Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 1578
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Sameer Jain, JJ.
Sudarshan Purohit – Appellant
Versus
The Hon`ble High Court For Judicature Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 106 of 2022 and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1347 of 2022
Decided On : 28-04-2022
Mr. Vinod Lal Mathur, Advocate, for the Appellant.
The relevance of the publication date of a legal provision in determining the correctness of a model answer and the scope of interference by the constitutional courts in the matter of correctness of model answers.
Headnote:
Model Answer Alteration - Palpably Wrong Decision - Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986
Fact of the Case:
The review petitioner challenged the decision of the examination agency and expert body to alter the model answer of a question based on the publication date of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the alteration of the model answer was not incorrect, as the question was with regard to the date of publication of the Act, not the date on which it was brought into force. The court also upheld the procedure adopted by the examination agency and expert body.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alteration of the model answer, the relevance of the publication date of the Act, and the scope of interference by the constitutional courts in the matter of correctness of model answers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decision of the expert body did not suffer from any illegality or perversity, and the procedure adopted by the examination agency and expert body was in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The review petition was dismissed as misconceived.
ORDER
1. Heard on prayer for review of order dated 08.04.2022 passed by this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner would submit that insofar as decision of the respondent examination agency and expert body to alter the model answer of question no.A-66/B- 49/C-58/D-39, the same was palpably wrong because the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 was published on 25.09.1987.
3. The next submission is that model answer once framed could not be altered. It is further submitted that the petitioner having answered the earlier model answer ought to have been benefited with the marks as the very alteration of model answers was incorrect.
4. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgments in the case of Kanpur University, through Vice Chancellor and Others Versus Samir Gupta and Others: (1983) 4 SCC 309, Manish Ujwal and Others Versus Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University and Others: (2005) 13 SCC 744 and Ran Vijay Singh and Others Versus State of U.P. and Others: (2018) 2 SCC 357.
5. The argument of learned counsel for the review petitioner is utterly misconceived in law. This Court on the factual premise that upon objection received on the correctness of the model answer key of question no.A-66/B-49/C-58/D-39, the expert body had considered objection and it opined that the question was with regard to the date on which the Act was published and therefore with reference to the question, the date of publication was relevant not the date on which it was brought into force and effect in exercise of powers under Section 1(1) of the Act. This decision of the expert body, in our opinion, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The judgments which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the review petitioner are with regard to the scope of interference by the constitutional courts in the matter of correctness of model answers. The procedure adopted by the respondents to invite objections against proposed answer keys, getting it examined by a body of experts and acting according to the opinion of experts, has been found by this Court to be in accordance with law calling for no interference.
6. The review petition being misconceived is, therefore, dismissed.
