Dismissed

Ravis Babu and 4 Others v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2024SPLAD/428/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench dismissed a Special Appeal challenging the Uttar Pradesh Teachers Eligibility Test-2021 results. The preferred appeal reviewed a Single Judge's order which granted grace marks for repeated ambiguous questions but rejected claims regarding two other questions. The Division Bench held the writ court’s order was justified.

What did the court decide?

The Special Appeal was dismissed; the impugned order allowing grace marks for Questions 8 and 141 while rejecting claims for Questions 25 and 35 was upheld.

Ravis Babu and 4 Others vs State of Up and 2 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:129070-DB

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 428 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Ravis Babu And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Tiwari,Saumitra Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

Ref: Delay Condonation Application

¶7

For the reasons stated in affidavit filed alongwith Delay Condonation Application, which constitutes sufficient cause, the Delay Condonation Application is allowed. Delay in filing the Special Appeal is hereby condoned.

¶8

Ref: Special Appeal

¶9

Heard Shri Saumitra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellantspetitioners and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶10

Present intra-court appeal is preferred questioning the validity of order dated 05.02.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in bunch of writ petitions with leading Writ A No.6605 of 2022 (Pragati Agarwal and others vs. State of U.P. and Another), whereby, the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petitions in part and only with regard to Questions Nos.8 and 141, grace marks were granted to appellants-petitioners therein and accordingly it is ordered that fresh result be declared qua all petitioners, after taking note of grace marks. It is alleged that appellants are entitled for awarding marks towards Question No.25 and 35 of Question Booklet Series/Set B (A/C/D) of Uttar Pradesh Teachers Eligibility Test-2021, in respect of which the aforesaid writ petition alongwith the connected cases was dismissed. For ready reference, the observations made by learned Single Judge in the order dated 05.02.2024 is reproduced as under:-

¶11

“6. In the above factual and legal background, I am of the view that in case some questions were repeated in UPTET-2021 with same options though in different order, therefore, ambiguity, which was considered by Division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Rizwan (supra) earlier, was repeated, therefore, benefit given to candidates therein, could be granted to petitioners herein also.

¶12

In this regard I have carefully perused the judgment in Mohd. Rizwan (supra). Questions no. 16 and 131 of UPTET-2017 are repeared in UPTET-

¶13

2021 being Questions No. 8 and 141. In this regard relevant paragraphs of Mohd. Rizwan (supra) are reproduced hereinafter:

¶14

"40) A report of the subject experts was placed before the earlier Division Bench, wherein vide order dated 11.04.2018, this Court has examined the report in regard to 16 questions referred to the subject experts. Out of 16 questions, 3 questions were having wrong answers, as per key answers indicated by the regulatory authority and on the assurance of learned Advocate General, grace marks of question Nos.16, 18 and 131 were given on the agreement with the learned counsel for the parties."

¶15

"42) We also perused the report submitted by the subject experts on 11.04.2018, which reveals that three questions were found to be doubtful having different answers, therefore, we are with the agreement of the report submitted by the subject experts being based on concensus of the learned advocates appearing for the parties." (Emphasis supplied)

¶16

The aforesaid reasoning, conclusion and relief is also equally applicable in present cases. Except that there is no concession on behalf of State, still this Court is of the considered view that since earlier ambiguity has been repeated in UPTET-2021 also, therefore, relief, as granted in Mohd. Rizwan (supra) may be granted to petitioners herein also. Therefore, grace marks for Questions No. 8 and 141 is granted to petitioners. No distinction can be made out, whether objection to answer key was filed or not, as petitioners are now before this Court.

¶17

So far as other questions are concerned, i.e., Questions No. 25 and 35, during argument the objection with regard to Question No. 35 was not pressed. So far as Question No. 25 is concerned, the material annexed alongwith writ petitions would not be sufficient to take a contrary view to the revised answer key as well as in view of the observation made by Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) that in only extraordinary circumstances correctness of answer key be doubted, which is not the case in hand, therefore, no relief can be granted qua to Question No. 25.

¶18

In aforesaid circumstances, the writ petitions are allowed in part and only with regard to Questions No. 8 and 141 grace marks be granted to petitioners and accordingly it is ordered that fresh result be declared qua to all petitioners, after taking note of grace marks."

