# Saliha Khan v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 12 ILRA 421
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2018-12-04
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 20779 of 2020
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/saliha-khan-v-u-o-i-ors-45603
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India-Article
226-
Examination -Challenge to Answer key -
Interference- only where it is found that
the answer keys are demonstrably wrong
-that is to say, it cannot be such as no
reasonable body of men, well versed in
the particular subject, would regard it as
correct - in that event Court exercise its
writ jurisdiction to ensure that the error is
rectified (Para 16)

B. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Challenge to Answer key - No Interference
when - once the objections invited against
the proposed answer key have been
considered by the subject experts and
422 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
they do not found any substance in the
objections - Writ Court can not examine the
correctness of the questions and the answer
key - to come to a conclusion different from
that of the subject experts - merely because
a candidate or some of the candidates are
disappointed or dissatisfied by the answers -
writ-petition liable to be dismissed (Para
17)

C.
National
Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test
(NEET) Examination UG - 2020 - Provision
made in Information Bulletin (NEET) (UG)
2020 in Cl.15 (2)(d) provides that "No
individual candidate will be informed about
acceptance / non-acceptance of his / her
challenge"-Held-No mandate to communicate
to the petitioner specific reasons given by
subject experts for rejection of the objections
of the petitioner (Para 18)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

12 All. Saliha Khan Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
421
issues in terms of the settlement agreement
dated 04.12.2018. The mother has indicated
that she has the necessary wherewithal to
raise the minor. The mother, being found fit
to have the minor's custody, it cannot be the
best arrangement to secure the child's
welfare, or so to speak, repair his
devastated world. He must have his father's
company too, as much as can be, under the
circumstances. This Court must, therefore,
devise a suitable arrangement, where the
minor can meet his father in an atmosphere,
that is reassuring and palliative. The father
must, therefore, have sufficient visitation
while the minor stays with his mother.

33. In the result, this habeas corpus writ
petition succeeds and is allowed. It is ordered
that the minor, Anav, who is presently in the
custody of his father, Ram Narayan, shall be
delivered into the custody of his mother, Smt.
Meenakshi within three days of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. In case, the minor's
custody is not made over to his mother within
that time, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Shamli and the Superintendent of Police,
Shamli, acting in aid of the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Shamli, shall cause the
minor to be delivered into the custody of his
mother, Smt. Meenakshi, after taking him out
of his father, Ram Narayan's custody. And for
the purpose, if so required, necessary force may
be employed. The father will have visitation
rights to meet his son, Anav at Smt.
Meenakshi's home. The father, Ram Narayan
shall be permitted by Smt. Meenakshi to meet
their son, Anav twice a month on the second
and fourth Sundays of each month between
10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. During these visitations,
Smt. Meenakshi shall ensure that due courtesy
is extended to Ram Narayan and the meeting
between the father and the son is facilitated.

34. It is, in these terms, that the rule
nisi is made absolute. Costs shall go easy.

35. Let a copy of this order be sent to
Ram Narayan s/o Bhujendra @ Pintu,
respondent no. 9 by the Joint Registrar
(Compliance) through the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Shamli. A copy of this
order be also sent by the Joint Registrar
(Compliance) to the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Shamli and the Superintendent
of Police, Shamli for compliance. A copy
of this order be also sent to the learned
District Judge, Shamli for his record.
----------
(2020)12ILR A421
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Misc. Single No. 20779 of 2020

Saliha Khan ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rahul Tripathi, Sandeep Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., A.S.G., Shashank Bhasin

A.
Constitution
of
India-Article
226-
Examination -Challenge to Answer key -
Interference- only where it is found that
the answer keys are demonstrably wrong
-that is to say, it cannot be such as no
reasonable body of men, well versed in
the particular subject, would regard it as
correct - in that event Court exercise its
writ jurisdiction to ensure that the error is
rectified (Para 16)

B. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Challenge to Answer key - No Interference
when - once the objections invited against
the proposed answer key have been
considered by the subject experts and
422 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
they do not found any substance in the
objections - Writ Court can not examine the
correctness of the questions and the answer
key - to come to a conclusion different from
that of the subject experts - merely because
a candidate or some of the candidates are
disappointed or dissatisfied by the answers -
writ-petition liable to be dismissed (Para
17)

C.
National
Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test
(NEET) Examination UG - 2020 - Provision
made in Information Bulletin (NEET) (UG)
2020 in Cl.15 (2)(d) provides that "No
individual candidate will be informed about
acceptance / non-acceptance of his / her
challenge"-Held-No mandate to communicate
to the petitioner specific reasons given by
subject experts for rejection of the objections
of the petitioner (Para 18)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Saumitra Gigodia Vs U.O.I. & ors. Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No.28568 of 2017

