Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 141
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Arun Bhansali, J.
Shyam Singh Ranawat – Appellant
Vs.
Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 15736 of 2018
Decided On : 25-03-2019
For the Appellant : K.R. Saharan
For the Respondent: Manoj Bhandari
In matters of examination and evaluation, the court should be reluctant to interfere with the opinions expressed by academic experts unless there is a clear demonstration of incorrectness, bias, or mala fide.
Headnote:
WRIT PETITION - RECRUITMENT - TECHNICAL HELPER (ELECTRICIAN) - OBJECTION TO ANSWER KEY - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - EXPERT COMMITTEE'S OPINION - JUDICIAL REVIEW - INTERFERENCE WITH MODEL ANSWER KEY - DEMONSTRABLY INCORRECT ANSWERS - BURDEN OF PROOF - DOUBTS AND INFERENTIAL PROCESS - SYSTEM WORKABILITY AND INTEGRITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the decision of respondents to not consider objections raised to answer key for recruitment of Technical Helper (Electrician). Petitioner claimed that answers to certain questions were demonstrably incorrect and sought revised answer key, fresh result, and cut-off marks.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the answers suggested were demonstrably incorrect. The Expert Committee's decision was based on material taken into consideration while deciding objections to the model answer key. The court found no evidence of bias or mala fide on the part of the Expert Committee.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had demonstrated that the answers suggested were demonstrably incorrect? 2. Whether the Expert Committee was biased or acted with mala fide?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The burden of proof lies on the candidate to demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect and that it is a glaring mistake. 2. The court should exercise great restraint in entertaining pleas challenging the correctness of key answers. 3. The court should not lightly interfere with the opinion expressed by academic experts. 4. In case of doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than the candidate.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to establish that the answers were demonstrably incorrect or that the Expert Committee was biased or acted with mala fide.
Arun Bhansali, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to decide petitioner's objection regarding answer of question Nos. 27, 64, 70 & 87 and further direction to issue revised answer key, issue fresh result and cut of marks of the written examination for recruitment on the post of Technical Helper (Electrician) pursuant to the advertisement (Annexure-1).
2. It is, inter alia, indicated in the writ petition that pursuant to the advertisement No. 1/2018-19 for recruitment on the post of Technical Helper issued by respondent Nigam the petitioner being eligible submitted online application form with required documents. Admit cards were issued and the petitioner participated in the written examination.
3. The respondents published first answer key and objections were invited. The petitioner raised objections regarding question Nos. 27, 46, 64, 70, 87 & 91, from which, objections to two questions No. 46 and 91 were considered but objection of the remaining questions have not been considered. The revised answer key was published on 14.09.2018, regarding which, it is submitted that the objections raised have not been considered and thereafter the result has been published by the respondents, wherein, the petitioner obtained 157 marks, whereas, the cut off in petitioner's category is 163 marks.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that answers qua at least 3 questions are demonstrably incorrect and, therefore, the same requires interference by this Court. It was submitted that the petitioner had raised objections regarding question Nos. 27, 70 and 87 and had produced material in support of the objections. However, for no apparent reason, the objections have been rejected and, therefore, the same requires to be corrected and the respondents be directed to revise the answers and the result consequent thereto.
5. The various submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner pertaining to the relevant questions is as under:-
"Q. No. -27 Which of the following instruments is/are free from hysteresis and eddy current error?
(A) PMMC instruments
(B) Dynamometer type instruments
(C) Electrostatic instrument
(E) Moving iron instrument
(E) All of these
Correct answer as per petitioner - (B) & (C) both
As per Answer Key - (C)"
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to certain material placed on record that both answer (B) and answer (C) were correct answers. Reference in this regard has been placed on certain material which has been placed on record.
"Q. No. -70 How many neutral earth pits are there for one transformer in a substation?
(A) One
(B) Two
(C) Three
(D) Four
(E) Five
Correct answer as per petitioner - (B)
As per Answer Key - (C)"
7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to certain material placed on record that answer (B) was correct answer. Reference in this regard has been placed on certain material which has been placed on record.
Q. No. -87 Which of the following statements is FALSE about fuse?
(A) Fuse is independent of ambient temperature
(B) It protects against short circuit
(C) Only single pole version is available
(D) It works on the electrical and thermals properties of the conducting materials
(E) It cannot be used as ON/OFF switch Correct answer as per petitioner - (A)
As per Answer Key - (B)"
8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to certain material placed on record that answer (A) was correct answer. Reference in this regard has been placed on certain material which has been placed on record.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that once the material as produced on record clearly indicates that the answers as attempted by the petitioner/suggested by the petitioner are correct, the insistence of the respondents in sticking to his own answers is baseless and, therefore, the action on part of the respondents deserves to be quashed and set aside.
10. Lea
