# Anoop Kumar Singh & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 7 ILRA 661
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-31
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 3146 of 2022
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anoop-kumar-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48824
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A. Service Law - U.P. Higher Education
Service
Commission
(Procedure
for
Selection of Teachers) Regulations, 2014 -
Regulation 12 - The examiners as well as
experts being an independent body, their
decision cannot be interfered as the same is
given
after
proper
consultation
and
research. In case of any mistake, the benefit of
change in the answer key is given to each and
every candidate, after following due process. The
change in the tentative answer key can be made
only after the expert opinion, the Commission
takes into consideration the objections as raised by
the candidates and after placing the same before
the experts, the answer key is uploaded. The
deletion of answer can be possible only after the
experts opinion and benefit of deleted question is
given to each and every candidate, in such a
manner
that
there
is
no
discrepancy
or
discrimination with any candidates. (Para 12)

B. Sympathy or compassion does not play
any role in the matter of directing or not
directing re-evaluation of an answer
sheets. The law is well settled that the
burden is on the candidates, not only to
demonstrate that the key answer is
incorrect but also to show that it is a
glaring mistake which is totally apparent
and no inferential process or reasoning is
required to show that the key answer is
wrong. (Para 22)

Even the policy decision incorporated in the
Rules/Regulations
providing
for
rechecking/verification/re-evaluation cannot be
challenged unless there are grounds to show
that the policy itself is in violation of some
statutory provision. (Para 20)

In the present case, the final key was published
on
11.02.2022
only
after
taking
into
662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
consideration the experts opinion as well as the
objections raised by the candidates,. (Para 15)

C. The Courts cannot judicially review the
expert opinion unless and until the key
answer is patently wrong. The Constitutional
Courts must exercise great restrain in such
matters and should be reluctant to entertain a
plea challenging the correctness of the key
answers. The Court should not over step its
jurisdiction by giving the directions for reevaluation which would amount to judicially
reviewing the decision of the expert in the field.
(Para 22, 24, 26)

Indubitably,
conducting
and
holding
of
examinations in a most fitting and fair manner is
peremptory and is solemn duty of examining
body to provide for fair procedure, rules,
regulations or bye-laws, keeping in mind that the
career and fate of the students depends upon the
result of the examinations. It is settled law that
when a decision is taken by the Committee of
Expert having high academic qualifications and
long experience in the specialised field, the
Courts should not normally interfere in the
matters
unless
there
are
compelling
circumstances for doing so. (Para 28, 30)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

7 All. Anoop Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
661
constituted under Appendix-2 to the Rules,
2015 is liable to be preferred over the
determination made by the Medical Board
in terms of the Appendix-3, is not
sustainable. Opinion of a committee of
non-experts under Rule 15(d) for physical
test of a candidate cannot override the
opinion of the team of experts, i.e.
Medical Board under Rule 15(g) of the
Rules."

31. This Court also agrees with the
observations made by the Division Bench
of this Court in the aforesaid case.

32. Lastly, this Court finds substance
in the submission made by the learned
Standing Counsel that this second writ
petition filed for the same relief cannot be
entertained by this Court. For same relief,
second writ petition is not maintainable.
The proper remedy available to the
petitioner was to file a recall application in
his earlier writ petition referred to above or
to file a Special Appeal against the
judgment and order passed in the said writ
petition.

33. The present writ petition is devoid
of merits, and, accordingly, dismissed.

34. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2022)07ILR A661
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 3146 of 2022

Anoop Kumar Singh & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Abhay Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Gagan Mehta

A. Service Law - U.P. Higher Education
Service
Commission
(Procedure
for
Selection of Teachers) Regulations, 2014 -
Regulation 12 - The examiners as well as
experts being an independent body, their
decision cannot be interfered as the same is
given
after
proper
consultation
and
research. In case of any mistake, the benefit of
change in the answer key is given to each and
every candidate, after following due process. The
change in the tentative answer key can be made
only after the expert opinion, the Commission
takes into consideration the objections as raised by
the candidates and after placing the same before
the experts, the answer key is uploaded. The
deletion of answer can be possible only after the
experts opinion and benefit of deleted question is
given to each and every candidate, in such a
manner
that
there
is
no
discrepancy
or
discrimination with any candidates. (Para 12)

