# Mohd. Adi Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 8
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-13
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 3427 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-adi-ahmad-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48859
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Selection - Rule of
normalization - The High Courts cannot
over
step
its
jurisdiction
by
giving
directions which would amount to setting
aside the decision of the expert opinion of
testing agency. (Para 7)
The Master Answer Key which is published by
the testing agency or formulated by the testing
agency for the examination being conducted
and held by it, is prepared by team of subject
experts. Once the subject experts have
taken the view that a particular answer is
the correct answer to a question, there is
no mechanism itself for the Court to sit in
appeal over and above the opinion of the
subject expert. (Para 6)

B. Publication of revised answer key -
Clause 10 of Transparency Rule - As far as
the publication of revised answer key by
the testing agency is concerned, there is
no such rule. Clause 10 of Transparency Rule
of the advertisement clearly takes care of the
objections which are invited to the Master
Answer Key published by the testing agency and
then the disposal of objections by the testing
agency through its subject experts, which are
then considered to be final. (Para 5)

Petitioner has not questioned the advertisement
itself and after having submitted to the selection
process
and
appearing
in
the
written
examination conducted by the testing agency
and even having filed objections as per clause
10, he cannot be permitted to take the plea that
in spite of there being no such provision
contained u/Clause 10 of the advertisement, as
a rule of transparency, the testing agency ought
to have published the revised answer key. (Para
6)

C. The rule of normalization is adopted by
the testing agency to bring at par the
meritorious students who have gained
maximum marks in different set of papers
which have been formulated by the
testing agency to hold examination in
different shifts. (Para 11)

It is well within the domain of testing agency to
formulate rules and regulations for the purposes
of holding free and fair selection. It is not the
case of the petitioner that he was not aware of
any such terms and conditions under the
advertisement
regarding
modalities
to
be
adopted by the testing agency. It is after the
petitioner has found himself to have not
succeeded on merits that he has come to
challenge the rule of normalization. Therefore,
6 All. Mohd. Adi Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
9
at this stage, rule of normalization cannot be
questioned. Even otherwise, nothing has been
argued to demonstrate that the rule of
normalization has been adopted at different
stages of the selection to prejudice the rights
and interest of the candidates who participated
in the selection process. (Para 12)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

8 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
against him by reference to details of his
duty during the relevant period of time that
prevented
him
from
concluding
the
investigation. Those issues are purely
factual in nature and cannot be gone into by
this Court in the exercise of its writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Learned Counsel for the
appellant has not been able to point out any
procedural flaw or infirmity, vitiating the
impugned order or any illegality, that may
render it unsustainable.

16. In the circumstances, the
impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge is unexceptionable.

17. The appeal fails and is dismissed.

18. There shall be no order as to
costs.
----------
(2022)06ILR A8
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ-A No. 3427 of 2022

Mohd. Adi Ahmad ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Mujib Ahmad Siddiqui

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Abhishek Srivastava

A. Service Law - Selection - Rule of
normalization - The High Courts cannot
over
step
its
jurisdiction
by
giving
directions which would amount to setting
aside the decision of the expert opinion of
testing agency. (Para 7)
The Master Answer Key which is published by
the testing agency or formulated by the testing
agency for the examination being conducted
and held by it, is prepared by team of subject
experts. Once the subject experts have
taken the view that a particular answer is
the correct answer to a question, there is
no mechanism itself for the Court to sit in
appeal over and above the opinion of the
subject expert. (Para 6)

B. Publication of revised answer key -
Clause 10 of Transparency Rule - As far as
the publication of revised answer key by
the testing agency is concerned, there is
no such rule. Clause 10 of Transparency Rule
of the advertisement clearly takes care of the
objections which are invited to the Master
Answer Key published by the testing agency and
then the disposal of objections by the testing
agency through its subject experts, which are
then considered to be final. (Para 5)

