IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Manju Rani Chauhan, J.
Anoop Kumar Singh And Another - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of U P And Others - Respondent
Writ - A No. - 3146 of 2022
Decided On : 31-05-2022
Re-evaluation - Writ Petition - U.P. High Education Service Commission - Regulation 12 - No provision for re-evaluation - Court cannot interfere with expert opinion unless key answers are patently wrong - Benefit should go to examination authority rather than candidate - No scope for judicial review
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the result of the Assistant Professor written examination, claiming that certain answers in the answer key were incorrect. They sought re-evaluation of their answer sheets based on their objections.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that there was no provision for re-evaluation and cited previous judgments to support the position that the Court cannot interfere with expert opinion unless key answers are patently wrong. The benefit should go to the examination authority rather than the candidate.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Court should direct re-evaluation of the answer sheets based on the petitioners' objections.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the absence of a provision for re-evaluation and the principle that the Court should not interfere with expert opinion unless key answers are patently wrong.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, stating that there was no good ground to interfere based on the established position of law.
JUDGMENT :
Manju Rani Chauhan, J.
1. Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Gagan Mehta, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3 and Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:-
(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no.2 to re-evaluate the answer sheet of the petitioners and declare a fresh result on the basis of reevaluation.
(iii Issue a appropriate writ order or direction to the respondent no.2 to consider the candidature of the petitioners for interview for post of Assistant Professor of Geography subject.”
3. In the present writ petition, counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties, supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 & 3 is also taken on record. Both the parties agree that this petition be disposed of at this stage, without calling for any further affidavit.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-Commission published an advertisement for filling the vacancies of Assistant Professor in various subjects. The petitioners being eligible applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Geography subject. The petitioners appeared in written examination scheduled on 30.10.2021 and attempted the questions to the best of their ability and knowledge. After the examination, the answer key inviting objections from the candidates in case of any wrong answer in the answer key was published by the respondent-Commission. The question papers were in four sets i.e. A, B, C, D and the petitioners were given ‘D’ Series of the booklet. The petitioners found that some of the answers given in the answer key published by respondent- Commission were wrong, therefore, they raised their objections separately with respect to questions at serial no. 2, 3, 14, 29, 34, 55, 56, 65, 66 and 79. Without considering the objections as raised by the petitioners, the final result was published by only correcting question no. 14 of ‘D’ series of the booklet, as suggested by the petitioners. Apart from the aforesaid, the Commission has also deleted one question i.e. question no.36 and corrected one question i.e. question no.43 of the ‘D’ series of the booklet. The revised and final result of the written paper of Assistant Professor (Geography) were declared on 11.02.2022 without correcting the answers as raised in the objections by the petitioners. The answers of 10 questions as stated above were said to be incorrect relying upon certain books as placed by the petitioners but respondent-Commission neither corrected the questions which was wrongly answered by the Commission in the answer key, as objected by the petitioners nor communicated the reason behind non consideration of rest 8 questions as suggested by the petitioners.
5. The petitioners found that question no. 29 of ‘D’ series of the booklet had two correct answers but the objection with respect to the same could not be raised prior to declaration of the result.
6. The questions which still need to be corrected as per the objections raised by the petitioners are as follows:-
Which of the following is in pre-active stage of teaching?
(A) Evaluating (B) Diagnosis
(C) Sequencing (D) Remediating
Question No.29
Reflecting teaching is:
(A) Problem Centered (B) Practice Centered
(C) Making Association (D) Reproduction of thought
Tripura Vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and Others
H.P. Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and Others
Ran Vijay Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Ran Vijay Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
U.P.P.S.C. and Ors. Vs. Rahul Singh and Ors. reported in AIR 2018 SC 2861
The Court cannot interfere with expert opinion unless key answers are patently wrong, and there is no provision for re-evaluation.
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.
Point of Law : Practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation and that too in absence of any specific provision in relevant rules for re-evaluation and tha....
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....
Point of Law : if a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-ev....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.