B. Sympathy or compassion does not play
any role in the matter of directing or not
directing re-evaluation of an answer
sheets. The law is well settled that the
burden is on the candidates, not only to
demonstrate that the key answer is
incorrect but also to show that it is a
glaring mistake which is totally apparent
and no inferential process or reasoning is
required to show that the key answer is
wrong. (Para 22)

Even the policy decision incorporated in the
Rules/Regulations
providing
for
rechecking/verification/re-evaluation cannot be
challenged unless there are grounds to show
that the policy itself is in violation of some
statutory provision. (Para 20)

In the present case, the final key was published
on
11.02.2022
only
after
taking
into
662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
consideration the experts opinion as well as the
objections raised by the candidates,. (Para 15)

C. The Courts cannot judicially review the
expert opinion unless and until the key
answer is patently wrong. The Constitutional
Courts must exercise great restrain in such
matters and should be reluctant to entertain a
plea challenging the correctness of the key
answers. The Court should not over step its
jurisdiction by giving the directions for reevaluation which would amount to judicially
reviewing the decision of the expert in the field.
(Para 22, 24, 26)

Indubitably,
conducting
and
holding
of
examinations in a most fitting and fair manner is
peremptory and is solemn duty of examining
body to provide for fair procedure, rules,
regulations or bye-laws, keeping in mind that the
career and fate of the students depends upon the
result of the examinations. It is settled law that
when a decision is taken by the Committee of
Expert having high academic qualifications and
long experience in the specialised field, the
Courts should not normally interfere in the
matters
unless
there
are
compelling
circumstances for doing so. (Para 28, 30)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. High Court of Tripura Vs Tirtha Sarathi
Mukherjee & ors., 2009 II SCALE 708 (Para 16)

2. H.P. Service Commission Vs Mukesh Thakur &
ors., AIR 2010 SC 2620 (Para 16)

3. Ran Vijay Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
AIR 2018 SC 52 (Para 16)

4. Maharashtra St. Board of Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education & anr. Vs Paritosh
Bhupesh Kurmarsheth & ors., AIR 1984 SC 1543
(Para 20)

5. Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs Chairman, Bihar
Public Service Commission, Patna & ors., J.T.
2004 SC 380 (Para 21)

6. Ran Vijay Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
AIR 2018 SC 52; (2018) 2 SCC 357 (Para 23)
7. U.P.P.S.C. & ors. Vs Rahul Singh & ors., AIR
2018 SC 2861 (Para 27)

8. University of Mysore Vs C.D. Govinda Rao &
anr., AIR 1965 SC 491 (Para 29)

9. Bihar Staff Selection Commission Vs Arun
Kumar, 2020) 6 SCC 362 (Para 31)

10. Jitendra Singh Vs U.O.I. & anr., Writ-C No.
53877 of 2017 (Para 32)

Present petition prays for quashing of
impugned result dated 17.02.2022 by the
U.P.
Higher
Education
Service
Commission.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. 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:-

"(i) Issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned result annexed as
Annexure
No.11
published
on
the
17.02.2022 by the Respondent no.2 Uttar
Pradesh
Higher
Education
Service
Commission.

(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 re-evaluation.

(iii Issue a appropriate writ order
or direction to the respondent no.2 to
7 All. Anoop Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
663
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:-

`Question No.3.

Which of the following is in preactive stage of teaching?

(A) Evaluating

(B) Diagnosis

(C) Sequencing

(D) Remediating

As per the answer key, the correct
answer is (C) whereas as per the books of
UPKAR Prakashan and another book of
Drishti for UGC NET JRF, available with
the petitioner shows that both (B) and (C)
answers are correct.