Petitioner has not questioned the advertisement
itself and after having submitted to the selection
process
and
appearing
in
the
written
examination conducted by the testing agency
and even having filed objections as per clause
10, he cannot be permitted to take the plea that
in spite of there being no such provision
contained u/Clause 10 of the advertisement, as
a rule of transparency, the testing agency ought
to have published the revised answer key. (Para
6)

C. The rule of normalization is adopted by
the testing agency to bring at par the
meritorious students who have gained
maximum marks in different set of papers
which have been formulated by the
testing agency to hold examination in
different shifts. (Para 11)

It is well within the domain of testing agency to
formulate rules and regulations for the purposes
of holding free and fair selection. It is not the
case of the petitioner that he was not aware of
any such terms and conditions under the
advertisement
regarding
modalities
to
be
adopted by the testing agency. It is after the
petitioner has found himself to have not
succeeded on merits that he has come to
challenge the rule of normalization. Therefore,
6 All. Mohd. Adi Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
9
at this stage, rule of normalization cannot be
questioned. Even otherwise, nothing has been
argued to demonstrate that the rule of
normalization has been adopted at different
stages of the selection to prejudice the rights
and interest of the candidates who participated
in the selection process. (Para 12)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. UPPSC through its Chairman & anr. Vs Rahul
Singh & anr., Civil Appeal No. 5838 of 2018
(Para 7)

2. Smt. Shimla Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr., WritA No. 25791 of 2018, decided on 19.12.2018
(Para 8)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Mujib Ahmad Siddiqui,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for
respondent nos. 2 & 3 as well as learned
Standing Counsel.

2. The petitioner before this Court has
been an applicant to the post of Junior
Engineer
(Trainee)
pursuant
to
the
advertisement issued by the Electricity
Services Commission and he has been
declared
successful
in
the
written
examination but has come to be ousted
after verification of credentials and records
when the final merit list was published. He
raised in this petition twin arguments: one,
the selecting agency did not publish the
revised answer key after it had invited
objections as per the brochure and found
certain objections to be valid so as to
demonstrate transparency in selection as
conceived of vide clause 10 of the
advertisement; and the second argument
advanced is that the normalization criteria
adopted by the testing agency was not a
proper criteria and had the normalization
not been made applicable, the petitioner
would have been selected.

3. Sri Abhishek Srivastava, in
compliance of the last order of this Court,
has obtained instructions in the matter and
placed the same before this Court which are
taken on record.

4. As per the instructions obtained by
Sri
Srivastava,
after
the
written
examination was held as per clause 10 of
the advertisement, objections were invited
to the answer key published by the testing
agency and the objections that were
received were duly dealt with by the
subject experts nominated by the testing
agency for the said purpose and finally the
report was submitted and on the basis of
said report, the testing agency was
permitted to declare the result by the
Secretary
of
the
Electricity
Services
Commission
under
its
letter
dated
11.11.2021. He, therefore, submits that the
testing agency had fully complied with the
procedure prescribed for under clause 10 of
the advertisement. Secondly, he submits
that soon after the notice of this petition
was received by him, he had forwarded the
copy
thereof
to
Electricity
Services
Commission who referred the matter of
objections regarding questions which are
turned out to be 12 in number at the end of
the petitioner, to the testing agency. The
testing agency got examined the same and
found one objection raised by the petitioner
regarding question ID No. 9277592169 to
be valid and accordingly awarded full
marks for that to the petitioner.

