# Jitendra Singh v. Union Of India & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 819
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-10-25
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 53877 of 2017
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jitendra-singh-v-union-of-india-anr-47517
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A.S.G.I., Sri Surenra Prasad Sharma

A.
Examination
for
UGC/NET-2017
-
Wrong answer of a question in answerkey claimed - Re-evaluation sought -
Scope
of
interference
by
the
Court
considered - Held, 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 probe the
matters
unless
there
are
compelling
circumstances for doing so - The Court
should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the
answer-sheet of the candidate as it has no
expertise in the matter - The academic
matters are best left to the academics.
(Para 27 and 29)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-

## Text

1 All. Jitendra Singh Vs. Union Of India & Anr.
819
(2022)01ILR A819
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.10.2021

BEFORE

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

Writ C No. 53877 of 2017

Jitendra Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manoj Kumar, Sri Suresh Kumar Maurya

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Surenra Prasad Sharma

A.
Examination
for
UGC/NET-2017
-
Wrong answer of a question in answerkey claimed - Re-evaluation sought -
Scope
of
interference
by
the
Court
considered - Held, 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 probe the
matters
unless
there
are
compelling
circumstances for doing so - The Court
should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the
answer-sheet of the candidate as it has no
expertise in the matter - The academic
matters are best left to the academics.
(Para 27 and 29)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-
1. Maharashtra St. Board of Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education & Anr. Vs Paritosh
Bhupesh Kurmarsheth & Ors.; AIR 1984 SC
1543
2. Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs Chairman,
Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & ors;
J.T. 2004 SC 380
3. University of Mysore Vs C.D. Govinda Rao &
anr.; AIR 1965 SC 491
4. St. of Bihar & anr. Vs Dr. Asis Kumar
Mukherjee; AIR 1975 SC 192
5. M.S. Gupta etc. Vs A.K. Gupta & ors.; (1979)
2 SCC 339
6. Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs Karnataka
University & anr.; AIR 1986 SC 1448
7. Dr. Umakant Vs Dr. Bhikha Lal Jain & ors.;
AIR 1991 SC 2272
8. The Chancellor & anr. Vs Dr. Bijay Nanda Kar
& ors.; (1994) 1 SCC 169
9. St. of Orissa & ors. Vs Prajnaparamita
Samanta & ors.; (1996) 7 SCC 106
10. Chairman, J & K St. Board of Education Vs
Fayaz Ahmed; (2000) 3 SCC 59
11. The Dental Council of India Vs Subharti
K.K.B. Charitable Trust & anr.; AIR 2001 SC
2151
12. Ran Vijay Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
(2018) 2 SCC 357
13. Bihar Staff Selection Commission Vs Arun
Kumar; (2020) 6 SCC 362.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Suresh Kumar Maurya,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Surendra Prasad Sharma, learned counsel
for respondent no.2 and Mr. Asheem
Mukherjee, learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondent.

2. This writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner for following relief:
820 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"(i) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing respondent no.2 to consider and
decide the claim of the petitioner contained
in
representation
dated
08.06.2017
(Annexure-5) for being re-evaluate the
OMR sheet Paper-II and amended result
will be declare.

(ii) Issue any other writ, order or
direction, which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of
the case.

(iii) Award the cost of the petition
in favour of the petitioner."

3. In the present writ petition, counter
and
rejoinder
affidavits
have
been
exchanged between the parties. Both the
parties agree that this petition be disposed
of at this stage without calling for any
further affidavit.

4. In the present writ petition, the case
of the petitioner is that he was pursuing
study in Kashi Hindu Vishwavidyalaya,
Varanasi and preparing for UGC/NET2017. In connection with the same, he
applied for UGC/NET and also appeared in
the examination conducted by respondent
no.2. The petitioner was allotted Role
Number-84024171 and at the time of
examination, in Paper-II of Hindustani
Music, against the question no.32, as to
how many Tantriyas (strings) are there in
Alapini Vini,, the petitioner has given
answer as option no.3 i.e. three tantriyas
(strings), copies of the relevant part of the
question paper being Paper-II of Hindustani
Music as well as OMR sheet have been
enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

5. It is the further case of the
petitioner that after the examination was
over, the answer-key was published on the
concerned
website,
wherein
against
question no.32, a wrong answer as option
no. 1 i.e. two Tantriyas (strings), has been
published, whereas the correct option was
option no.3 i.e. three Tantriya (strings), a
copy of the answer-key published on the
website has been enclosed as Annexure-2
to the writ petition. Thereafter, the
calculation/answer sheet was also prepared
by the Central Board of Secondary
Education, UGC-NET, wherein against the
question no. 32 of Paper-II, wrong answer
was mentioned and the answer of the
petitioner was taken to be incorrect.

