Back
2022 Supreme(UK) 263
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
Jailakshami Rana and Another – Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (S/S) Nos. 839, 845 of 2022
Decided On : 24-09-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Vinay Kumar.
For the Respondents: N.P. Shah, V.S. Rawat, Pankaj Purohit, Lalit Samant.
The court emphasized the importance of expert examination in determining the correctness of answers in a competitive examination and questioned the use of a dictionary as an authority for such questions.
Headnote:
Answer Key - Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Hindi) - Question Nos. 14, 24, 30, 74, 75 - The court discussed the correctness of answers to specific questions in the revised answer key and the issue of using a dictionary as an authority in a competitive examination. The court directed the Selecting Body to refer the disputed question to an expert committee for examination and decision.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the correctness of answers in the revised answer key for Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Hindi) examination. They sought a writ mandamus to declare certain options as correct and include their names in the provisional merit list after revision of marks.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the use of a dictionary as an authority for a question in a competitive examination was questionable and directed the Selecting Body to refer the disputed question to an expert committee for examination and decision.
Issues: The correctness of answers in the revised answer key, the use of a dictionary as an authority for a competitive examination question.
Ratio Decidendi: The court cannot assume the role of an expert in deciding the correctness of answers in a competitive examination. The use of a dictionary as an authority for a question in a competitive examination was not justified.
Final Decision: The court directed the Selecting Body to refer the disputed question to an expert committee for examination and decision.
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
1. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “Selecting Body”) invited applications, for appointment as Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade in Government Schools in different subjects, by a notification dated 13.10.2020. Petitioners responded to the said advertisement and appeared in the examination consisting of multiple choice objective questions. Having been declared unsuccessful in the said examination; petitioners have approached this Court.
2. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, both the petitions are clubbed together and are being heard and decided together. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WP (SS) No. 839 of 2022 alone are being considered.
3. In Writ Petition (S/S) No. 839 of 2022, petitioners applied for the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Hindi). The reliefs sought in this writ petition are as follows:
(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus declaring the Options given in the revised Answer Key by the Commission (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition), as correct answer for Question Nos. 14, 24, 30, 74 and 75 of Question Booklet Series-B for the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Hindi), as incorrect being not support by any authentic document/books.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission to treat the Options given by the petitioners to Question Nos. 14, 24, 30, 74 and 75 of the Booklet Series-B as a correct Option of the said questions and accordingly award marks to the petitioners for the said questions and consequently revised the total marks allotted to the petitioners in the written examination held of the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Hindi).
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent Commission to include the name of the petitioners in the Provisional Merit List of the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Hindi) after revision of the marks allotted to the petitioners in the written examination.
4. Petitioners in these writ petitions have raised the issue of correctness of answers to Question Nos. 14, 24, 30, 74 and 75 of Question Booklet Series ‘B’, as given in the revised answer key.
5. Petitioners have relied upon certain texts for contending that the answers treated as correct by the Selecting Body are actually incorrect. The Selecting Body as well as the interveners have also relied upon certain books in support of their contention that the answers given in revised answer key are correct and supported by authentic text.
6. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the Selecting Body submits that objections received against first answer key were referred to the expert committee and the expert committee, after much deliberations, corrected the answers in respect of few questions. Thus he submits that once the expert committee has taken a decision based on objections, then judicial interference with the view taken by the expert committee would not be proper.
7. It is well settled that High Court, while exercising power of judicial review, cannot assume the role of a Expert and it cannot decide, whether an answer treated as ‘correct’ by subject experts in reply to a multiple choice question, is actually correct or not. In other words, this Court while exercising power of judicial review cannot sit in judgment over the decision taken by Experts.
8. However, in Para 36 of the writ petition [WP (SS) No. 839 of 2022], petitioners have raised a different issue. According to them, meaning to a word given in a particular dictionary cannot be posed as question, that too when the question is from the field of psychology/anthropology. Para 36 of the writ petition is reproduced below:
“36. That option B ‘Webster Dictionary’ given by the Commission is a correct answer key for the Question No. 30 of Booklet Series B is incorre