Question No.29
664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Reflecting teaching is:

(A) Problem Centered

(B) Practice Centered

(C)Making Association

 (D) Reproduction of thought

As per the answer key, the correct
answer is (A) whereas as per the books of
UPKAR Prakashan and another book of
Drishti for UGC NET JRF, available with
the petitioner shows that both (A) and (D)
answers are correct.

Question No.34

Among the following scholars
who first put forth the Global Strategic
View Model?

(A) A.T. Mahan

(B) S.B. Cohen

(C)A.D. Seversky

(D) N.J. Spiikeman

As per the answer key, the correct
answer is (A) whereas as per the relevant
pages of books of Political Geography
written by Dr. S. Adhikari and Dr. Ratan
Kumar and another book of Political
Geography written by Ramesh Dutta
Dikshit as well as by R.C. Tiwari, available
with the petitioner, the correct answer is
(B).

Question No.55

Which of the following types of
spectrum of Remote Sensing would be be

(A) Thermal Infrared

 (B) Visible Spectum Band 0.4

(C)Visible Spectum Band 0.5

(D) False Colour Composite

As per the answer key, the correct
answer is (D) whereas as per the relevant
pages of books of Principle of Remote
Sensing
and
Geographical
Information
System written by Dr. Devidutta Chounial
and another book of Arihant Publication
UGC NET as well as TATA McGraw-Hills
written by D.R. Khullar, available to the
petitioner, the correct answer is (A) .

Question No.65

Which of the following process is
called by alternate wetting and drying of
rocks?

(A) Slaking

 (B) Sheeting
(C)Spalling
 (D) Flaking

As per the answer key, the correct
answer is (A) whereas as per the relevant
pages of books of Bhuaakriti Vigyan ka
Swaroop written by Savindra Singh, available
with the petitioner, the correct answer is (D).

Question No.66

With references to Endogenetic
Forces, which of the following statement
is/are correct?

(1) Extreme event like earthquake
and volcanic eruptions are caused by
diastrophic forces

(2) Tensional Forces cause up
warping and down warping

(A) Only 1

 (B) Only 2
7 All. Anoop Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
665

(C)Only 1 and 2
(D) Neither 1
nor 2

The question paper is in diglot
and the answers in hindi language is
different from english language, therefore,
the question may be deleted as there is no
mechanism to know in which the language
the aspirant has opted. In case, the said
question is not deleted it will create
anomaly.

अन्तिाित बल िे सन्ििि में दनम्नदलदित ििनों में से
िौन सा सही है/हैं?

(1) िूिांप और ज्िालामुिी दिस्फोट िैसी
आिदस्मि घटनाएां अन्तिाित बलों द्वारा उत्पन्न होती हैं /

(2) उत्समिलन और असांिलन तनाि बलों द्वारा
उत्पन्न होते हैं /

नीचे दिए गए िूट से सही उत्तर चुदनए:

(A) िेिल १ (B) िेिल २

(C)१ और २ िोनों (D) न तो १ और न ही २

In
support
of
their
submission/objection,
petitioners
have
placed reliance the relevant pages of books
of Bhautik Bhoogol ka Swaroop written by
Savindra Singh and another book of
Arihant Publication UGC NET.

Question No.79

Which of the following is not
correctly matched?

(Ocean Deposits)
(Source)

(A) Ooze -

Biotic

(B) Red Clay -

Biotic

(C) Tiktites - Cosmogeneous

(D) Mud -

Volcanic

As per the answer key, the correct
answer is (D) whereas relying upon the
book of Samudra Vigyan written by
Savindra Singh and another book of
Bhautik Bhoogol ka Swaroop written by
Savindra Singh, the correct answer is (B).

7. The petitioners are confident and
self possessed that in case the answers as
relied upon by the petitioners and raised
in
their
objections,
if
taken
into
consideration, the petitioners will qualify
in the written examination.

8.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners submits that the petitioners
while raising their objections has placed
reliance upon the reliable and renowned
books, therefore, their objections should
have been taken into consideration prior
to declaration of the result. The conduct
of the respondents to declare the result
without considering the objections of the
petitioners amounts to arbitrariness and
hard-heartedness on their part, therefore,
he submits that the selection of the
petitioners on the post of Assistant
Professor (Geography) has been denied
by not taking into consideration the
objections as raised byby the petitioners,
which in case done, the petitioners would
have succeeded.

