# Mukesh Kumar & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 285
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-04-01
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 5113 of 2023
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mukesh-kumar-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51793
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri Siddharth Singhal, Sri Ramesh
Kumar
Tiwari,
Sri
Ashok
Khare
(Sr.
Advocate), Sri G.K. Singh (Sr. Advocate)

A. Administrative Law - U.P. Subordinate
Service Selection Commission - Revised
Answer Key - Judicial Review - Petitioner
challenged
revised
answer
key
dated
07.09.2022 for question no. 10 of booklet series
'B' in Revenue Lekhpal main examination -
Alleged correct answer as 'D' instead of 'B'
based on publication - Held, courts exercise
restraint in interfering with expert committee's
opinion unless mistake is patently obvious
without requiring inferential reasoning - Expert
committee revised answer key to 'B' after
objections, supported by ambiguity in term
"Vindhyachal" without "Parvat" - Petitioner
failed to demonstrate glaring error in revised
answer key - Ran Vijay Singh Vs St. of U.P.,
U.P. Public Service Commission Vs Rahul Singh,
and Arsiya Bano Vs St. of U.P. relied upon - No
interference warranted under Article 226. (Para
18-23)

Writ petition dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Mukesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
285
servant is to relieve the family from distress
and destitution on account of death of sole
bread earner of the family. Even in the
instant case, an exceptional situation has
been created as though the husband of the
petitioner is alive but he is having more
than 75% disability and he is unable to
earn/work,
which
requires
a
liberal
construction of the meaning under Section
2(c) of the Rules, 1974.

14.

Considering
the
special
circumstances of the case and disability of the
husband of the petitioner, the writ petition is
allowed.
The
impugned
order
dated
23.11.2022 passed by respondent no.3 i.e.
Joint Commissioner (Karya Palak), Rajya
Kar, Sambhag-A, Prayagraj is set aside.

15. The respondent no.3 is directed to
reconsider the case of the petitioner for
compassionate appointment as per Rule 5 of
the Rules and pass appropriate order within a
period of three months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 285
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ A No. 5113 of 2023

Mukesh Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Harindra Prasad, Sri Ramesh Kumar
Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Siddharth Singhal, Sri Ramesh
Kumar
Tiwari,
Sri
Ashok
Khare
(Sr.
Advocate), Sri G.K. Singh (Sr. Advocate)

A. Administrative Law - U.P. Subordinate
Service Selection Commission - Revised
Answer Key - Judicial Review - Petitioner
challenged
revised
answer
key
dated
07.09.2022 for question no. 10 of booklet series
'B' in Revenue Lekhpal main examination -
Alleged correct answer as 'D' instead of 'B'
based on publication - Held, courts exercise
restraint in interfering with expert committee's
opinion unless mistake is patently obvious
without requiring inferential reasoning - Expert
committee revised answer key to 'B' after
objections, supported by ambiguity in term
"Vindhyachal" without "Parvat" - Petitioner
failed to demonstrate glaring error in revised
answer key - Ran Vijay Singh Vs St. of U.P.,
U.P. Public Service Commission Vs Rahul Singh,
and Arsiya Bano Vs St. of U.P. relied upon - No
interference warranted under Article 226. (Para
18-23)

Writ petition dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Ran Vijay Singh Vs St. of U.P.; (2018) 2 SCC
357

2. U.P. Public Service Commission Vs Rahul
Singh; (2018) 7 SCC 254

3. Arsiya Bano Vs St. of U.P.; (2022) 5 ALJ 287

4. Jitendra Singh Vs U.O.I.; Writ C No. 53877 of
2017

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for
the
respondent
no.1,
Shri
Siddharth
Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent
no.2 as well as Shri Ashok Khare and Shri
G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocates
assisted by Shri Ramesh Kumar Tiwari
286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appearing on behalf of newly impleaded
respondent no.4.

2. The present writ petition has been
filed by two petitioners, namely, Mukesh
Kumar & Sandeep Kumar for issuance of
a writ in the nature of certiorari calling
for record of the case and quashing the
revised answer key dated 7.9.2022 issued
by
the
respondent
no.
3,
namely,
Examination Controller, Uttar Pradesh
Subordinate
Service
Selection
Commission, Lucknow only to the extent
of question nos. 10, 65, 86 & 90 of the
booklet series 'B' and its equivalent in all
other series of main examination held in
pursuance of the advertisement No. 01Exam/2022 issued by the respondent no.
2, namely, Secretary, Uttar Pradesh
Subordinate
Service
Selection
Commission,
Lucknow.
The
consequential reliefs have also been
prayed for.

3. After filing of the present writ
petition, an application on behalf of the
petitioner no. 2, being Application No. 2
of 2023 was filed on 18.5.2023 for
dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn
in respect of the petitioner no. 2. The said
application was allowed, by an order
dated 21.7.2023 passed by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court, as such, in the
present writ petition, there is only one
petitioner, i.e., petitioner no. 1. namely,
Mukesh Kumar.

4. The counsel for the petitioner,
during the course of argument has made a
statement that he did not challenge the
revised answer key dated 7.9.2022,
insofar as it relates to the question nos.
65, 86 & 90 of booklet series 'B'. Thus, in
the present writ petition, the only
challenge is to revised answer key dated
7.9.2022 only to the extent of question no.
10.

5. The facts as stated in the writ
petition are that the petitioner has cleared
the PET-2021, hence on the basis of his
score he was shortlisted of appearing in the
main examination, being conducted in
pursuance of the advertisement No. 01Exam/2022 for the post of Revenue
Lekhpal.

6. The petitioner has appeared in the
main examination held on 31.7.2022 which
was conducted by the respondent nos. 2 &
3. The petitioner no. 1 was provided
booklet series 'B' and the petitioner no. 2
was provided booklet series 'D'. Since the
writ petition with regard to the petitioner
no. 2 has been dismissed as withdrawn, as
such, the facts relating to the petitioner no.
2 are not being mentioned, being not
relevant.

7. The answer key of the main
examination
held
on
31.7.2022
was
published on 1.8.2022. In para 9 of the writ
petition, it is stated that the petitioner has
filed objection and revised answer key of
booklet series 'B' and other series was
published on 7.9.2022.

8. According to the petitioner, the
dispute is with regard to question No. 10,
which is as under:

"सनम्नसलखखत में कौन सा वाक्य
अशुद्ध है?

(1) उसे मृत्युदिंड की सजा हुई ।

(2) सविंध्याचल पवथत पर घने जिंगल है ।

(3) यहााँ शुद्ध भैंस का दूि समलता है।

(4) मेरे को उससे बात करना पसिंद
नहीिं है ।

(A) पहला और तीसरा
4 All. Mukesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
287

(B) पहला, तीसरा और चौर्ा

(C) दूसरा, तीसरा और चौर्ा

(D) पहला, दूसरा, तीसरा और चौर्ा
चारो"

9. It is stated in the writ petition that
the petitioner has marked answer 'D' as
correct answer, whereas in the revised
answer key, answer 'B' has been treated to
be correct answer.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner
in support of his argument has placed and
relied upon an publication made by the
राजस्र्ान राज्य पुस्तक मण्डल जयपुर stating
that answer 'D' is correct answer. In the
said publication at sl. no. 9 (at page 72 of
the writ petition), it is mentioned that
सवन्ध्याचल पवथत सहमालय से प्राचीन है is an
incorrect sentence and the correct sentence
is सवन्ध्याचल सहमालय से प्राचीन है.

11.

Relying
on
the
aforesaid
publication, the counsel for the petitioner
submits that answer 'D' is the correct
answer and the publication of revised
answer key holding option 'B' as correct
answer is incorrect.

12. One of the candidate, namely,
Krishna Pratap Singh Patel has moved an
impleadment
application
for
his
impleadment as respondent stating therein
that he has been selected and a conditional
allotment letter has been issued to him but
due to pendency of the present writ
petition, he is not being allowed to join.
The application for impleadment was
allowed by an order dated 14.3.2024 and he
was impleaded as respondent no. 4 in the
present writ petition.

13. In the affidavit filed in support of
the impleadment application, in para 8 it is
stated that in the publication relied upon by
the petitioner, there was a comparison made
between two mountains hence mentioning of
Parwat was not required. It is further stated
that there are various places named as
Vindhyachal in the official website of the
State Government relating to Mirzapur.
Relying upon the said website, three places
have been mentioned in para 8 of the
affidavit filed in support of the impleadment
application, which reproduced below:

"i. According to official website of
Mirzapur
District
Administration
(Mirzapur.nic.in), There is a famous religious
place with the name Vindhyachal Dham.

ii. There is a railway station in
Mirzapur with the name Vindhyachal.

Iii. There is village with the name
Vindhyachal, in Tehsil-Premnagar, District -
Soorajpur, Chhattisgarh."

14. In view of the aforesaid, it is argued
that if only Vindhyachal word is used,
various meanings are coming out like
religious place, railway station and villages.
However, if word parvat is used along with
word Vindhyachal, then scene becomes
crystal clear and same is beyond any doubt.

15. A counter affidavit to the
impleadment application has been filed by
the petitioner and in the counter affidavit, the
petitioner has relied upon the book, namely
Prayojanmoolak Hindi. In chapter-III of
aforesaid book, the correct and incorrect
sentence is explained. Item No. 13 of
aforesaid chapter contains अगस्त्य सवन्ध्याचल
पवथत पार कर गये as incorrect sentence and the
correct sentence mentioned is अगस्त्य
सवन्ध्याचल पार कर गये.

16. Relying upon the aforesaid books,
it is argued by the counsel for the petitioner
288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that the correct answer of question no. 10 is
'D'.

17. Shri Siddharth Singhal, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-Commission, on the basis of
the
instructions
submits
that
after
objections
were
invited
from
the
candidate, an Expert Committee was
constituted
and
after
taking
into
consideration all the aspect of the matter,
the revised answer key was published and
based on the revised answer key, the
result was declared. It is further argued
that answer 'D' was published as the
correct
answer
on
1.08.2022
but
subsequently, it was found by the Expert
Committee that the correct answer is
option 'B', and as such, based on Expert
opinion,
revised
answer
key
was
published, mentioning therein option 'B'
of question no. 10 of booklet series 'B' as
correct answer.

18. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent-Commission has
further argued that time and again it has
been held by this Court as well as by the
Hon'ble Apex Court that it is only the
Expert Committee who look into the
matter and the Writ Court should not
interfere
into
this
kind
of
matter
especially because the Courts are not
experts and once an expert opinion had
been obtained, the Court should not
interfere in expert opinion. Learned
counsel has further relied upon the law
laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case
of Ran Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. &
others, reported in 2018(2) SCC 357.
Paragraph nos.30, 31 and 32 reads 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 scrutinize 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
4 All. Mukesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
289
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
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."

19. The Hon'ble Apex Court, further in
case of Uttar Pradesh Public Service
Commission Vs. Rahul Singh & others,
reported in 2018(7) SCC 254, affirmed the
aforesaid judgment of Ran Vijay Singh
(Supra) and further held in para 12 that
candidate has to not only demonstrate that the
key answer is incorrect but also 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.
Paragraph-12 of the aforesaid judgment reads
as follows:-

"12. The law is well settled that the
onus is on the candidate to not only
demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect
but also 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 restraint in such matters
and should be reluctant to entertain a plea
challenging the correctness of the key
answers. In Kanpur University case (supra),
the Court recommended a system of -

(1) moderation;

(2) avoiding ambiguity in the
questions;

(3) prompt decisions be taken to
exclude suspected questions and no marks be
assigned to such questions."

20. The Court further held in paragraph
no.14 of the aforesaid judgment that when
there are conflicting views, then the Court
must bow down to the opinion of the experts.
Paragraph-14 reads as follows:-

"14. In the present case we find
that all the 3 questions needed a long
290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
process of reasoning and the High Court
itself has 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."

21. A Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Writ-A No. 481 of 2021 Arsiya
Bano Vs. State of U.P. & others,
reported in (2022) 5 ALJ 287, after
relying upon various judgments of the
Hon'ble Apex Court and also of this
Court, held as under:

"47. Undoubtedly, the Courts
cannot judicially review the expert
opinion unless and until the key answer is
patently wrong. 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.