2. Vikesh Kumar Gupta & anr. Vs The St. of Raj
& ors. Civil Appeal 4 Nos.3649-3650 of 2020

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

1. Heard, Shri Sandeep Sharma,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri
Shashank Bhasin, learned counsel for the
opposite party no.4, Shri Anand Dwivedi,
learned counsel for the opposite parties
no.1 & 3 and Shri Savitra Vardhan Singh,
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. This petition has been filed for a
direction to the respondent no.4 to consider
the answers given by the petitioner of
question nos.19 and 148 and revise the
final answer key and Score Card of the
petitioner, published by the National
Testing Agency on 16.10.2020 and for
passing the New Answer Key with New
Score Card considering representation filed
by the petitioner on 27.09.2020.

3. The brief facts of the case are that
the National Testing Agency invited online
applications for National Eligibility-cumEntrance Test (NEET) (UG)- 2020. The
petitioner had applied against the public
notice. The examination was initially
scheduled on 03.05.2019 through public
notice dated 02.12.2019 but due to
pandemic of Covid-19, the same was
rescheduled
from
26.07.2020
to
13.09.2020. The National Testing Agency
issued the proposed advance answer keys
for all the sets of question papers on
26.09.2020 and invited the objections vide
notification dated 27.09.2020. In response
thereof
the
petitioner
had
submitted
objections in regard to question nos.19 and
148 of booklet no.G-4 and deposited the
requisite fees. But without considering the
objections, the final answer key was
published. The answers were not changed
and the result was also declared. Hence the
petitioner approached this Court by means
of the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner had appeared
in the National Eligibility cum Entrance
Test (NEET) (UG)-2020 and submitted
objections on the advanced answer key in
regard to question nos.19 and 148 on
27.09.2020 and deposited Rs.2,000/-, the
requisite fees for the same. Thereafter the
final answer key and the result was
declared
on
16.10.2020
without
considering the objections of the petitioner
as the final answer key does not show any
change in the answer of question nos.19
and 148. As per opposite party no.4 the
answer of the question no.19 was 1-G1
Phase while as per the petitioner it should
have been 4-M Phase of booklet no.G-4.
12 All. Saliha Khan Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
423
The answer of question no.148 was shown
as 3- Collusion Frequency while as per the
petitioner it should have been 1-Reaction.

5. He further submitted that the
opposite party no.4, though has disclosed in
paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit that the
objection was considered by the subject
experts
but
the
same
was
neither
communicated to the petitioner nor specific
reasons have also been given for rejection
of the objections of the petitioner. The
answers which have been examined and
approved by the subject experts could not
have been for the question nos.19 and 148
which were in G-4 booklet and if the same
answers are correct then the questions
should have been constructed in a different
manner, which have been disclosed by the
petitioner in paragraph-17 of the rejoinder
affidavit.

6. On the basis of above, learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
objections of the petitioner has not been
considered in accordance with law. He
relied on paragraph-22 of the judgment and
order dated 10.08.2017 passed by a
Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Saumitra Gigodia Vs. Union of India and
others; in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No.28568 of 2017.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the opposite party no.4 submitted that in
response to the proposed answer key, 9760
objections
were
received
from
the
candidates including the petitioner. The
said objections were placed before the
respective
subject
experts who were
Professors of IIT's and reputed universities
for verification. The concerned subject
experts, after examining the objections /
challenges, considered each and every
aspect of the objections / challenges and
after examining carefully neither found any
merit in the objections nor any discrepancy
in the provisional answer key to the
questions including question nos.19 and
148 of booklet no.G-4 and rejected the
objections / challenges received from the
candidates including 549 candidates made
in G-4 series. Accordingly the final answer
key was published on 16.10.2020 and the
result was declared accordingly.

8. He further submitted that it was
provided in clause 15 (2) (d) under Chapter
15 of the Information Bulletin of Neet
(UG)- 2020 that no individual candidate
will be informed about the acceptance /
non-acceptance of his / her challenge.
Therefore, the same is not required to be
communicated to the petitioner as it was
already
provided
in
the
information
bulletin.

9. He further submitted that the
subject
experts
have
scrutinized
the
challenges to the question nos.19 and 148
and opined that the answers are correct
relying on NCERT, Class-11, Biology Text
Book which has also been relied by the
petitioner and details have been given in
paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit.

10. He, relying on a latest judgment
of
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
dated
07.12.2020 in the case of Vikesh Kumar
Gupta and Another Vs. The State of
Rajasthan and Others; in Civil Appeal
Nos.3649-3650 of 2020 submitted that
once the objections have been considered
by the subject experts challenge to the same
is not maintainable. The writ-petition is
liable to be dismissed.

11. I have considered the submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. The petitioner had applied for
National
Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test
(NEET) (UG)- 2020 against the invitation of
applications by the National Testing Agency.
The entrance test was initially scheduled on
03.09.2020 which was rescheduled from
26.07.2020 to 13.09.2020. The petitioner
appeared in the test. After the test Advance
Answer Key for all sets including booklet
no.G-4 was published on 26.09.2020 and the
objections were invited vide public notice
dated 27.09.2020. In response thereof the
petitioner submitted her objections against
the proposed answers of question nos.19 and
148 and deposited the requisite fees.
Thereafter the final answer key was
published on 16.10.2020. On the basis of
which the result was also declared on the
same date. The petitioner, being aggrieved by
not change of the answers as objected by the
petitioner, have approached this Court by
means of the present writ petition.

13. In regard to the submission of
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
objections raised by the petitioner in regard
to the question nos.19 and 148 of booklet
no.G-4 have not been considered, learned
counsel for the opposite party no.4
submitted that the objections submitted by
the petitioner have duly been considered by
the subject experts and after scrutinizing
the objections to the question nos.19 and
148, the subject experts did not find any
merit in the objections or any discrepancy
in the provisional answer keys to the said
questions and rejected the objections /
challenges
made
by
the
candidates
including the petitioner. The subject
experts have given opinion on the basis of
NCERT, Class-11 Biology Text Book
which has also been relied by the
petitioner. The details have been given in
paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit, which
is extracted below:-

"(8)
That
the
contents
of
paragraph 12 and 13 of the writ petition
are not admitted as stated. It is submitted
that the Subject Experts have scrutinized
the challenges to question no.19 and 148.
The Subject Expert did not find any merit in
the objection or any discrepancy in the
Provisional Answer Keys to the said
question and rejected the challenges made
by the candidates including the petitioner
in G4 Series. It is pertinent to mention here
that the Subject Experts opined that "G1" is
the correct answer to the question : "some
dividing cells exit the cell cycle and enter
vegetative inactive stage. This is called
quiescent stage (GO). This process occurs
at the end of:" and relied upon the page
164 of the NCERT Class XI Biology
textbook, which has also relied upon by the
petitioner page 105-109 of the writ petition.
The Biology NCERT Class XI Book at page
164 (page 109 of the petition) provides that
"... these cells that do not divide further exit
G1 phage to enter into an inactive stage
called quiescent stage (GO) of the cell
cycle". The Subject Expert with respect to
question no.148 also opined that as Heat of
Reaction (reaction Enthalpy) is always
measured in Kj/mol. Therefore, Collusion
frequency is correct. In view of the above,
it is humbly submitted that the claim of the
petitioner
is
misconceived,
highly
unfounded and is hence liable to be
dismissed at the first instance."

14. In view of above, the contention
of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
misconceived and not tenable that the
objections have not been considered by the
subject experts. While the same have been
considered by the Subject Experts, who are
Professors
from
IIT's
and
reputed
Universities as disclosed in paragraph
3(xiv) of the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of opposite party no.4.
12 All. Saliha Khan Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
425

15. The contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that if the answers
as accepted by the subject experts are true,
the questions should have been framed in a
different manner which has been disclosed
by her in the rejoinder affidavit can not be
accepted because it is for the subject
experts as to how the questions are to be
framed and once the subject experts have
examined the objections and came to the
conclusion that the objections are not
sustainable and proposed answers are the
correct answers, this Court can not examine
the same over and above the opinion of the
subject experts.

16. The judgment and order dated
10.08.2017 passed in the case of Saumitra
Gigodia Vs. Union of India and others
(Supra) is of no assistance to the
petitioner. It provides that where it is found
that the answer keys are demonstrably
wrong, that is to say, it cannot be such as
no reasonable body of men, well versed in
the particular subject, would regard it as
correct, in that event the Court should
exercise its writ jurisdiction and ensure that
the error is rectified. The learned counsel
for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate
it. The paragraph-22 of the judgment is
extracted below:-

"22. Normally, the Court should
be cautious in interfering with the opinion
of the expert but where it is found that the
answer keys are demonstrably wrong, that
is to say, it cannot be such as no
reasonable body of men, well versed in the
particular subject, would regard it as
correct, in that event the Court should
exercise its writ jurisdiction and ensure
that the error is rectified.

