# Sumit Kumar v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 12 ILRA 660
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-11-09
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 5537 of 2020
- **Bench:** Yashwant Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sumit-kumar-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-45488
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-
application-seeking quashing of result of
PGT examination where the correctness of
an answer key is called in questionpetitioner failed to establish a patent or
palpable
error-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..(Para 2 to
13)

B. In the instant case, principal dispute is
raised with respect to Question No. 35 and
various options were provided by the
examining authority. Question No. 35
required candidates to indicate the main
objective of cost accounting. Petitioner
has chosen "B" to be the correct answer
while the answer key prepared by the
respondents indicated the correct answer
to be "C". When there are conflicting
views, then the court must bow down to
the opinion of experts-judges are not
experts in all fields-they must exercise
great restraint and should not overstep
their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of
the experts. (Para 9)

The Petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. In view of the aforesaid, the writ
petition is devoid of any merit, accordingly,
it is dismissed.
----------
(2020)12ILR A660
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.

Writ A No. 5537 of 2020

Sumit Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shivendu Ojha, Sri Radha Kant Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anil Kumar Singh, Sri Rohit
Singh, Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav

A. Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-
application-seeking quashing of result of
PGT examination where the correctness of
an answer key is called in questionpetitioner failed to establish a patent or
palpable
error-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..(Para 2 to
13)

B. In the instant case, principal dispute is
raised with respect to Question No. 35 and
various options were provided by the
examining authority. Question No. 35
required candidates to indicate the main
objective of cost accounting. Petitioner
has chosen "B" to be the correct answer
while the answer key prepared by the
respondents indicated the correct answer
to be "C". When there are conflicting
views, then the court must bow down to
the opinion of experts-judges are not
experts in all fields-they must exercise
great restraint and should not overstep
their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of
the experts. (Para 9)

The Petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

1. UPSC Vs Rahul Singh, (2018) 7 SCC 254

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

3. BSSC Vs Arun Kumar, (2020) 6 SCC 362

(Delivered by Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for parties.

2. The instant petition has been
preferred seeking quashing of the final
result of the PGT Examination 2016 for
recruitment of Lecturers in Commerce. The
principal dispute is raised with respect to
Question No.35 and the various options
which were provided for that question by
the examining authority.

3.

Question
No.
35
required
candidates to indicate the main objective of
cost accounting. Admittedly the petitioner
while attempting that question has chosen
'B' to be the correct answer while the
answer key which was prepared by the
respondents indicated the correct answer to
be 'C'.

4. Pursuant to the interim directions
issued on this petition, the respondents
have filed a counter affidavit in which they
state that the said question was sent for the
opinion of the Subject Expert who has
12 All. Sumit Kumar Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
661
maintained the original position that the
correct answer of Question No.35 would be
'C'.

5. According to Sri Ojha, the counter
affidavit filed by the respondents itself
places reliance on the extract of a
publication titled "Cost & Management
Accounting" in which the determination of
selling price of goods is mentioned as one
along
with
various
other
important
objectives of Cost Accounting. According
to Sri Ojha, in view of the aforesaid, the
response submitted by the petitioner here to
Question No.35 would also be deemed to
be correct and that consequently the said
question should be deleted. The submission
essentially is that since response "B" could
also be treated to be the correct answer, the
petitioner is entitled to relief.

6. The Court finds itself unable to
sustain the submission for the following
reasons.

7. The question itself required the
candidate to indicate the main objective of
Cost Accounting. While in the process of
cost accounting, the management may also
be able to determine the selling price of
goods, the question which still remains is
whether that is the primary objective of
cost accounting.

8. In the considered view of the
Court, the expression "main objective" as
employed in the question is clearly
determinative.
The
expression
"main"
required candidates to indicate the primary
or central objective of cost accounting. The
extract from the publication taken into
consideration by the respondents and on
which alone Sri Ojha learned senior
counsel relied during the course of his oral
submissions,
spells
out
the
various
important objectives of cost accounting.
The extract relied upon does not indicate
the determination of the selling price of
goods to be the main objective. As held
above, while the determination of cost price
of goods may be one of the objectives of
cost accounting, it has not been established
before this Court that the same is its
principal objective. The Subject Expert has
chosen to consider the question principally
in light of the manner in which it was
worded, namely, requiring the candidate to
indicate the main objective of cost
accounting.

9. The Court further finds itself
unconvinced to interfere with the decision
of the respondents on a more fundamental
plane. As has been settled by various
precedents, in matters like the present
where the correctness of an answer key is
called in question, the Court must bear in
mind the cautionary caveat enunciated in
respect of the scope of judicial review and
eloquently explained in U.P. Public
Service Commission Vs. Rahul Singh as
under:-

"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........."

14. In the present case, we find
that all the three questions needed a long
process of reasoning and the High Court
itself has noticed that the stand of the
Commission is also supported by certain
textbooks. When there are conflicting
662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

10. The width of judicial review as
explained in the aforesaid decision has
been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in
Ran Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
more recently in Bihar Staff Selection
Commission Vs. Arun Kumar.

11. The principles which emerge from
the aforesaid decisions clearly establish that
this Court while exercising its powers of
judicial review can neither assume the
function nor taken on the mantle of
academic
experts.
The
Courts
while
venturing into this field must exercise due
caution and restraint before upsetting the
opinion
of
experts.
Additionally,
interference would be warranted only in
case it is established that the correct answer
chosen by academicians is beset by a
palpable and manifest error or mistake.
Further, the error must be one which can be
established without undertaking what the
Supreme Court chose to describe as an
"inferential process of reasoning or by a
process of rationalisation". The error must
be stark and apparent. Lastly, even where
two views can possibly be taken or there be
doubt, benefit must be extended to the
examining body.

12. The petitioner in the present case has
not only failed to establish a patent or palpable
error nor has the challenge crossed the threshold
as propounded in the decisions noticed above so
as to warrant interference.

13. The petition is dismissed.
----------
(2020)12ILR A662
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Writ A. No. 6262 of 2008

Ram Naresh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pankaj Srivastava, Sri S.M. Ali

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

A. Service Law - Regularisation, Payment
of Salary and other benefits - U.P.
Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961: Rule
3(8); Civil Services Regulation of Uttar
Pradesh:
Regulation
370;
U.P.
Regularisation
of
Daily
Wages
Appointment on Group D Post Rules,
2001:
Clause
4(1),
4(b),
4(3)
-
A
temporary employee appointed on the
regular establishment of the Government
is entitled to pension under Fundamental
Rule 56.

This is an admitted fact that the petitioner is
continuously working since 23.1.1995 in Rural
Engineering Services Department, Sumerpur
Store
as
daily
wager
on
the
post
of
Chaukidar/Peon and getting salary on the basis
of interim order dated 19.3.2010 passed by this
Court. The GO dated 13.8.2015 issued by State
Government to all the Government Department,
Corporation as well as Local Bodies, directed
regularization of all the employees, whose
cutoff-date is 31.3.1996. At the time of filing of
the present writ petition, Rules, 2001 fixed the
cutoff-date as 29.6.1991 for regularization of
daily wager, but during the pendency of the writ
petition, subsequently, the GO was amended
vide G.O. dated 13.8.2015 fixing cutoff-date for
regularization as 31.3.1996. (Para 11, 12, 13)