5. It is argued by learned counsel for
the respondents that even after getting full
marks for one objection being found to be
valid, the petitioner could not qualify.
Learned counsel for the respondents has
10 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
further argued that as far as the publication
of revised answer key by the testing agency
is concerned, there is no such rule. He
submits that clause 10 of Transparency
Rule of the advertisement clearly takes care
the objections are invited to the Master
Answer Key published by the testing
agency and then the disposal of objections
by the testing agency through its subject
experts, which shall be final and therefore,
he argues that there is no question to
publish any revised answer key after the
objections are met by the subject experts.
With
regard
to
other
argument
of
normalization rule being made applicable
to the selection process by the testing
agency, he submits that the brochure did
provide for normalization method to be
adopted and the method to be adopted has
been explained away in Annexure No. 1 to
the advertisement. He submits that once the
normalization criteria was made an integral
part of modalities to be adopted by the
selecting agency in preparation of final
selection and the petitioner submitted to the
same
while
applying
against
the
advertisement and followed the terms and
conditions in the advertisement, now he
cannot be permitted to take a turn around to
suggest that the normalization rule was per
se illegal method adopted by the testing
agency or was a fraud method that has
resulted in rejection of his candidature on
merits.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the
respective parties and their arguments raised
across the bar, I find that both the arguments
raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in
support of this petition do not hold merit.
Firstly, once the petitioner had applied, he has
not questioned the advertisement itself and
after having submitted to the selection
process and appearing in the written
examination conducted by the testing agency
and even having filed objections as per clause
10, he cannot be permitted to take the plea
that in spite of there being no such provision
contained
under
Clause
10
of
the
advertisement, as a rule of transparency, the
testing agency ought to have published the
revised answer key. Even otherwise I do not
find this argument to be holding any merit as
the objections that have been put forth by the
petitioner have been met by the subject
experts of testing agency and one of the
objections raised by the petitioner having
been found to be valid, he has been awarded
marks for the same, I, therefore, do not find,
in the absence of any argument that the other
objections if should have been held valid
even against grant the opinion of subject
expert nominated by the committee. The law
on this point is also well settled, the Master
Answer Key which is published by the
testing agency or formulated by the testing
agency for the examination being conducted
and held by it, it has its own team of subject
experts. Once the subject experts have taken
the view that a particular answer is the correct
answer to a question, there is no mechanism
itself

7. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for
the respondent upon the judgment of
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5838 of
2018, UPPSC through its Chairman & Anr
v.
Rahul
Singh
&
Anr
is
worth
consideration here at this stage. Vide paras 14
& 15 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has
held that the High Courts cannot over step its
jurisdiction by giving directions which would
amount to setting aside the decision of the
expert opinion of testing agency. Paragraph
nos. 14 & 15 of the Judgment are reproduced
hereunder:

14. In the present case we find that all
the 3 questions needed a long process of
reasoning and the High Court itself has
6 All. Mohd. Adi Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
11
noticed that the stand of the Commission is
also supported by certain text books. When
there are conflicting views, then the court
must bow down to the opinion of the
experts. Judges are not and cannot be
experts in all fields and, therefore, they
must exercise great restraint and should not
overstep their jurisdiction to upset the
opinion of the experts.

15. In view of the above discussion we
are clearly of the view that the High Court
over stepped its jurisdiction by giving the
directions which amounted to setting aside
the decision of experts in the field. As far as
the objection of the appellant - Rahul Singh
is concerned, after going through the
question on which he raised an objection,
we ourselves are of the prima facie view
that the answer given by the Commission is
correct.

8. This above judgment has also been
followed by me in the case of Smt. Shimla
Singh v. State of U.P. and Another, Writ -
A No. 25791 of 2018 decided on
19.12.2018 and vide paragraph 24 of the
judgment I have held thus:

"24. Applying the law as discussed by
the Apex Court and held so in the judgment
of Rahul Singh (supra), to the facts of the
present case, I find that the expert opinion
having been obtained in respect of the
questions and the way they proved with the
aid of relevant text book materials, there is
hardly any scope to sit in appeal over such
expert opinion. This Court in exercise of
power of judicial review will certainly not
transgress an area in which it has no
expertise and where it has to act and take a
decision only with the aid of experts of such
field/ area. The questions may carry an
answer, which may on the face of it appear
to be correct and may be in some of the text
books that is indicated to be so but
ultimately it is the paper setting Committee
and the Moderation Committee which has
the advantage of having subject experts of
various fields, if have arrived on a
conclusion that particular answer is
correct answer, this Court will refrain itself
from holding it otherwise. .........."