¶19

Brief matrix of the case is that the State of Uttar Pradesh through its Government Order (G.O.) dated 15.03.2021 issued regulations, which prescribe minimum standards expected of candidates for recruitment as teachers for basic education. The Uttar Pradesh Teacher's Eligibility Test (in short 'UPTET') is a State level exam conducted once a year to enable candidates to gain eligibility for Primary (Classes 1 to 5) and Upper Primary (Classes 6 to 8) teachers in the schools of Uttar Pradesh. The

¶20

2 of 8

¶21

exam is conducted by the Examination Regulatory Authority, Uttar Pradesh (in short ‘Examination Authority’) on behalf of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board (in short 'UPBEB'). The UPTET Exam is conducted in two shifts for two papers. Paper-I is conducted for candidates, who are inclined to become Assistant Teachers of Class 1 to 5 and Paper-II is conducted for candidates, who plan to become teachers of Classes 6 to 8. The candidates, who wishes to become Teachers of Classes 1 to 8 need to appear in both the exams. The candidates desirous of recruitment as Teachers in Basic Education are expected to have the minimum qualifications as laid down in the relevant G.Os.

¶22

The present matter relates to UPTET 2021, which was conducted on 17.12.2021. However the same could not be finalized due to paper leak and later-on examination was again conducted across the State of U.P. on 23.01.2022. The appellants-petitioners appeared for TET examination conducted on 23.01.2022. The Primary Answer Key was released on 27.01.2022 and the Examination Authority had also invited objections from the candidates. It is claimed that there were certain discrepancies in the answer keys and many of the answers were either wrong or they were confusing and as such, the candidates, including appellants-petitioners, have submitted their objections to the Examination Authority with regard to the incorrect answers alongwith proof in support of their claims. Thereafter revised and final answer keys were released on 07.04.2022. It is alleged that certain discrepancies still remained in the revised answers keys and following questions in the four Series were found to be wrongly answered by the Examination Authority:

¶23

S.No.	Set-A	Set-B	Set-C	Set-D
1.	13	8	23	18
2.	23	28	3	13
3.	5	25	20	10
4.	60	35	40	55
5.	149	124	144	134
6.	126	141	131	136

¶24

3 of 8

¶25

In the instant matter, the dispute is with regard to Question Nos.8, 25, 35 and 141 of Series ‘B’. For ready reference, the same are reproduced hereinunder:-

¶26

"Question No. 8 (13/23/18) of Question Booklet Series/set B (A/C/D) Who described different types of personality based on Glands from the following? (1) Cannon (2) Jung (3) Kreshmer (4) Sprangar Question No. 25 (5/20/10) of Question Booklet Series/Set B (A/C/D) The period of infancyhood is (1) From birth to 6 years (2) From birth to 2 years (3) From 12 years to 18 years (4) Upto 5 years Question No. 35 (60/40/55) of Question Booklet Series/set B (A/C/D) आँख की किकरकिकरी होने का अर्थ� है (1) कष्ट दायक होना (2) धोखा देना (3) अकि�य लगना (4) बहुत कि�य होना Question No. 141 (126/131/136) of Question Booklet Series/Set B (A/C/D) In a food chain of grassland ecosystem, the top consumers are (1) Bacteria (2) Carnivorous (3) Herbivorous (4) Either Carnivorous and Herbivorous"

¶27

It also transpires from the record that on the basis of certain material submitted by the candidates, the appellants-petitioners had referred two questions i.e. Question No.8 and Question No.141, which were earlier part of UPTET 2017, for which controversy had reached upto the High Court and the Division Bench in the case of State of U.P. and another vs. Mohd. Rizwan in Special Appeal No.93/2018 decided on 20.11.2019 and accordingly the Examination Authority had accorded grace marks.

¶28

As the same questions were repeated in UPTET 2021 with similar options, though in a different order at serial no.18 and 141, which were asked at serial no.16 and 131 of the UPTET 2017, the said questions were tested by the Division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Rizwan (supra) decided on 20.11.2019 and following observations were made in paragraph 40 and 42:-

¶29

4 of 8

¶30

“40) A report of the subject experts was placed before the earlier Division Bench, wherein vide order dated 11.04.2018, this Court has examined the report in regard to 16 questions referred to the subject experts. Out of 16 questions, 3 questions were having wrong answers, as per key answers indicated by the regulatory authority and on the assurance of learned Advocate General, grace marks of question Nos.16, 18 and 131 were given on the agreement with the learned counsel for the parties."

¶31

¶32

While deciding the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has considered the said mandate and held that grace marks for question no.18 and 141 is to be accorded to the candidates/petitioners, as no distinction can be made.

¶33

So far as the mandate qua the question no.8 and 141, the grievance of the appellants have already been redressed. Now they are aggrieved with question no.25 and 35. Even during the arguments no objections were raised qua question no.35 and no relief was pressed before learned Single Judge. The controversy had narrowed down only qua question no.25.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that non consideration of the proper answers of the aforesaid questions being in dispute, leads to infringing the rights of the appellants. The act of declaration of wrong answers is patently illegal and prejudicial to the fairness of exam. The order passed by learned Single Judge is per-se unsustainable as the examination authority miserably failed to conduct fair and impartial examination due to its failure to provide correct answers and learned Single Judge did not even consider it fit to obtain expert committee to examine the veracity of the answer key in respect of doubtful questions/answers. He submits that so far as question no.25 is concerned answer given by the appellants are considerable/correct and as such, proper marks is to be accorded to the appellants.

¶35

Per contra, Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the answers given by the expert panel, after considering of various relevant materials. He submits that in the first round the answer key was provided and objections were sought for. He has not denied that some of the questions were repeated alongwith same options though in different order in examination in question as referred the judgement passed in Mohd. Rizwan (supra). The objections so submitted by the candidates were considered by the expert panel and finally the marks were accorded to the candidates. He submits that learned

¶36

5 of 8

¶37

Single Judge has rightly dealt with the matter and partly allowed the writ petition according grace marks qua Questions No.8 and 141 and so far as other questions are concerned, they have not been entertained by the writ court. He submits that the Court should not sit as an expert to scrutinize the answers given by expert panel, after considering various relevant materials. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the order dated 23.12.2015 passed in bunch of Writ Petitions with leading Writ A No.65832 of 2015 (Gulab Chand Bharti vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and another) .

¶38

13. Heard rival submissions and perused the record.

¶39

The appellants claim to be short of one or two marks only from being declared as qualified in the UPTET 2021. Learned Single Judge proceeded to consider the claim of appellants-petitioners in the writ jurisdiction and accorded grace marks for the questions which were repeated and tested by the Division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Rizwan (supra). The arguments advanced by counsel for the appellants is nothing but the reiteration of claim set up before learned Single Judge. Nothing concrete is placed before us, which may stimulate us to interfere in the order passed by learned Single Judge.

¶40

The procedure adopted by the Examination Authority is in uniformity for all the candidates and whatever the procedure adopted by the Examination Authority is a plausible method of protecting the interest of the candidates. It is for the bodies entrusted with the task of holding an examination to determine what policy should be adopted and it is not for the candidates appearing at the examination to dictate what particular policy should be adopted. In this connection, reference needs to be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Education and another vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, etc. etc., AIR 1984 SC 1543 , in which the Supreme Court examined the scope of interference in policy matters and observed:-

¶41

“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 regulation-making 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

¶42

6 of 8

¶43

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.

¶44

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 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.”

¶45

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in University of Mysore Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao & Anr., AIR 1965 SC 491 , held that in academic matters, 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:-

¶46

".....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..."

¶47

Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Asis Kumar Mukherjee & Ors., AIR 1975 SC 192; Dr. M. C. Gupta & Ors. Vs. Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta & Ors., (1979) 2 SCC 339; Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs. Karnataka University & Anr., AIR 1986 SC 1448; Dr. Uma Kant Vs. Dr. Bhika Lal Jain & Ors., AIR 1991 SC 2272; The Chancellor & 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 Ahmad, (2000) 3 SCC 59 and The Dental Council of India Vs. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust & Anr., AIR 2001 SC 215.

¶48

7 of 8

¶49

18. In Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & Anr. (2010) 6 SCC 759 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follow:-

¶50

"In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for Respondent only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court."

¶51

Upon considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusing the impugned judgment and order, we find that learned Single Judge has appreciated the record and material, as has been placed and the writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an Intra-Court Special Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity. As such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.

¶52

In view of above, the special appeal sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶53

Order Date :- 01.08.2024

¶54

A. Pandey/S.P.

¶55

8 of 8

¶56

Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravis Babu and 4 Others v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravis Babu and 4 Others v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Committee of Management Sri Surya Narayan Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya vs Avneesh Kumar Rai and 2 Others

Srichandra Prajapati vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Smt. Madhubala Srivastava vs State of Up and 3 Others

Gyanmati vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Alok Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt Priyanka Dubey vs State of Up and 2 Others

S.No.	Set-A	Set-B	Set-C	Set-D
1.	13	8	23	18
2.	23	28	3	13
3.	5	25	20	10
4.	60	35	40	55
5.	149	124	144	134
6.	126	141	131	136

S.No.	Set-A	Set-B	Set-C	Set-D
1.	13	8	23	18
2.	23	28	3	13
3.	5	25	20	10
4.	60	35	40	55
5.	149	124	144	134
6.	126	141	131	136

S.No.	Set-A	Set-B	Set-C	Set-D
1.	13	8	23	18
2.	23	28	3	13
3.	5	25	20	10
4.	60	35	40	55
5.	149	124	144	134
6.	126	141	131	136