Dismissed

Mohit Sharma v. State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC1 Mar 2021WPC/401/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging exclusion from Jharkhand Combined Police Sub-Inspector Examination 2017 due to alleged erroneous questions/answer key. Petitioner sought full marks for errors and re-evaluation. Commission had already corrected errors and communicated re-evaluation status. Court dismissed petition relying on Supreme Court precedent against judicial re-evaluation of academic matters.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mohit Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand through… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

[W.P.(S) No. 401 of 2019]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No. 401 of 2019

¶4

----

¶5

Mohit Sharma, son of Suresh Chandra Sharma, aged about 23 years, resident of Kosikalan, PO and PS Kosikalan, District-Mathura, Uttar Pradesh- 281 403. ….. Petitioner

¶6

-- Versus --

¶7

1.State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Project Bhawan, PO+PSDhurwa, District-Ranchi

¶8

2.Principal Secretary, Home, Prison and Disaster Management Department, Project Bhawan, PO+PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi

¶9

3.Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Secretary, Kali Nagar, Chaibagan, PO and PS-Namkum, District Ranchi

¶10

4.Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Kali Nagar, Chaibagan, PO and PS Namkum, District –Ranchi

¶11

…... Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶14

---

¶15

For the Petitioner :- Ms. Amrita Vijay, Advocate For Resp.-State :- Ms. Pinki Tiwary, Advocate For Resp.-JSSC :- Mr. Sanjoy Piprawal, Advocate

¶16

¶17

10 /01.03.2021 Heard Ms. Amrita Vijay, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Pinki Tiwary, the learned counsel for the respondent State and Mr. Sanjoy Piprawal, the learned counsel for the respondent JSSC.

¶18

This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

¶19

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction to award full marks for each erroneous question and/or erroneous model answer key supplied to the petitioner in Jharkhand Combined Police Sub-Inspector Competitive Examination-2017. The petitioner has also

¶20

2 [W.P.(S) No. 401 of 2019]

¶21

prayed for a direction to the respondents to produce original question booklet, first model answer key, second model answer key and response key of the petitioner. The prayer in alternative to add 4 marks in paper-2 and 20 marks in paper 03 is also made. The prayer for reserving one post is also made in the writ petition.

¶22

The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission came out with Advertisement No.5/2017 inviting online application from the eligible candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in various District/Units, Special Branch, District/Unit Sergant etc. in the respondent State and the selection for which is to be made through Jharkhand Combined Police Sub Inspector Competitive Examination, 2017 on computer based test. The petitioner applied for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, Unit/District and in pursuant to that the petitioner was issued registration number and admit card. The selection process consisted of 4 stage examination, the 1^st being the preliminary examination, 2^nd main examination, 3^rd physical test, and medical checkup. The date of preliminary examination was fixed on 18.09.2017. On the basis of the preliminary test result, the petitioner appeared at the main examination on 21.11.2017 and the petitioner appeared in all the three papers. The respondent Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission came out with first model answer key dated 25.11.2017 and accordingly called for objection regarding question or model answer key, and then came up with second model answer key dated 24.01.2018. The petitioner was called for physical efficiency test (PET) on 22.03.2018 and was declared physically fit. The document verification was made by the JSSC on 24.05.2018. The list of successful candidate was declared on 27.06.2018 in which the name of the petitioner was not figured. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the writ petition on 18.01.2019 with the aforesaid prayer.

¶23

3 [W.P.(S) No. 401 of 2019]

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some of the answers of question nos.1, 2,3,4,5 and 6 is indicated at page no.7, 8 and 9 of the rejoinder, was not correct. She submits that the petitioner has applied for re-evaluation of the paper and the re-evaluation of the paper in terms of the advertisement was not made with regard to the petitioner. She submits that the petitioner has also verified some of the question papers from the Press Information Bureau of Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Google and one book-Jharkhand Paridrishya which was brought on record by way of filing rejoinder. She submits that in the light of this, the case of the petitioner is required to be considered and the respondent-JSSC may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner in view of the fact that certain model answer was not correct as indicated in the writ petition as well as rejoinder.

¶25

Mr. Sanjoy Piprawal, the learned counsel for the respondent Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission submits that it was transpired that certain answers were not filled up correctly. The respondent JSSC invited the objection from the candidates and pursuant thereto, the model answers were considered and objections were rectified by way of issuing the rectification by way of notice which are brought on record by way of counter affidavit. He submits that after the receiving of the re-evaluation amount, the case of the petitioner has been considered and a communication to that effect has already been made on the e.mail of the petitioner on 12.02.2019. The said e.mail has been transmitted on the e.mail of the Court which has been taken on record. He submits that the case of the petitioner is not fit to be considered in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.568/2018 which was disposed of by order dated 18.04.2018. He further submits that the

¶26

4 [W.P.(S) No. 401 of 2019]

¶27

identical matter was considered by the Division Bench in “Sonu Choudhary v. The State of Jharkhand and Others” [W.P.(S) No.3931/2019] which was decided on 14.08.2019. He further submits that recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further considered this aspect of the matter in the case of “Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.” [Civil Appeal No.3649-3650/2020]. He refers to paragraph nos.10 to 13 of the said judgment, which are quoted below:

¶28

“ 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 3rd Answer Key and not on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key. The 2nd Answer Key was released by the RPSC on the 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 2nd 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 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.

