Petitioner contended her answers in Stage II of the National Talent Search Examination were wrong despite reliance on authorized books. The Court held that statutory authorities are not supposed to be interfered with in academic matters without cogent material under Article 226, dismissing the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP 16749/11
1
I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAI PUR.
S. B. Ci vi l Wr i t Pet i t i on No. 16749/ 11 Ms. Sani ya Dasot Vs. Nat i onal Counci l of Educat i onal Resear ch and Tr ai ni ng
DATE OF ORDER : 2. 11. 2012 HON' BLE MR. JUSTI CE AJAY RASTOGI
Mr . Har sh Var dhan Mandwana, f or pet i t i oner . Mr . Kapi l Pr akash Mat hur , f or r espondent .
I nst ant pet i t i on has been f i l ed by t he pet i t i oner t hr ough her nat ur al guar di an and her gr i evance i s t hat she appear ed i n st age I I of Nat i onal Tal ent Sear ch Exami nat i on hel d by ( NCERT) t he r espondent her ei n on 08. 05. 2011 and accor di ng t o her i n key answer s of some quest i on ar e wr ong and t he pet i t i oner t al l i ed wi t h NCERT t ext books and r el i ed upon opi ni on & answer s suggest ed by t he coachi ng i nst i t ut es such as ALLEN, Fi t zee, Nar ayana & Resonance and counsel submi t s t hat i n l i ght t her eof r espondent s ar e expect ed t o r eeval uat e t hei r own answer s and get i t exami ned t hr ough exper t s and t her eaf t er may i ssue f r esh l i st of t he candi dat es who qual i f i ed i n st age I I exami nat i on hel d i n 2011.
I t has been i nf or med t hat st age I exami nat i on i s hel d i n r espect i ve st at es and af t er shor t l i st i ng of t he candi dat es at St at e
CWP 16749/11
2
Level t he st udent s who qual i f y i n st age I ar e per mi t t ed t o appear i n st age I I exami nat i on hel d at nat i onal l evel by NCERT.
The r espondent i n t hei r r epl y aver r ed t hat i t cont ai n mul t i pl e t ype quest i on and t he scr ut i ny i s made at var i ous l evel s by t he panel of exper t s and t he aut hor i t i es t r y t hei r best t hat no st one shal l r emai n unt ur ned and t he answer whi ch i s bei ng f i nal l y sel ect ed by t he panel of exper t s among f our opt i ons avai l abl e i s consi der ed t o be t he f i nal answer . Thousands of candi dat es i n St age I I t al ent t est appear ed and t housand candi dat es decl ar ed sel ect ed f or schol ar shi p and cer t ai nl y r i ght i s conf er r ed t o t hem and anal ysi s at t hi s st age when exami nat i on of t al ent sear ch exami nat i on f or 2012 i s on t he of f i ng and or der i f passed by t he cour t r i ght s of t he candi dat es who have been not i f i ed i n t he second l evel nat i onal t est hel d i n May, 2011 wi l l be zeopar di sed.
Fur t her r el yi ng upon a j udgment of t he Del hi Hi gh Cour t i n case of “ Si dhar t h Agr awal Vs. NCERT CWP- 1386/ 12 wher e i t has been obser ved t hat t hese ar e di sput ed quest i ons of f act and cannot be l ooked i nt o by t hi s cour t i n i t s l i mi t ed scope of j udi ci al r evi ew u/ Ar t . 226 of t he const i t ut i on and t hat at such bel at ed st age t he pet i t i on can
CWP 16749/11
3
not be ent er t ai ned.
Thi s Cour t has hear d counsel f or t he par t i es and al so gone t hr ough t he mat er i al on r ecor d and of t he consi der ed opi ni on t hat what i s bei ng opi ned by t he st at ut or y aut hor i t y obvi ousl y af t er det ai l ed di scussi on t hr ough panel of subj ect exper t or di nar i l y i s not supposed t o be i nt er f er ed wi t h by t hi s cour t , who does not hol d exper t i se i n t he academi c f i el d wi t hout t her e bei ng any cogent mat er i al avai l abl e t o suppor t . However , i t i s al ways open f or t he aut hor i t y t o exami ne and count er checked t hr ough subj ect exper t s but as r egar d t hi s Cour t i s concer ned si nce not hol di ng any exper t i se of t he f i el d i s not advi sabl e t o i nt er f er e i n such l i ke mat t er s u/ Ar t . 226 of t he Const i t ut i on and t hi s Cour t cer t ai nl y f i nds subst ance t hat once t he l i st of candi dat e who ar e f i nal l y sel ect ed under t al ent sear ch scheme St age I I at Nat i onal l evel r i ght s ar e conf er r ed and or di nar i l y shoul d not be di vest ed wi t hout oppor t uni t y of hear i ng bei ng af f or ded t o t hem.
Consequent l y , t he wr i t pet i t i on f ai l s and i s her eby di smi ssed.
DSR
CWP 16749/11
4
"All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed"
Datar Singh P.S.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the final selection list in a National Talent Search Examination where disputed questions of fact cannot be looked into under Article 226.
Whether the statutory authority's opinion formed after detailed discussion by subject experts can be interfered with by a court lacking expertise in the academic field.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sidharth Agrawal Vs. NCERTReferred¶14
Sidharth Agrawal Vs. NCERT CWP- 1386/ 12
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ms. Saniya Dasot
National Council of Educational Research and Training
AJAY RASTOGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