9. Thus, the present writ petition has
been filed with the prayer to direct the
respondents to re-evaluate the answer
sheets on the basis of the answers as
given by the petitioners in the objections
placed before respondents-Commission
and declare the result of the petitioners
accordingly.
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. On the other hand Mr. Gagan
Mehta, learned counsel for respondent nos.
2 & 3 and Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned
Standing Counsel for the State respondents
submit that the relief as prayed on behalf of
the petitioners cannot be granted by this
Court while exercising its power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The request of the petitioners for reevaluation of the answer sheets regarding
question no.3, 29, 55, 65, 66 and 79 cannot
be accepted as the correctness of the option
given in the answer key is based upon
experts opinion as obtained by the
respondent-Commission and in the opinion
of the subject experts, the answer key has
been rightly uploaded. Since the answer
key has been examined by the subject
experts and the petitioners have not pleaded
mala fide as against the respondents, as
such no judicial review would lie and the
writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

11. Learned counsel for respondentCommission has specifically mentioned
that panel of examiners and experts is an
independent body as the same has been
constituted under Regulation 12 of the U.P.
High
Education
Service
Commission
(Procedure for Selection of Teachers)
Regulations, 2014, which reads as follows:-

"(1) The Chairman Examination
Committee shall prepare for every subject,
a list of persons qualified for appointment
as examiners and submit the same for
approval fo the Commission, such list shall
be revised at least once in every two years:

Provided that a person included
in the previous list shall be eligible for
inclusion in the revised list.

(2) The list referred in subsection (1) shall contain, as far as possible,
information about the persons included
therein
regard
to
their
academic
qualifications, teaching experience at the
degree and the postgraduate levels or
professional
experience
and,
the
particulars, of the earlier examinations
conducted by the Commission in which they
acted as examiners.

(3) The Chairman Examination
Committee shall, with the prior approval of
the Commission, appoint Paper Setters and
Moderators from amongst the persons
included in the list referred to in subsection (1).

(4) In making such appointments
every care shall be taken to ensure that no
person as so appointed who was found
guilty of misconduct by any university,
Government or Government body, or
against
whom
any
inquiries
or
investigations are pending or allegations of
misconduct, or whose integrity is doubtful.
Any person whose work as Head Examiner,
Paper Setter or Valuer is found to be
unsatisfactory by the Commission shall not
be reappointed for that purpose."

12. The examiners as well as experts
being an independent body, their decision
cannot be interfered as the same is given
after proper consultation and research.
They further submit that in case of any
mistake, the benefit of change in the
answer key is given to each and every
candidate, after following due process. The
change in the tentative answer key can be
made only after the expert opinion, the
Commission takes into consideration the
objections as raised by the candidates and
after placing the same before the experts,
the answer key is uploaded. The deletion of
answer can be possible only after the
experts opinion and benefit of deleted
7 All. Anoop Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
667
question is given to each and every
candidate, in such a manner that there is no
discrepancy or discrimination with any
candidates.

13. As regards the issue regarding
discrepancy between English and Hindi
version, the instruction no.15 of the
question booklet itself provides that the
English version will be taken as final,
Instruction No.15, reads as follows:-

"यदद दहंदी या अंग्रेजी दववरर्ण में कोई दवसंगदत हो
तो अंग्रेजी दववरर्ण अंदतम माना जायेगा /

In case of any discrepancy
between the English and Hindi version,
English version will be taken as final."

14. They further submit that the
objections as raised by the candidates to the
answer key was taken into consideration
and the duly appointed experts of the
subjects submitted their opinion on the
same before the Commission placing
reliance upon books like fundamentals of
remote sensing by George Joseph and
physical Geography by Sunil Singh from
which specially question no.55, 65, 66 and
79 were verified.

15.

Only
after
taking
into
consideration the experts opinion, after
considering the objections raised by the
candidates, the final key was published on
11.02.2022.

16. Lastly, learned counsel for
respondents submit that there is no
provision of re-evaluation, therefore, the reevaluation of answer sheets cannot be
permitted as prayed by the petitioners. In
support of their submission, they relying
upon the judgement of High Court of
Tripura Vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee
and Others, reported in 2009 II SCALE
708,
H.P.
Service
Commission
Vs.
Mukesh Thakur and Others, reported in
AIR 2010 SC 2620 and Ran Vijay Singh
and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others,
reported in AIR 2018 SC 52.

17. Therefore, learned counsel for
respondents submit that the writ petition is
not maintainable and the same is liable to
be dismissed.

18. I have considered the submissions
made on behalf of learned counsel for the
parties and have gone through the records
of the present writ petition.

19.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has not brought to this Court's
attention any Rules, Regulations or any
guidelines framed by the respondents,
notification or circular issued by the
respondents or any authority of law that
may permit re-evaluation.

20. The issue of re-evaluation of
answer book or sheet is no more res
integra. This issue has been considered by
the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra
State Board of Secondary and Higher
Secondary
Education
&
Anr.
Vs.
Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth & Ors.,
reported in AIR 1984 SC 1543, wherein
the Apex Court rejected the contention that
in absence of provision for re-evaluation, a
direction to this effect can be issued by the
Court. The Apex Court further held that
even the policy decision incorporated in the
Rules/Regulations
providing
for
rechecking/
verification/re-evaluation
cannot be challenged unless there are
grounds to show that the policy itself is in
violation of some statutory provision. The
Apex Court held as under:-
668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"In our opinion, this approach
made by the High Court was not correct or
proper because the question whether a
particular piece of delegated legislation -
whether a rule or regulation or other type
of statutory instrument - is in excess of the
power of subordinate legislation conferred
on the delegate as to be determined with
reference only to the specific provisions
contained in the relevant statute conferring
the power to make the rule, regulation, etc.
and also the object and purpose of the Act
as can be gathered from the various
provisions of the enactment. It would be
wholly wrong for the court to substitute its
own opinion for that of the legislature or its
delegate as to what principle or policy
would best serve the objects and purposes
of the Act and to sit in judgment over the
wisdom and effectiveness or otherwise of
the policy laid down by the regulationmaking body and declare a regulation to be
ultra vires merely on the ground that, in the
view of the Court, the impugned provisions
will not help to serve the object and
purpose of the Act. So long as the body
entrusted with the task of framing the rules
or regulations acts within the scope of the
authority conferred on it, in the sense that
the rules or regulations made by it have a
rational nexus with the object and purpose
of the Statute, the court should not concern
itself with the wisdom or efficaciousness of
such rules or regulations. It is exclusively
within the province of the legislature and
its delegate to determine, as a matter of
policy, how the provisions of the Statute
can best be implemented and what
measures, substantive as well as procedural
would have to be incorporated in the rules
or
regulations
for
the
efficacious
achievement of the objects and purposes of
the Act. It is not for the Court to examine
the merits or demerits of such a policy
because its scrutiny has to be limited to the
question as to whether the impugned
regulations fall within the scope of the
regulation-making power conferred on the
delegate by the Statute.

In our opinion, the aforesaid
approach made by the High Court is wholly
incorrect and fallacious. The Court cannot sit
in judgment over the wisdom of the policy
evolved by the legislature and the subordinate
regulation-making body. It may be a wise
policy which will fully effectuate the purpose
of the enactment or it may be lacking in
effectiveness and hence calling for revision
and improvement. But any draw-backs in the
policy incorporated in a rule or regulation
will not render it ultra vires and the Court
cannot strike it down on the ground that in its
opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but
is even a foolish one, and that it will not
really serve to effectuate the purposes of the
Act. The legislature and its delegate are the
sole repositories of the power to decide what
policy should be pursued in relation to
matters covered by the Act and there is no
scope for interference by the Court unless the
particular provision impugned before it can
be said to suffer from any legal infirmity in
the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope
of the regulation-making power or its being
inconsistent with any of the provisions of the
parent enactment or in violation of any of the
limitations imposed by the Constitution."

21. This view referred to above has
been approved, relied upon and reiterated
by the Apex Court in the case of Pramod
Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar
Public Service Commission, Patna &
Ors, reported in J.T. 2004 SC 380
observing as under:

"Under the relevant rules of the
Commission, there is no provision wherein a
candidate may be entitled to ask for re-
7 All. Anoop Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
669
evaluation of his answer-book. There is a
provision for scrutiny only wherein the
answer-books are seen for the purpose of
checking whether all the answers given by a
candidate have been examined and whether
there has been any mistake in the totalling of
marks of each question and nothing them
correctly on the first cover page of the
answer-book. There is no dispute that after
scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks
awarded to the appellant in the General
Science paper. In the absence of any
provision for re-evaluation of answer-books
in the relevant rules, no candidate in an
examination has got any right whatsoever to
claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks."

22. This Court feels that sympathy
or compassion does not play any role in
the matter of directing or not directing reevaluation of an answer sheets. The law
is well settled that the burden is on the
candidates, not only to demonstrate that
the key answer is incorrect but also to
show that it is a glaring mistake which is
totally apparent and no inferential process
or reasoning is required to show that the
key answer is wrong. The Constitutional
Courts must exercise great restrain in
such matters and should be reluctant to
entertain
a
plea
challenging
the
correctness of the key answers. The Court
should not over step its jurisdiction by
giving the directions for re-evaluation
which
would
amount
to
judicially
reviewing the decision of the expert in
the field.

23. The legal position in this respect
has been summarised in case of Ran
Vijay Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
and Ors., reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357
which is follows:-

"30. The law on the subject is
therefore, quite clear and we only
propose to highlight a few significant
conclusions. They are:

30.1. If a statute, Rule or
Regulation governing an examination
permits the re-evaluation of an answer
sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a
matter of right, then the authority
conducting the examination may permit
it;

30.2. 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-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is
demonstrated very clearly, without any
"inferential process of reasoning or by a
process of rationalisation" and only in
rare or exceptional cases that a material
error has been committed;

30.3. The court should not at all
re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer
sheets of a candidate--it has no expertise
in the matter and academic matters are
best left to academics;

30.4. The court should presume
the correctness of the key answers and
proceed on that assumption; and

30.5. In the event of a doubt, the
benefit should go to the examination
authority rather than to the candidate."

24. Undoubtedly, the Courts cannot
judicially review the expert opinion unless
and until the key answer is patently wrong.
670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

25. There is no doubt that the
candidates put in dreadful efforts while
preparing for an examination, it must not
be
unremembered
that
even
the
examination authorities as well as experts
put in equally great efforts to successfully
conduct the examination, therefore the
Court must consider the internal checks and
balances put in place by the examination
authorities before interfering with the
efforts put in by the candidates who have
successfully participated in the examination
and the examination authorities.

26. Therefore, the Court should
restrain in interfering with the efforts put in
by
the
candidates
as
well
as
the
examination authorities unless and until the
mistake is apparent on the face of record
and no research has to be done in proving
the same, as the same will be an unending
process
resulting
in
uncertainty
and
confusion.

27. Keeping in mind the aforesaid, the
Court in case of U.P.P.S.C. and Ors. Vs.
Rahul Singh and Ors. reported in AIR
2018 SC 2861 has observed as follows:-

"Unless
the
candidate
demonstrate that the key answers are
patently wrong on the fact of it, the Courts
cannot enter into the academic field, weigh
the pros cons of the arguments given by
both sides and then come to the conclusion
as to which of the answer is better or more
correct."

28. Indubitably, conducting and
holding of examinations in a most fitting
and fair manner is peremptory and is
solemn duty of examining body to provide
for fair procedure, rules, regulations or byelaws, keeping in mind that the career and
fate of the students depends upon the result
of the examinations.