6. Further, in support of answer given
by the petitioner against question no.32, he
submitted
documentary
evidence
like
books written by respective writers, copies
of relevant parts of the books have been
enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition.
Thereafter, the petitioner has made an
application before respondent no.2, namely,
Director (UGC-NET), Central Board of
Secondary Education, Gautam Buddha
Nagar on 8th June, 2017, wherein he has
disclosed all the facts and circumstances of
the case and also made a request to reevaluate the answer given by the petitioner
against question no.32 of Paper-II of the
Hindustani Music and thereafter declare the
result accordingly, so that the future of the
petitioner may be protected, a copy of the
same has been enclosed as Annexure-5 to
the writ petition.

7. In the petition, it has lastly been
stated by the petitioner that the selection of
the petitioner for J.R.F. has been obstructed
as he secured 0.56% less mark in merit,
although the petitioner had given correct
answer against question no.32 of Paper-II
of Hindustani Music, which was wrongly
evaluated by the respondent, hence, the
1 All. Jitendra Singh Vs. Union Of India & Anr.
821
petitioner made a request to respondent
no.2 by means of an application dated 13th
July, 2017 for re-evaluating the OMR sheet
of Paper-II qua question no.32 and declare
the result, accordingly.

8. This writ petition was presented
before the Court on 13th November, 2017
and no interim order has been granted in
favour of the petitioner.

9. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits before this Court that in
the entrance examination of UGC/NET2017 conducted by respondent no.2, the
petitioner applied and appeared in the
examination. Against question no.32 of
Paper-II of Hindustani Music, he has given
answer as option no.3 i.e. three tantriyas
(strings), which is the correct answer,
whereas in the answer-key published on
concerned website by respondent no.2,
against question no.32 of Paper-II, the
answer was given as option no.1 i.e. two
tantriyas (strings), which is a wrong
answer. In support of the said submission,
learned counsel for the petitioner has
referred to the relevant part of the books in
the name and style of "Bhartiya Sangeet
Vaadh" written by Dr. Lal Mani Mishra,
Bhartiya Sangeet ke Trantivaadh written by
Vidyavilashi Pandit, Sangeet Ratanakar
(Hindi Anuvad) written by Subhadara
Chaudhary, copies of which have been
brought on record at page nos. 27 onwards.
He, therefore, submits that the selection of
petitioner for J.R.F. had been obstructed
only due to less mark by 0.56% whereas
the petitioner had given correct answer
against question no.32 of Paper-II, thus this
Court, while allowing the present writ
petition, may direct respondent no.2 to reevaluate the OMR sheet of Paper-II qua
question no.32 and declare the result of
the petitioner accordingly.

10. On the other than, Mr. S.P.
Sharma, learned counsel for respondent
no.2 and Mr. Asheem Mukherjee, learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondent
submit that the relief as prayed on behalf of
the petitioner cannot be granted by this
Court while exercising its power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

11. Learned counsel for respondent
no.2 states that the request of the petitioner
for re-evaluation of OMR sheet qua
question no.32 of Paper-II of Hindustani
Music cannot be granted because with
regard to correctness of option given in
answer-key, the expert opinion has been
obtained and in the opinion of the subject
expert, the correct answer of question no.
32 is option no. (2) i.e. Two Tantriyas
(strings). Since the answer key has been
examined by the subject expert and it is not
the case of the petitioner that there is mala
fide attributed to the respondents, as such,
no judicial review would lie and the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.

12. Learned counsel for respondent
no.2 further submits that the relief prayed
on behalf of the petitioner pertains to
direction upon respondent no.2 to consider
and decide the representation of the
petitioner dated 8th June, 2017 for OMR
sheet of Paper-II being re-evaluated and
thereafter result being amended on the
ground that in Paper-II of Hindustani
Music of NET,2017, the answer attempted
by him is correct, whereas the same is said
to be incorrect. For ready reference, the
representation of the petitioner dated 8th
June, 2017 read as follows:
822 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"सेवा में,

दनदेशक (UGC-NET)

केंन्द्रीर् माध्यदमक दशक्षा बोडय

प्लाट नां० 149, ब्लाक H सेक्टर 63,
गौतम बुद्ध नगर

नोएडा ऊ०प्र० 201305

दवषर्ः राष्टरीर् पात्रता परीक्षा (नेट)
जनवरी 2017 के दहन्दुस्तानी सांगीत दवषर् के
पुनमूयल्याांकन के सम्बि में।

महोदर्,

मैं प्राथी जीतेन्द्र दसहां पुत्र श्री
िोलाशांकर दसांह नेट परीक्षा जनवरी 2017 में
दपिडी जाती का अभ्यथी हूाँ। घोदषत परीक्षा
पररणाम में मेरा .57% से जे०आर०एि०
अवरूद्ध हुआ है, आपके जारी उत्तर पत्रक
के द्वदवतीर् प्रश्न पत्रक के द्वदवतीर् प्रश्न पत्र में
मेरा प्रश्न सांख्या 32 सही है जबकी आपने इस
प्रश्न को गलत घोदषत दकर्ा है। इस एक प्रश्न
के सही होने से मेरा जे०आर०एि० प्रश्स्स्त हो
जाएगा। इसकी सत्यता के सन्दिय मे मेरे पास
अनेक प्रमादणक पुस्तकोां के प्रमाण है।
आपके दवशेष रूप से सूदचत करते है दक र्ह
मेरे जे०आर०एि० के र्ोग्यता का अांदतम वषय
है।

अतः आपसे सदवनर् दनवेदन है दक
प्राथी के दहत में पुनमूयल्याांकन कर मेरा सांशोदधत
परीक्षा पररणाम घोदषत करें। र्ह मेरे िदवष्य से
जुडा गांिीर दवषर् है।

इस सन्दिय में समस्त अपेदक्षत प्रपत्र
प्राथयना पत्र के साथ सांलग्न है।

धन्यवाद

ओ०एम०आर सीट एवां कल्युकलेशन
सीट िी चादहए दजसके दलए पाांच सौ रू० का
डराफ्ट सलांग्न है।

प्राथी

जीतेन्द्र दसांह

अभ्यथी नेट परीक्षा जनवरी 2017

अनुिमाांक - 84024171

जन्म दतदथ- 07.07.1986

परीक्षा दवषर्- दहन्दुस्तानी सांगीत

दवषर् कोड- 16

ग्राम- सावठ पो० दुगायवती

दजला कैमूर दबहार (821105)

दशक्षण थथल - काशी दहन्दू दवश्वदवद्यालर्
(वाराणसी)"

13. Learned counsel for respondent
no.2 further submits that the dispute is with
regard to question no.32 of 2nd paper of
Hindustani Music of Net, 2017, which is
"आलादपनी वीणा में दकतनी तांदत्रर्ाां थी". The
option ticked by the petitioner in the OMR
sheet is option no.2 i.e. three tantriyas
(strings) , whereas, option no.1 is the
correct answer i.e. two tantriyas (strings),
as per the answer key.

14. Learned counsel for respondent
no.2 further submits that the opinion of the
subject expert was obtained again about the
correctness of the answer of question no.32
and the subject expert opined that the
correct answer of question no.32 is option
no.(2) i.e. two tantriyas (strings). Due to
secrecy, the details of the subject expert
cannot be disclosed, but the Court will be
apprised about the same as and when
required. It is further contended that the
report of the subject expert has been
brought on record at page no.11 onwards,
of the counter affidavit, along with relevant
1 All. Jitendra Singh Vs. Union Of India & Anr.
823
page of book, namely, Sangeet Bodh (page
no.138).

15. Learned counsel for respondent
no.2
further
submits
that
on
the
representation made by the petitioner, the
respondent called for expert opinion about
the
question
No.32
of
Paper-II
of
Hindustani Music and as per the opinion of
the subject expert, the correct answer of the
question no. 32 of Paper-II of Hindustani
Music of Net, 2017 is option no. (1), which
means that there are two Trantriyas in
Alapini Veena. Therefore, it is not true that
in answer key, incorrect answer was
published. Learned counsel for respondent
no.2 further submits that the OMR sheet of
the
petitioner
is
examined/evaluated
properly and no mistake in any manner is
committed. The answer key has been
prepared by the body of subject experts and
again opinion of the subject experts qua
question no.32 of Paper-II of Hindustani
Music has been obtained. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the answer given by the
petitioner as option no. (3) against question
no.32 is correct. The petitioner did not
approach the authorities concerned, as per
the instructions of the examination bulletin.
He also did not fulfill the requirements for
examining genuineness of his claim, as per
circular/notification issued for this purpose.
The petitioner did not avail the remedy
provided for this purpose.

Even otherwise, there is no
provision of re-evaluation of answer-sheets
provided under any law.

On the cumulative strength of the
aforesaid, learned counsel for respondent
no.2 submits that the present writ petition is
not maintainable and the same is liable
to be dismissed.

16. I have considered the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the parties
and have gone through the records of the
present writ petition.

17. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
has not brought to this Court's attention any
rules, regulation or any guidelines framed
by the respondent, notification or circular,
bulletin issued by the respondent or any
authority of law that may permit reevaluation.

18. Even otherwise, in paragraph-12
of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
respondent no.2, it has been stated as
follows:

"12. That in reply to the contents
of paragraph no.9 of the writ petition, it is
submitted that the OMR sheet of the
petitioner is examined/evaluated properly.
No mistake, in any manner, is committed
and there is no provision of reevaluation."

Whereas, in reply to the aforesaid
averments, in rejoinder affidavit learned
counsel for the petitioner has not rebutted
or controverted the same.

19. For ready, reference, paragraph-8
of the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of
the petitioner, reads as follows:

"8.That the contents of para 12 of
the counter affidavit are not admitted as
stated hence denied. In reply thereto the
contents of para-9 of the writ petition are
reiterated. It is further submitted that the
OMR sheet of the petitioner was wrongly
824 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
examined, which requires re-evaluation of
the same."

20. The issue of re-evaluation of
answer book or sheet is no more res
integra. This issue was considered at length
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/reevaluation 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:-

"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
1 All. Jitendra Singh Vs. Union Of India & Anr.
825
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-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. In view of the above, the case
stands squarely covered by the aforesaid
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and this Court does not see any ground to
interfere in the matter.

23.

Undoubtedly,
conduct
and
holding
of
examinations
in
a
most
appropriate and fair manner is imperative
and it is solemn duty of the examining
body to provide for fair procedure, rules,
regulations, or bye-laws for the same as
career of students depends upon the result
of the examinations.

24. 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........"

25. Similar view has been taken by
the Apex Court in State of Bihar & Anr.
Vs. Dr. Asis Kumar Mukherjee, AIR
1975 SC 192; M.S. Gupta etc. Vs. A.K.
Gupta & Ors., (1979) 2 SCC 339;
Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs. Karnataka
University & Anr., AIR 1986 SC 1448;
Dr. Umakant Vs. Dr. Bhikha Lal Jain &
Ors., AIR 1991 SC 2272; The Chancellor
826 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
& Anr. Vs. Dr. Bijay Nanda Kar & Ors.,
(1994) 1 SCC 169; State of Orissa & Ors.
Vs. Prajnaparamita Samanta & Ors.,
(1996) 7 SCC 106; Chairman, J & K
State Board of Education Vs. Fayaz
Ahmed, (2000) 3 SCC 59; and The
Dental Council of India Vs. Subharti
K.K.B. Charitable Trust & Anr., AIR
2001 SC 2151.

26. Similarly, with regard to the issue
of re-evaluation, the Apex Court in the case
of Ran Vijay Singh and others vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in
(2018) 2 SCC 357, specially in paragraph
nos. 30 to 33, has observed as 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.

31. On our part we may add that
sympathy or compassion does not play any
role in the matter of directing or not
directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet.
If an error is committed by the examination
authority, the complete body of candidates
suffers. The entire examination process
does not deserve to be derailed only
because some candidates are disappointed
or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice
having been caused to them by an
erroneous
question
or
an
erroneous
answer. All candidates suffer equally,
though some might suffer more but that
cannot be helped since mathematical
precision is not always possible. This Court
has shown one way out of an impasse --
exclude the suspect or offending question.

32. It is rather unfortunate that
despite several decisions of this Court, some
of which have been discussed above, there is
interference by the courts in the result of
examinations. This places the examination
authorities in an unenviable position where
they are under scrutiny and not the
candidates. Additionally, a massive and
sometimes prolonged examination exercise
concludes with an air of uncertainty. While
there is no doubt that candidates put in a
tremendous effort in preparing for an
examination, it must not be forgotten that
even the examination authorities put in
equally great efforts to successfully conduct
an examination. The enormity of the task
might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but
the court must consider the internal checks
and
balances
put
in
place
by
the
1 All. Jagdamba Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
827
examination authorities before interfering
with the efforts put in by the candidates who
have
successfully
participated
in
the
examination
and
the
examination
authorities. The present appeals are a
classic example of the consequence of such
interference where there is no finality to the
result of the examinations even after a lapse
of eight years. Apart from the examination
authorities even the candidates are left
wondering about the certainty or otherwise
of the result of the examination -- whether
they have passed or not; whether their result
will be approved or disapproved by the
court; whether they will get admission in a
college or university or not; and whether
they will get recruited or not. This
unsatisfactory situation does not work to
anybody's advantage and such a state of
uncertainty results in confusion being worse
confounded. The overall and larger impact
of all this is that public interest suffers."

27. Thus, 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 probe the
matters
unless
there
are
compelling
circumstances for doing so.

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

29. With the aforesaid observations,
this Court would also like to keep in mind
the question against which objection has
been raised but keeping in mind the ratio
propounded by the Apex Court in the case
of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) and more
specifically para 30 of the said judgment
quoted above, the 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. It is
with a rider that the Court should not reevaluate or scrutinize the answer-sheet of
the candidate as it has no expertise in the
matter. The academic matters are best left
to the academics.

30. In the result, considering the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for respondent no.2 and the law laid down
by the Apex Court referred to herein above,
this Court finds no good ground to interfere
in the present writ petition. The same is
accordingly dismissed.
----------

(2022)01ILR A827
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Writ C No. 54917 of 2017

Jagdamba Prasad ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.