decided On : 07-11-2023
UGC-NET - Admission Issue - Information Bulletin Clause 10 - The court discussed the examination pattern, the provisional and final answer keys, and the role of subject experts in finalizing the correct answer. The court highlighted the legal principle that answer keys should be assumed correct unless proven wrong and that courts should not interfere with the decisions of subject experts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought writ to allow their admission in UGC-NET 2019-2020 for JRF and to grant them the certificates of JRF and NET. They challenged the final answer key's correctness for a specific question.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the examination pattern, provisional and final answer keys, and the role of subject experts. It found that the subject experts' decision on the correct answer was not arbitrary and did not warrant judicial review.
Issues: Admission issue, correctness of final answer key, role of subject experts, judicial review of answer keys.
Ratio Decidendi: Answer keys should be assumed correct unless proven wrong, and courts should not interfere with the decisions of subject experts in academic matters.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the subject experts' decision did not warrant judicial review.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners in the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek for issuance of writ to allow the admission/enrollment of the petitioners in UGC-NET 2019-2020 for Junior Research Fellowship (hereinafter referred to as `JRF.) and to grant them the certificates of JRF and NET.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners applied for the JRF and NET examination in the subject of Political Science (Subject Code 02) conducted by respondent no.2-National Testing Agency (hereinafter referred to as `NTA.). The petitioners appeared in the said examination on 05.12.2019 in the second shift.
3. On 10.12.2019, they accessed the provisional answer key from the official website of respondent no.2-NTA and found that in the provisional answer key, against Question no.79/Question ID 61547511428, the correct answer was shown as Option no. 4 with Option ID 61547544556. The petitioners, as per the provisional answer key since had marked the correct option; therefore, they raised no objections.
4. As per the prescribed practice, respondent no.2-NTA invited objections with respect to the provisional answer key. On 23.12.2019, after considering the objections and subject expert opinion, respondent no. 2-NTA published the final answer key and the answer for Question no. 79 was changed from Option no. 4 to Option no. 1. Therefore, the Option originally prescribed as correct was declared as incorrect and the revised answer key was issued.
5. The respondent no.2-NTA on the basis of the final answer key published on 23.12.2019, declared the final result on 31.12.2019.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are aggrieved by the irresponsible action of the respondents. While pointing out the disputed question, he submits that, in view of the material available on record, the answer key finalized by the experts is palpably wrong.
7. He further submits that the correct answer to the said question should be Option no.4/ Gender Inequality, whereas, the respondents in the final answer key have treated Option no.1/Begampura to be the correct answer.
8. He also referred to various literatures and documents to suggest that Option no. 4 is correct answer and, therefore, there was no reason for the examining agency to have opted for any other options. He further submits that petitioners. answer was based on the authoritative books and various research works published in the books and taught in lectures.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken this court through the question paper and answer key set out for UGC-NET (March -Slot 2), 2023 recently conducted by respondent no.2- NTA on 06.03.2023, wherein, respondent no.2-NTA put a similar question. He further submits that as per the final answer key issued by respondent no.2- NTA, for UGC-NET (March-Slot 2) 2023, the correct answer is option (3) Kabir meaning thereby that "Begumpura" is associated with "Kabir".
10. For the sake of clarity SI. no.7 with Question ID 2007 reads as under:
'S. No.7
QBID: 2007 which of the following is associated with concept of 'Begumpura', the kingdom of god?
1. Ramabai
2. M.K. Gandhi
3. Kabir
4. Meerabai
(Option 1[38325]) 1
(Option 2[38326]) 2
(Option 3[38327]) 3
(Option 4[38328]) 4
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kanpur University & Ors. v. Samir Gupta & Ors., (1983) 4 SCC 309, Abhijit Sen & Ors. v. State U.P., (1984) 2 SCC 319, Manish Ujwal v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, (2005) 13 SCC 744, Rajesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar& Ors., (2013) 4 SCC 690 and Rishal & Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors., (2018) 8 SCC 81. He also placed reliance upon the decision passed by Allahabad High Court in the case of Anurag Tripathi v. U.P.P.S.C., 2016 SCC OnLine ALL 36122016 SCC OnLine ALL 3612
12. The counter affidavit filed by respondent no.2-NTA controverts the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf o
Answer keys should be assumed correct unless proven wrong, and courts should not interfere with the decisions of subject experts in academic matters.
Standardized computerized evaluation process and unambiguous instructions for marking responses in UGC-NET examination.
The answer key should be assumed correct unless proven wrong, and the court should not interfere with the answer key finalized by the examination agency.
Court is to presume the correctness of answer key and proceed on that assumption. In the event of any doubt, benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.
The central legal point established in the given judgment is that the decision of the examining body cannot be a subject matter of judicial review on merits unless the same is palpably erroneous or i....
Point of Law : Law that compassion sympathy or claim on basis of assessment cannot be permitted as entire examination process is derailed because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or p....
The Court cannot interfere with expert opinion unless key answers are patently wrong, and there is no provision for re-evaluation.
Educational administration provides appropriate education to appropriate student by appropriate teacher by which they can able to become best by using available maximum resources.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
