Scrutiny of the decision-making process of the Expert Body and the material considered in determining the correctness of answer keys.

JUDGMENT :

Vipin Sanghi, J.

Delay Condonation Applications (IA No.01 and 02 of 2023)

Learned counsels for the respondents fairly do not oppose the delay in preferring the present special appeals.

2. For the reasons stated in the affidavit(s), filed in support of the delay condonation applications, the delay condonation applications are allowed, and the delay of 198 days in preferring the SPA No.100 of 2023 and the delay of 224 days in preferring the SPA Nos.210, 211 and 212 of 2023, is, hereby, condoned.

Special Appeal Nos.100, 210, 211 and 212 of 2023

3. We have heard learned counsels and proceeded to dispose of the present special appeals.

4. The present special appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 24.09.2022, rendered by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petition, including Writ Petition (S/S) No.308 of 2022, “Sunita vs. State of Uttarakhand & others”.

5. The appellants were the writ petitioners in Writ Petition (S/S) Nos.90 of 2022, 419 of 2022, 591 of 2022, and 421 of 2022 respectively. The appellants had preferred the said writ petitions to raise the issue with regard to the correctness of the answer keys to certain questions, in respect of the examination held by the respondent-Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission, for the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T.) Grade in Government Schools. The questions, in respect whereof the challenge was raised, were Question Nos.9, 29, 65 and 85 of Series ‘A’ booklet. At the hearing, the appeals have not been pressed in respect of Question No.29.

6. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions by the common impugned judgment on the ground that it is not for the Courts to take on the role of experts in academic matters and to re-evaluate the answer key prepared by the Selection Body under the guidance of the Subject Experts. The learned Single Judge held that the issue as to which option-to a given question, gives correct answer can only be decided by Experts, and the answer key had been revised by the Selecting Body based on the recommendation of the Subject Experts, who considered the objections received against the first answer key.

7. There can be no quarrel with the preposition noticed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. We cannot go into the correctness of the answers finalized by the Expert Body. However, the process of decision making by the Expert Body, and the material which have been considered or left out of consideration, would fall for scrutiny by the Court, as this Court is concerned primarily with the issue: whether the Body-even if it is composed of Subject Experts, has given due application of mind to the issue, on which its decision/ opinion was called for; whether the Expert Body has considered the relevant and germane aspects, and not taken into consideration irrelevant or extraneous aspects, and; whether the decision appears to be well reasoned. In that light, we have proceeded to take notice of the three questions, in respect whereof, the appellants are pressing the present special appeals; the texts and material relied upon by the appellants; the reasoning adopted by the Experts, and; the texts and other literature relied upon by the Expert Body.

8. Vide our order dated 17.05.2023, we had directed the respondent-authorities to produce before us the Expert Committee’s report along with the background and the qualifications of the Experts, who have made the said report.

The relevant extract of the books on which reliance had been placed by the Expert Committee was also required to be placed before us.

9. Learned counsels for the respondent-Commission have produced before us a sealed cover containing the aforesaid information question-wise.

10. Question No.9 in Series ‘A’ booklet was the following:-

“9. Propounder of reinforcement theory is:

(A) Pavlov

(B) Skinner

(C) Thorndike

(D) C.L. Hull”

11. The initial ans