29. A Constitution Bench of the Apex
Court in the case of University of Mysore
Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao & Anr., reported in
AIR 1965 SC 491, has held that where the
decision under challenge has been taken by
the Committee of Expert, "normally the
Courts should be slow to interfere with the
opinion expressed by the experts" unless
there are allegations of mala fide against
any of the Members of the Expert
Committee. The Court further observed as
under:-

"........It would normally be wise
and safe for the Courts to leave the
decisions of academic matters to experts
who are more familiar with the problems
they face than Courts........"

30. It is settled law that when a
decision is taken by the Committee of
Expert having high academic qualifications
and long experience in the specialised field,
the Courts should not normally interfere in
the matters unless there are compelling
circumstances for doing so.

31. The aforesaid issue is also well
settled in view of the judgement of Apex
Court in case of Bihar Staff Selection
Commission Vs. Arun Kumar ,reported in
(2020) 6 SCC 362. There are otherwise
catena of judgements of Supreme Court
holding that in the competitive selection
test, prayer for re-evaluation of marks
cannot be accepted unless a rule for it
exists.

32. Taking into consideration the
settled position of law in the matters where
the answer key is disputed, this Court in
case of Jitendra Singh Vs. Union of India
and Another, passed in Writ C No. 53877
of 2017, has held that the Court has to
proceed
on
the
assumption
and
7 All. Pankaj Dhar Dubey Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
671
presumption that the answer key is correct
as the same is based on experts opinion
given by the persons specialised. In the
event of any doubt, benefit should go to the
examination authority rather than to the
candidate. It is with a rider that the Court
should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the
answer sheets of the candidates as it has no
expertise in the matter, the academic
matters are best left to the academicians
there being no scope of judicial review in
the matter.

33. Appropriately, considering the
capitulations made by learned counsel for
respondent no.2 and law laid down by the
Apex Court, established position of law,
this Court finds no good ground to interfere
in the present petition, the same is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2022)07ILR A671
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ A No. 6014 of 2022

Pankaj Dhar Dubey ...Appellant
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Bashist Tiwari, Sri Rajesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Vivek Kumar Singh

A.
Service
Law
-
Promotion
-
Constitutional Validity - Constitution (42nd
Amendment) Act, 1976 - Section 46 -
Administrative
Tribunals
Act,
1985
-
Sections 5(2), 5(4) & 27 - Central
Administrative
Tribunal
Act,
1985
-
Section 17.

Writ jurisdiction in contempt proceedings
- Ordinarily the High Court, in the exercise
of its powers of judicial review u/Article
226 of the Constitution of India and its
power
of
judicial
superintendence
u/Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
would not interfere with the order of the
Tribunal, passed in the exercise of its
contempt jurisdiction u/s 17 of the 1985
Act, discharging the contemnors after
holding that no case of willful contempt
was made out against the respondents.
(Para 25)

This Court cannot enter into the merits of the
matter as the same is subject to interpretation
which can be done on original side as in
contempt jurisdiction the Courts of law has to
not only uphold the majesty and dignity of the
Courts of law but also lift the veil so as to find
out as to whether there was willful disobedience
of the orders passed on original side and not to
function as an original or appellate court for
determination of the dispute inter se between
the parties. (Para 33)

B. Alternative remedy - It is always open
for the petitioner herein to take recourse
to the provisions contained u/s 19(v) of
the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
while filing original application before the
5th Respondent challenging the orders
negating the claim of the petitioner or
depriving the petitioner of his legal and
genuine
right
to
be
considered
for
promotion. Even otherwise, from the all four
corners of law this Court finds that motion so
pressed in service by means of the present writ
petition is not even otherwise liable to be
entertained under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India particularly when the order
itself was conditional subject to existence of
vacancy and suitability of the petitioner as per
the Rules and once the issue w.r.t. the fact that
there remains no vacancy against which the
claim of the petitioner would be considered has
been raised by the Railways then it was rightly
not interfered by the 5th Respondent in
contempt proceedings as the Contempt Court
cannot go into the merit of the matter as the