17. It is settled proposition of law that
once the objections invited against the
proposed answer key have been considered
by the subject experts and they do not
found any substance in the objections, this
Court can not examine the correctness of
the questions and the answer key, to come
to a conclusion different from that of the
subject experts merely because a candidate
or some of the candidates are disappointed
or dissatisfied by the answers. It is for the
subject experts to consider the objections
and evaluate as to whether the objections
have any substance or not because they
have experties to evaluate or scrutinize the
answers. This view is fortified by judgment
and order 07.12.2020 passed in Vikesh
Kumar Gupta and Another Vs. The
State of Rajasthan and Others (Supra)
by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The relevant
paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 are extracted
below:-

"10. The point that arises for the
consideration of this Court is whether the
revised Select List dated 21.05.2019 ought
to have been prepared on the basis of the
2nd Answer Key. The Appellants contend
that the Wait List also should be prepared
on the basis of the 3 rd Answer Key and not
on the basis of the 2 nd Answer Key. The
2nd Answer Key was released by the RPSC
on the 10 basis of the recommendations
made by the Expert Committee constituted
pursuant to the directions issued by the
High Court. Not being satisfied with the
revised Select List which included only a
few
candidates,
certain
unsuccessful
candidates
filed
Appeals
before
the
Division Bench which were disposed of on
12.03.2019. When the Division Bench was
informed that the selections have been
finalized on the basis of the 2 nd Answer
Key, it refused to interfere with the Select
List prepared on 17.09.2018. However, the
Division Bench examined the correctness of
the questions and Answer Keys pointed by
426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Appellants therein and arrived at a
conclusion that the answer key to 5
questions was erroneous. On the basis of
the said findings, the Division Bench
directed the RPSC to prepare revised
Select List and apply it only to the
Appellants before it.

11. Though re-evaluation can be
directed if rules permit, this Court has
deprecated the practice of re- evaluation
and scrutiny of the questions by the courts
which lack expertise in academic matters.
It is not permissible for the High Court to
examine the question papers and answer
sheets
itself,
particularly
when
the
Commission has assessed the inter se merit
of the candidates (Himachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh
Thakur & Anothers)1. Courts have to show
deference
and
consideration
to
the
recommendation of the Expert Committee
who have the expertise to evaluate and
make recommendations 2. Examining the
scope of judicial review with regards to re-
evaluation of answer sheets, this Court in
Ran Vijay Singh & Others Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Others3 held that court
should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the
answer sheets of a candidate as it has no
expertise in the matters and the academic
matters are best left to academics. This
Court in the said judgment further held as
follows:

"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 examination authorities
before interfering with the efforts put in by
the candidates who have successfully
participated in 13 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
12 All. Master @ Ramzan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
427
uncertainty results in confusion being
worse confounded. The overall and larger
impact of all this is that public interest
suffers."

12. In view of the above law laid
down by this Court, it was not open to the
Division Bench to have examined the
correctness of the questions and the answer
key to come to a conclusion different from
that of the Expert Committee in its
judgment dated 12.03.2019. Reliance was
placed by the Appellants on Richal &
Others Vs. Rajasthan Public Service
Commission & Others. 4 In the said
judgment, this Court interfered with the
selection process only after obtaining the
opinion of an expert 4 committee but did
not enter into the correctness of the
questions and answers by itself. Therefore,
the said judgment is not relevant for
adjudication of the dispute in this case.

13. 13. A perusal of the above
judgments would make it clear that courts
should be very slow in interfering with
expert opinion in academic matters. In any
event, assessment of the questions by the
courts itself to arrive at correct answers is
not permissible. The delay in finalization of
appointments to public posts is mainly
caused
due
to
pendency
of
cases
challenging selections pending in courts for
a long period of time. The cascading effect
of delay in appointments is the continuance
of those appointed on temporary basis and
their claims for regularization. The other
consequence
resulting
from
delayed
appointments to public posts is the serious
damage caused to administration due to
lack of sufficient personnel."

18. The contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the opinion
of the subject experts has not been provided
to the petitioner is misconceived and not
tenable in view of expressed provision
made in the Information Bulletin (NEET)
(UG) 2020 in clause 15 (2)(d) which
provides that "No individual candidate will
be informed about the acceptance / nonacceptance of his / her
challenge".
Otherwise also if it is accepted the process
of selection may take very long time.

19. In view of above, this Court is of
the considered opinion that once the subject
experts have examined the objections of the
petitioner and opined that the proposed
answers are the correct answers and the
final
Answer
Key
has
been
issued
accordingly, this Court can not examine the
correctness of the answers, or framing of
questions.
The
writ
petition
is
misconceived and lacks merit.

20. It accordingly, dismissed. No
order as to costs.
----------
(2020)12ILR A427
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SAROJ YADAV, J.

Misc. Bench No. 22007 of 2020

Master @ Ramzan & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Asim Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law - U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 -
Section 3(1) - G.O. Dt. 2.1.2004 - Circular