¶29

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 v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr.) 1.Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of the Expert Committee who have the expertise to evaluate and make recommendations [See- Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors.) 2.Examining the scope of judicial review with

¶30

5 [W.P.(S) No. 401 of 2019]

¶31

regards to re- evaluation of answer sheets, this Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.3 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:

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

6 [W.P.(S) No. 401 of 2019]

¶35

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.

¶36

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 & Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. In the said judgment, this Court interfered with the selection process only after obtaining the opinion of an expert 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.

¶37

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.”

¶38

By way of reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court is empowered to interfere in such matters. She submits that the case of “Ran Vijay Singh and Others” and “Manish Ujwal” case is distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in those cases has not said that the Court is not empowered to interfere in the matter and it has been held that the candidates be not allowed to suffer. She further

¶39

7 [W.P.(S) No. 401 of 2019]

¶40

submits that in the same line in the case of “Bihar Staff Selection Commission and Others v. Arun Kumar and Others”, (2020) 6 SCC 362, this aspect of the matter has again been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶41

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials available on the record. It transpires that when certain model questions were found to be not correct, the respondent JSSC has invited the objection and pursuant thereto, the respondent JSSC has considered the objection and rectified it by way of issuing the notification which is in the counter affidavit of the respondent JSSC contained in Annexure-B. The questions were deleted and for the deleted questions, the full marks were provided to the candidates. The second round of objection which was again considered by the respondent JSSC and that was also published by way of notice in the same direction. The case of the petitioner with regard to re-evaluation has already been considered by the respondent-JSSC and it was communicated to the petitioner on the e.mail dated 12.02.2019. In the case of ‘’H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur’, (2010) 6 SCC 759 , it was held as

¶42

under :

¶43

“ 10. The Regulations, 2005 were notified by the Himachal Pradesh High Court providing for selection on the post of Civil Judge (JD), providing therein three papers, namely, Civil Law I, Civil Law II and Criminal Law and each paper to carry 200 marks. Besides, Paper IV consisted of English Composition (200 marks), Language (100 marks) followed by viva voce (100 marks). Regulation 6(i) made it mandatory for the candidate to secure at least 45% in each paper and Regulation 6(ii) further stipulated that the candidate must secure 50% marks in aggregate to qualify the written test.

¶44

20. 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

¶45

8 [W.P.(S) No. 401 of 2019]

¶46

answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for Respondent 1 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.

¶47

24. The issue of revaluation of answer book is no more res integra. This issue was considered at length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, wherein this Court rejected the contention that in the absence of the provision for revaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/ Regulations not providing for rechecking/ verification/ revaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Court held as under:

¶48

“14. …....It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its 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. …....

¶49

16. … 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 drawbacks 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.”

¶50

In the case of “Ran Vijay Singh and Others v. State of U.P

¶51

and Others”, (2018) 2 SCC 357, which was delivered considering the case of “Manish Ujwal v. Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University” (2005) 13

¶52

SCC 744, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as follows:

¶53

"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear

¶54

9 [W.P.(S) No. 401 of 2019]

¶55

and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:

¶56

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;

¶57

30.2. If a statue, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheets (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 rationalization” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;

¶58

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;

¶59

30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and

¶60

30.5 In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.

¶61

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.

¶62

*** *** ***

¶63

33. The facts of the case before us indicate that in the first instance the learned Single Judge took it upon himself to actually ascertain the correctness of the key answers to seven questions. This was completely beyond his jurisdiction and as decided by this Court on several occasions, the exercise carried out was impermissible.-----"

¶64

(Emphasis supplied).

¶65

It is well settled that the facts of the case are required to be

¶66

considered in the light of dispute in question, and in this regard a

¶67

10 [W.P.(S) No. 401 of 2019]

¶68

reference may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Orissa Versus Sudhanshu Sekhar Misra and Others”, reported in AIR 1968 SC 647, in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered Earl of-Halsbury, which is at page 651 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below for ready reference:

¶69

“On this topic this is what Earl of- Halsbury. LC said in Quinn v. Leathem, 1901 AC 495. “Now before discussing the case of Allen v. Flood, (1898) AC 1 and what was decided therein, there are two observations of a general character which I wish to make, and one is to repeat what I have very often said before, that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. The other is that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a proposition that may seem to follow logically from it. Such a mode of reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a logical Code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law is not always logical at all.''

¶70

The experts have already examined the questions and

¶71

answers and pursuant to that expert opinion, the questions were deleted and full marks have been provided to the candidates which are on the record by way of counter affidavit contained in Annexure-C. The re-evaluation of the petitioner has been done and communicated on 12.02.2019 to the petitioner. The said communication has been taken on record. The judgment as indicated above are not helping the petitioner. As a cumulative effect of the above discussion, no case of interference is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶72

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)

¶73

SI/,

Mohit Sharma v. State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mohit Sharma v. State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Golak Mandal Vs the Jh Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director

Violet Lakra Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Ashraf Ali Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Deptt

Fulena Devi Vs Home Department

Savita Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Child Welfare Social Development Department

Satish Kumar Sandwar Vs Chairman Cum Managing Director Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd.