This judgment addresses the High Court's power to interfere with an Expert Committee's opinion on correcting examination answer sheets. The Court held that it does not ordinarily look into expert opinions unless malafide or lack of qualification is alleged. The appeal was dismissed because the Committee found no error in question No.73.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.276/2013 (Mohd.Haidar vs. State of Rajasthan)
DATE OF ORDER: 01.04.2015
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.SUNIL AMBWANI HON'BLE MS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Mr.Sukesh bhati, for the appellant. Dr.P.S.Bhati, Addl.Advocate General.
We have heard Mr.Sukesh Bhati, learned counsel for the appellant and Dr.P.S.Bhati, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State.
In the Teacher Gr.III Examination, the appellant could not be selected as he fell short of four marks. He made a representation for correction of his marks on which his marks were revised. He again fell short of two marks. The writ petition was thereafter filed challenging the answer to question No.73.
Learned Single Judge found that the question No.73 was referred to the Expert Committee constituted by the respondents and as per their recommendation, the Expert Committee corrected the answers of some other questions but accepted the answer of question No.73. Learned Single Judge found that the report of the Expert Committee could not be questioned in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a number of judgments in which the courts have interfered in the
2
selections on the ground of incorrect answers to questions. According to him, the best case is Kanpur University vs. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309 . In all the cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Supreme Court has observed that on a complaint for wrong answers, provided in the answer sheets by the examinees, the matter should be referred to the experts.
In the present case, an Expert Committee was constituted by the respondents and as per its recommendation, some of the answers were corrected. So far as question No.73 is concerned, the Expert Committee did not find any error.
The Court does not ordinarily look into the opinion of experts. The common sense approach on the report of experts is not adopted, unless the qualification of the experts is under challenge or there are any allegations of malafide supported by sufficient material on record.
In the present case, since the question No.73 has already been examined by the Expert Committee, we do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
The Special appeal is dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.
(JAISHREE THAKUR), J.
(SUNIL AMBWANI), C.J.
RANKAWAT JK, PS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the opinion of an Expert Committee constituted for correcting examination answer sheets.
Whether the report of an Expert Committee regarding the correction of answer sheet marks is sustainable under Article 226.
Whether the Expert Committee correctly accepted the answer to question No.73 without finding any error.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kanpur University vs. Samir GuptaReferred¶13
Kanpur University vs. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohd. Haidar
State of Rajasthan
Sunil Ambawani
Jaishree Thakur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