9. In view of the above objection to
correctness of answer by subject expert is
rejected, and so the argument regarding
objection part to the questions raised by the
petitioner cannot be accepted and hence
rejected.

10. In so far as the normalization rule
is concerned, I find that this rule has been
made an integral part of modalities to be
adopted by the testing agency for holding
selection in respect of the advertisement
published against which the petitioner has
been the applicant.

11. The rule of normalization is
adopted by the testing agency to bring at
par the meritorious students who have
gained maximum marks in different set of
papers which have been formulated by the
testing agency to hold examination in
different shifts.

12. In the considered view of the Court,
it is well within the domain of testing agency
to formulate rules and regulations for the
purposes of holding free and fair selection. It
is not the case of the petitioner that he was
not aware of any such terms and conditions
under the advertisement regarding modalities
to be adopted by the testing agency. It is after
the petitioner has found himself to have not
succeeded on merits that he has come to
challenge the rule of normalization. I,
therefore, do not find this to be a stage to
question the rule of normalization. Even
otherwise, nothing has been argued to
12 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
demonstrate that the rule of normalization has
been adopted at different stages of the
selection to prejudice the rights and interest
of the candidates who participated in the
selection process.

13. The writ petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed, consigned to records
with no order as to cost.
----------
(2022)06ILR A12
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.06.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 3793 of 2022

Neeraj Chaturvedi ...Petitioner
Versus
Central Bank of India & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shreesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Gopal Kumar Srivastava

A. Service Law - Transfers/Posting of
physically challenged officers - Rights of
Persons
with
Disabilities
Act,
2016:
Section 2(r), 2(d), 2(s) - If there is any
beneficial or compassionate policy to
accommodate
any
employee
for
the
specific and certain reason, the same must
be abide by in its letter and spirit. (Para 17)

(i) If the same policy is providing two
separate guidelines, the guideline which is
of beneficial nature shall prevail over the
general
guidelines
inasmuch
as
the
beneficial guideline is issued to serve a
particular purpose and if such guideline is
flouted it may cause an irreparable loss to
a person which, generally, cannot be
compensated in terms of money. The
Transfer Policy/Guidelines which provides that
whosoever has completed 10 years of service at
one place shall be transferred from one zone to
another zone, then the same policy also clearly
indicates vide para 1.2 that a transfer/posting of
a spouse etc. of a person with 'benchmark
disability' or long term disability, shall be
exempted from routine/rotational transfer in
terms of DOPT Guidelines dated 08.10.2018.
(Para 18)

The DOPT Guidelines (infra) clearly provides
that such government employee may be
exempted
from
routine
transfer/rotational
transfer
subject
to
the
administrative
constraints. A routine/rotational transfer, which
has been made in compliance of the guidelines,
may not be considered as administrative
constraint. (Para 18)

(ii) There is no good reason to implement
the policy vide para-3 i.e. 'Rotational
Transfer' ignoring the para 1.2 of the
same policy (infra). The rotational transfers
are meant for a person who has not been
protected by any compassionate or beneficial
policy but if any employee has been protected
from any beneficial or compassionate policy, the
same may not be ignored unless there is any
administrative reason to transfer such person
from one zone to another zone. (Para 19)

B.
Normally,
the
transfer
is
an
exigency/incidence of service and courts
ordinarily do not interfere with the transfer
orders but if such transfer may be avoided
for any specific compelling reason and that
reason is unavoidable, the Competent
Authority being model employer should
consider such condition sympathetically. At
the same time the transfer may not be punitive in
nature. (Para 22)

In the present case, petitioner's wife is serving
on the post of Telephone Attendant in
Secretariat Telephone Exchange at Lucknow
despite having 100% disability and while
discharging her duties on such post she has
confidence at the back of her mind that her
husband is residing at Lucknow to look-after her
in a critical situation, if need be. But,
compelling/directing petitioner to submit his
joining at Cooch Behar, Kolkata, which is about
1500
KM
from
Lucknow,
would
cause