48. 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.

54. 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
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."

22. Applying well settled principle
of law in the present case, the Court finds
that there are different places, named as
Vindhyachal as is clear from State of
U.P. website i.e., mirzapur.nic.in. If only
word Vindhyachal is mentioned without
mentioning therein Parvat, Station or
Dham, the area on which the dense forest
is situated cannot be identified, as such,
the revised answer key based on the
opinion of expert mentioning answer 'B'
as correct answer of question no. 10 of
series 'B' Booklet does not call for any
interference.

23. Moreover, the learned counsel
for
the
petitioner
has
failed
to
demonstrate that the answer key is not
only incorrect, but also that it is a glaring
mistake which is totally apparent and no
inferential process or reasoning is required
to show that the answer key is wrong.
4 All. Pradeep Narayan Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
291

24. In view of the above, the writ
petition is devoid of merit and is hereby
dismissed. No order as to cost.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 291
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, J.

Writ A No. 6112 of 2021

Pradeep Narayan Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ramanand Pandey, Sri Abhishek Kumar
Mishra,
Sri
Chandrakesh
Mishra,
Sr.
Advocate, Sri Ashok Khare, Sri D.S. Mishra
(Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C, Sri Apoorv Tiwari, Sri Ashish Mishra,
Sri Satya Prakash, Sri Vinayak Mithal, Sri
Raj Kumar Yadav, Sri T.P. Singh (Sr.
Advocate)

Service Law - U.P. Higher Judicial Service
Rules, 1975 - Rule 5(c), Rule 7 - Direct
Recruitment to Higher Judicial Service (HJS) -
Eligibility and Reservation - Dheeraj Mor Vs
High Court of Delhi, (2020) 7 SCC 401 -
Petitioner
challenged
revised
result
(01.10.2020)
of
U.P.
HJS
Recruitment
Examination 2018 and appointments of nine
candidates, claiming inclusion in the select list
and appointment as Additional District &
Sessions Judge. Supreme Court's ruling in
Dheeraj Mor requiring continuous practice as
an advocate till the date of appointment
applied prospectively by the High Court, as
resolved on 18.03.2020, approved by Full Court
on 30.09.2020. Respondents Nos. 3 to 9, who
joined other judicial services post-provisional
result (28.03.2019) but before final result
(01.10.2020), held eligible, as their interim
service was fortuitous, under interim orders
during Dheeraj Mor's pendency, and they were
not parties to that litigation. Horizontal
reservation for women (20%) applied as
overall, not compartmentalized, per Rule 7 and
advertisement, validly including two women
candidates (respondents Nos. 10 & 11) lower
in merit than petitioner to meet reservation
quota. No provision for wait list under Rules;
petitioner's
claim
based
on
wait
list
(13.03.2019)
untenable,
as
subsequent
resolution
(24.07.2020)
modified
earlier
resolutions, and no vacancy existed. (Paras 4995)

Writ Petition Dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Deepak Agarwal Vs Keshav Kaushik, (2013) 5
SCC 277 (Paras 6, 31, 34, 52)

2. Dheeraj Mor Vs High Court of Delhi, (2020) 7
SCC 401 (Paras 11, 16-19, 32-38, 49-78)

3. Malik Mazhar Sultan Vs UPPSC, (2008) 17
SCC 703 (Paras 37, 57, 58)

4. R. Poornima Vs U.O.I., 2020 SCC OnLine SC
714 (Para 77)

5. Praveen Kumar Vs High Court of Delhi, 2022
SCC OnLine DEL 4447 (Para 77)

6. Smt. Lily Krishnan Vs St. of Kerala, 2023 KER
68493 (Para 77)

7. K. Deepa Vs St. of Kerala, 2020 SCC OnLine
KER 2769 (Para 77)

8. Sunil Kumar Verma Vs St. of Bihar, 2021 SCC
OnLine BIH 786 (Para 77)

9. Shashank Singh Vs High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad, 2021 SCC OnLine All 835 (Para 77)

10. St. of Punj. Vs Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC
172 (Para 19)

11. Praveen Garg Vs High Court of Delhi, 2022
SCC OnLine DEL 4477 (Para 19)