यूपी टीईटी परीक्षाफल संशोधित करने हेतु हाईकोर्ट का आदेश जारी, पीडीएफ डाउनलोड करें

December 19, 2018
Advertisements




Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27058 of 2018 
Petitioner :- Mukul Kumar Verma And Another 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhan Gupta,Abhishek Gupta 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 
1. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, Sri Seemant Singh, Sri Alok Mishra, Sri R.K. Pandey, Sri R.K. Singh, Sri Harikesh Srivastava and Sri Ritesh Srivastava for the petitioners and Sri S.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri S.K. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Rishikant Rai, learned Brief Holder and Sri, Amit Manohar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Sri Brajesh Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. 
2. This bunch of writ petitions relate to the Uttar Pradesh Teachers Eligibility Test Examination-2018 (for short 'U.P.T.E.T. Examination-2018') conducted by the 2nd respondent. 
3. The controversy as has travelled up to this Court through various writ petitions bunched hereinabove with Writ Petition No.-25791 of 2018 as a leading writ petition, on account of certain key answers published by respondent No.-2, correctness of which being questioned for either some of the questions being wrongly framed causing utter confusion to the examinees in choosing correct option as answer in multiple choice questions to those questions, or more than one option to be correct resulting in further confusion and further certain questions being out of syllabus. 
4. Briefly stated the facts are that for conducting U.P.T.E.T. Examination-2018, the State Government had issued guidelines on 14th September, 2018 wherein it provided modalities to be adopted for conducting the said examination, eligibility for both lower primary and upper primary, the papers setting, syllabus etc. It also prescribed for constitution of the Committee at the District level with District Magistrate and its Chairman. It also provided for allotment of centres for conducting the examination etc. The consequential order was passed by the Secretary of the Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Allahabad on 21st October, 2018 providing for examination in two parts and scheduled it to be held on 18th December, 2018. While in first part, the U.P.T.E.T. Examination-2018 was to be held in respect of primary level, in the second part of the day, it was for upper primary level. 
5. In the present case, the petitioners are concerned only with the primary level of U.P.T.E.T. Examination-2018. 
6. The examination as scheduled, was held on the date and time fixed and the candidates including the petitioners did appear. 
7. The respondent examination conducting authority on 20th November, 2018 published the answer key giving the correct options to the multiple choice questions asked in different papers qua U.P.T.E.T. Examination-2018. As per the statement made by the Secretary of Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Allahabad who is present in Court, in all 99 objections were received from different candidates and they were placed before the team of subject experts who examined each of the objections. 
8. Learned Additional Advocate General after due consultation with the Secretary of the Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Allahabad informed the Court that question No.-38 of 'C' series on scrutiny was found to have two options as correct answer to it and so also the question No.-59 of the 'C' series it was found to have two options as correct answers. On a pointed query being made to the Secretary, he informed the Court that the marks have been allotted in both the questions No.- 38 and 59 (supra) to all such candidates who opted for either of the two correct options. The Secretary also stated before the Court that insofar as question No.-20 of 'A' series is concerned, on scrutiny it was found to be not properly framed and, accordingly, was deleted and one mark in respect of the said question was given to every candidate without exception. He contends that regarding remaining 96 questions in respect of which objections were received, the objections were found to be not tenable as according to the expert opinion those answers given in the answer key published on 20th November, 2018, were correct. Finally, on 30th November, 2018 a final answer key was published/ declared though it got wrongly mentioned as tentative. With the declaration of the answer key and after the objections were decided, the results came to be declared. 
9. It is this answer key which was published/ declared on 30th November, 2018 that has been questioned by the petitioners before this Court in respect of question No.-71 of 'A' series (Sanskrit), question No.- 115 of 'A' series (Mathematics), question No.- 116 of 'A' series (Mathematics), question No.- 139 of 'A' series (Environmental Studies), question No.- 133 of 'A' series (Environmental Studies), question No.- 44 of 'A' series (Hindi), question No.- 51 of 'A' series (Hindi), question No.- 53 of 'A' series (Hindi), question No.- 66 of 'A' series (Sanskrit), question No.- 6 of 'A' series (Child Development and Teaching Method), question No.- 23 of 'A' series (Child Development and Teaching Method), question No.- 25 of 'A' series (Child Development and Teaching Method), question No.- 30 of 'A' series (Child Development and Teaching Method), question No.- 17 of 'A' series (Child Development and Teaching Method) and question No.- 8 of 'A' series (Child Development and Teaching Method). It is worth noticing that order of questions are changed in different series as per the pattern adopted by the Examination Conducting Authority and thus different series carry same questions at different serial numbers." 
10. This Court after hearing the matter at length at admission stage entertained the writ petition bearing Writ-A No.- 25791 of 2018 and other writ petitions connected therewith by order dated 6th December, 2018 and directed the Secretary of Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Allahabad to appear before this Court on 12th December, 2018 along with all relevant materials with the subject experts also so that the matter could be examined on merits and effective orders could be passed. 
11. On 12th December, 2018 the Secretary of Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Allahabad along with experts gave his appearance before this Court and also placed subject experts' opinion in respect of the above noted questions. The Court examined the materials placed before this Court which carried the remarks of the subject expert in respect of the questions of the subject experts including Dr. Satya Pal Tiwari, Associate Professor (Hindi), Ms. Nisha Singh, Associate Professor and Dr. Usha Dubey another Associate Professor. Dr. Kamlesh Tiwari, Psychologist working at Bureau of Psychology, Allahabad and Dr. Satpal Tiwary appeared to render assistance in the matter. After hearing their opinion orally explained before this Court with the assistance of material in the form of text books and other expert opinion placed before the Court in other subjects, the Court found that the expert opinion in respect of question No.-71 of 'A' series (Sanskrit), question No.- 115 of 'A' series (Mathematics), question No.- 116 of 'A' series (Mathematics), question No.- 139 of 'A' series (Environmental Studies), question No.- 133 of 'A' series (Environmental Studies), question No.- 44 of 'A' series (Hindi), question No.- 51 of 'A' series (Hindi), question No.- 53 of 'A' series (Hindi), question No.- 6 of 'A' series (Child Development and Teaching Method), question No.- 23 of 'A' series (Child Development and Teaching Method), question No.- 25 of 'A' series (Child Development and Teaching Method), question No.- 30 of 'A' series (Child Development and Teaching Method), question No.- 17 of 'A' series (Child Development and Teaching Method), rendered was based on text books and was also explained away by the Professors in Court properly to be convinced with the options that were opined them to be correct. However, in respect of question No.-66 of 'A' series (Sanskrit) and question No.- 65 of 'A' series (Urdu), the respondent- Secretary of Examination Regulatory Authority, Allahabad was directed to obtain the expert opinion from Dr. Ram Sevak Tiwari- Professor, Department of Sanskrit, University of Allahabad with the consent of the parties. In addition to the order dated 12th December, 2018 yet another order was passed by this Court dated 13th December, 2018 in connected Writ-A No.- 26290 of 2018 for directing that the expert opinion be placed before this Court in sealed covers. 
12. In compliance of the aforesaid two orders, therefore, the expert opinions were placed before this Court on 18th December, 2018 in sealed covers that were opened before this Court under the direction of the Court. 
13. After the matter was heard at length and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court found that as far as the Urdu paper is concerned, the expert opinion was that the word "Harfe Fimaiyan" given in the question of which synonym was asked was wrongly spelt. The opinion of the subject expert Dr. Shabnam Hamid, Professor, Department of Urdu, University of Allahabad, Prayagraj is reproduced hereinunder:- 
"gjQs fQekbZ;k m bZ xzkej ds ,srckj ls xyr gSA lgh yQt+ gjQs fQtkb;k gS ftldk lgh fodYi lqcgku&vYykg gSA lk{; dh Nk;kizfr layXu gSA" 
14. Regarding question No.66 of 'A' series (Sanskrit) clarification was sought from the Professor concerned and in the opinion given a particular letter was wrongly spelt. The relevant para of the order of this Court dated 18th December, 2018 is reproduced hereinunder:- 
"In so far as question No. 66 (A) Series of Sanskrit Paper is concerned, the opinion obtained from the Expert on the subject of Hindi paper recorded in question no. 66 carries some defect in respect of Sanskrit letter "Å" as the same is not mentioned and in its place "m" is mentioned which was not the option. 
The Secretary who is present today in Court is, therefore, directed to immediately consult the same expert and get clarification and place that before this Court tomorrow at 10:00 am." 
15. This Court had noticed on 18th December, 2018, during the course of hearing, that the dispute continued in respect of two questions relating to "i[kkot" question No.55 of 'D' series (Hindi) and question No.-38 of 'C' series (Hindi) and then question No.- 109 of 'D' series (Mathematics) and question No.-127 of 'C' series (Environmental Studies). The argument of the petitioners were concluded and the State was required to submit reply in respect of the above question besides clarification in respect of the question No.-66. The relevant portion of the order dated 18th December, 2018 is reproduced hereinunder:- 
"The argument raised on behalf of the petitioners regarding certain other questions, the word "i[kkot" (musical instrument) whether the masculine gender or not relates to question 55 of "D" series and according to the petitioner it is also masculine gender and, therefore, both "ifg;k" (wheel) and "i[kkot" (musical instrument) be taken to be correct. 
The argument is also in respect of question no. 38 of "C" series whether "vfu;ksfDr vyadkj" (hyper-bole) is option no. 1 should be taken to be correct answer as well in view of expert opinion expressed before the Court by Dr. Satya Pal Tiwari, Associate Professor of Allahabad University on first day of hearing on 12.12.2018. 
Yet another question argued is with regard to normal temperature of the human body in Fahrenheit in respect of question no. 109 of "D" series. The elementary Education Book prescribed by the State under Right to Education for All contains normal human body temperature is 98.4 whereas answer provided is 98.6, and thus it is claimed that both the answers should be taken as correct. 
Another argument advanced is in respect of question no. 127 of "C" series, "who is current Chairperson of the National Commission for Women" is argued to be not subject matter of Civics and it is out of syllabus and one mark should be awarded to everyone irrespective of the fact whether he attempted for it or not. 
As the arguments of the petitioners are over, the State respondents shall be heard tomorrow at 10:00 am on the above questions. 
Put up this matter tomorrow i.e. 19.12.2018 at 10:00 am." 
16. Today, when the arguments are heard on behalf of the State respondents learned Additional Advocate General informed the Court that Dr. S.K.Dubey, Professor of the Department of the Sanskrit is also present alongwith his clarificatory note on the expert opinion rendered by him on 18.12.2018 and the same is taken on record. 
17. Regarding question no. 55 of "D" Series, learned Additional Advocate General has relied upon the Hindi Dictionary "c`gr izkekf.kd fganh dks'k" "Vrihat Pramanik Hindi Kosh", Lok Bharti publication of Aacharya Ramchandra Verma in which the word "i[kkot" "Pakhawaj" is shown as feminine gender. 
18. Regarding question no. 38 of "C" Series, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that expert opinion having been received in writing to which Dr. Satyapal Tiwari is the signatory, it is absolutely out of question to raise doubts about Expert Opinion. 
19. Regarding question no. 109 of "D" Series in respect of the normal human body temperature, it is argued that key answer is absolutely correct and expert opinion is already on record. He asserts that if some of the text books have given normal temperature to be 98.4 that by itself will not become correct answer because the normal body temperature varies between 97.7oF and 99.5oF equivalent to 36.5o C and 37.5o C was average of the same would come to 98.6oF and equivalent to 37.0o C. 
20. Regarding question no. 127 of "C" Series, it is argued that the question as to who is the Chairperson of the National Commission for Women relates to Governance part of the Indian Polity and institutions such as National Commission for Women, National Human Rights Commission and National Minority Commission are all part of the scheme of Governance and are very much subject matter of Civics. It is also argued that question as to who Chairs Commission may be a question relevant in a point of time but that by itself does not make it out of syllabus. 
21. In reply to the above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners sought to dispute the Expert Opinion on these subjects and for that purpose they have cited textbooks including dictionaries and it is necessary to refer especially the argument of learned Senior Advocate, Sri R.K. Ojha, that Bhargava Hindi Dictionary shows the word " i[kkot " "Pakhawaj" as masculine gender and, therefore, if two different books or dictionaries have led two different answers as correct answer then in such situation benefit should be given to the candidates. 
22. Having heard the arguments of learned counsels for the parties and so the arguments raised across the Bar and having perused the records, pleadings raised and the text books and relevant materials placed before the Court, the questions that have come up for consideration now are: (A) as to whether and to what extent the expert opinion can be questioned and can be scrutinized by way of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution; and (B) as to whether in the event the questions are ultimately held to be carrying more than one option as correct, the equity have to be adjusted amongst the examinees who may have opted either of the two correct answers only or even in their respect as well who have opted wrong answer under confusion. 
23. In so far as first question is concerned, the scope of interference by way of judicial review, has been recently outlined by the Apex Court in U.P. Public Service Commission though its Chairman and Another v. Rahul Singh & Another (2018) 7 SCC 254. Dealing with the almost identical situation, the Court vide paras 10, 11, 12 & 13 held thus: 
"10. In Kanpur University, through Vice Chancellor and Others vs. Samir Gupta and Others (1983) 4 SCC 309, this Court was dealing with a case relating to the Combined Pre Medical Test. Admittedly, the examination setter himself had provided the key answers and there were no committees to moderate or verify the correctness of the key answers provided by the examiner. This Court upheld the view of the Allahabad High Court that the students had proved that 3 of the key answers were wrong. Following observations of the Court are pertinent:- 
"16...........We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct........." 
The Court gave further directions but we are concerned mainly with one that the State Government should devise a system for moderating the key answers furnished by the paper setters. 
11. In Ran Vijay Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2018) 2 SCC 357, this Court after referring to a catena of judicial pronouncements summarized the legal position in the following terms:- 
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: 
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; 
30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (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 rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; 
30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate--it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; 
30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 
30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate." 
We may also refer to the following observations in Paras 31 and 32 which show why the Constitutional Courts must exercise restraint in such matters:- 
"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. 
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 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." 
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. In Kanpur University case (supra), the Court recommended a system of - (1) moderation; (2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions; (3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions and no marks be assigned to such questions. 
13. As far as the present case is concerned even before publishing the first list of key answers the Commission had got the key answers moderated by two expert committees. Thereafter, objections were invited and a 26 member committee was constituted to verify the objections and after this exercise the Committee recommended that 5 questions be deleted and in 2 questions, key answers be changed. It can be presumed that these committees consisted of experts in various subjects for which the examinees were tested. Judges cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters. Unless, the candidate demonstrates that the key answers are patently wrong on the face of it, the courts cannot enter into the academic field, weigh the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides and then come to the conclusion as to which of the answer is better or more correct." 
24. Applying the law as discussed by the Apex Court and held so in the judgment of Rahul Singh (supra), to the facts of the present case, I find that the expert opinion having been obtained in respect of the questions and the way they proved with the aid of relevant text book materials, there is hardly any scope to sit in appeal over such expert opinion. This Court in exercise of power of judicial review will certainly not transgress an area in which it has no expertise and where it has to act and take a decision only with the aid of experts of such field/ area. The questions may carry an answer, which may on the face of it appear to be correct and may be in some of the text books that is indicated to be so but ultimately it is the paper setting Committee and the Moderation Committee which has the advantage of having subject experts of various fields, if have arrived on a conclusion that particular answer is correct answer, this Court will refrain itself from holding it otherwise. We have the example in this case itself in question no. 66 of 'A' series in which in some of the text book letter 'Å' is stated to be having high pitch tone whereas, in the ultimate Sanskrit Grammar Book it is provided that 'Å' has both the tones at times but the letter 'vks' does not have low tone at all. 
25. Dr. Dubey himself explained that it was typographical mistake otherwise the option no. 4 is a correct answer to question no. 66 of "A" Series (Sanskrit) and there is no two opinion about that. He stated before the Court that letter " Å" has both low pitch note and high pitch note, which the candidates were claiming, as also to be correct answer, as in some of the textbooks is so given, but according to him the letter " vsk " is correct answer because it has no low pitch note at all in pronunciation and, therefore, in his opinion " vsk " is the correct answer. Except for some of the textbooks that are placed before the Court, there is nothing to demonstrate at the end of the petitioners as to why expert opinion obtained on the question be discarded and as to how they can demonstrate and prove that opinion of the Dr. Dubey and explanation being given by him in Court orally, is incorrect. 
26. Dr. Dubey has also brought textbook of Sanskrit to demonstrate grammar with regard to the note of high pitch note and low pitch note in pronunciation of letters and the court therefore, does not find reason to disbelieve him and the textbook, namely " ikf.kuh; O;kdj.k dk xzUFk fl}kUr dkSeqnh " "Paniniya Vyakaran Ka Granth Siddhanth Kaumudi" relied upon by him. 
27. Yet another example is in respect of the normal human body temperature. The learned Additional Advocate General has relied upon the Lucent's General Science in which the normal human body temperature is given as 98.6oF. 
28. Thermoregulation is part of Homeostatic Mechanism that keeps organism at a level of operating temperature. The varying temperature though may vary but the optimum will be average temperature i.e. 98.6o F. The temperature cycle going up and down will not make any difference and the minimum and maximum one in terms of normal temperature will not be an ideal one either. In the opinion of the Court, the average theory is scientifically approved one where degrees vary, it is only way to arrive at the correct derived conclusion. 
29. Some of the text books at elementary level prescribed by the State Government may have provided 98.4oF as a normal human body temperature but merely for that, the argument that both the options should be taken to be correct, in the opinion of the Court is not acceptable. 
30. Again in terms of Bhargawa Dictionary and Hindi Shabdkosh it is alleged that the word Pakhawaj (musical instrument) should be taken to be a masculine gender and therefore, both the Wheel and Pakhawaj be treated as correct answers. 
31. In the opinion of the Court, if the text books that deal in the subject and particularly Hindi Dictionary published by an expert of the subject like in the instant case of Acharya Ram Chandra Verma who had published hundreds of books in the subject of Hindi, if relied upon by the examination conducting authority and subject experts, the presumption regarding correctness of the answers stands proved. Even the Hindi Grammar Book of Dr. Vasudevan Prasad, a Professor of Department of Hindi of Magadh University, Bihar also contends that Pakhawaj is masculine gender word. The legal position as discussed by the Apex Court in the judgment of Rahul Singh (supra), does not warrant any interference where the two text books relied upon by the respondents, proved the answers to be correct. 
32. The argument regarding question no. 127 of 'D' series that asking who chairs the Women Commission, is out of syllabus is also not appealing. It is right that asking the name is relevant to the point of time and sounds like current affairs being of general awareness but to hold that by virtue of the method adopted in framing questions it becomes out of syllabus, is not correct. The syllabus of Environmental Studies carrying the field of History, Civics, Constitution etc. is wide enough to include such questions. It calls for general awareness and which is quite distinct from current affairs. 
33. Sri Ratnesh Srivastava, learned Advocate appearing in Writ - A No. 27175 of 2018 argued that question nos. 86 & 87 of 'A' series (English) is out of syllabus. The argument does not appeal as the syllabus of English prescribed for carry much of the grammar treating the subject of English as a language. Further, no malice or malafide can be attached to the examination conducting authority nor, there is any such pleadings raised and therefore, the argument advanced, deserves to be rejected and is rejected. 
34. In view of the above, this Court does not find the argument regarding correctness of various questions and the key answers provided by the respondents as questionable and therefore, does not warrant any interference except in respect of question no. 61 of 'D' series relating to Urdu paper. The Court thus declines to interfere in the matter on the count of first question/ issue framed above as 'A'. 
35. Now coming to the second question (B) involved in the matter that if the examination regulatory authority itself has found two questions having two options as correct answers whether it should have awarded marks to the candidates who opted either of the two answers or, in propriety should have awarded marks to all candidates in the subject like it has done in respect of question no. 20 of 'A' series which was deleted, in order to balance equities. It is an admitted fact now at the end of respondent that question no. 38 of 'C' series carries two answers and question no.59 of 'C' series also carries two correct answers as per the expert opinion obtained in the matter after the objections were invited. 
36. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that such circumstance demand that the question itself should be deleted and the redistribution of marks should have been ordered in respect of the remaining questions. 
37. Learned counsels for the petitioners have relied upon the judgment of this Court in Madhvesh Kumar Tiwari v. Central Board of Secondary Education decided on 27.09.2018 Writ - C No. 29308 of 2018 it is claimed at the Bar that no appeal has been preferred to the said judgment and the judgment has attained finality. Reliance has been placed particularly on paras 23, 24 & 25 of the judgment which run as under: 
"23. This Court therefore directs the CBSE to delete the question No. 30 from the paper and to redetermine all the results and to distribute its marks equally to all the candidates who had appeared in the selection in view of the law settled by Supreme Court in Richal and others Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others, (2018) 8 SCC 81 the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the argument raised by the learned counsel for appellants that the marks of deleted questions ought not to have been redistributed in other questions. It is submitted that either all the candidates should have been given equal marks for all the deleted questions or marks ought to have been given only to those candidates who attempted those questions. The Supreme Court observed that the questions having been deleted from the answers, the question paper has to be treated as containing the question less than the deleted questions. Redistribution of marks with regard to deleted questions cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. The Commission had adopted a uniform method to deal with all the candidates looking to the number of the candidates. The Supreme Court has observed that all the candidates have been benefited by the redistribution of marks in accordance with the number of correct answers which have been given by them. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that the result should be revised of only those candidate who had failed to qualify in the test and the Commission need not revise the result of all those candidates whose names were included in the Select List earlier published. The appointments already made in pursuance of the Select List would not be affected by this exercise, there is no necessity to revise their result. The Commission was directed to publish the cut off marks of the last selected candidate in the respective categories who were included in the Select List on the basis of which the appointments had already been made by the Commission and on the basis of the revised results those candidates who had achieved the equal or more marks in their respective categories shall be offered appointments against the vacancies as has been mentioned by the Commission said to be still remaining after the completion of exercise of selection earlier held. 
24. In the judgment rendered in Richal (supra) the Supreme Court has affirmed the decision of the High Court in so far as it directed deletion of questions the answers of which were wrongly given or deletion of ambiguous questions by referring to the judgment rendered by it in Manish Ujwal Vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, (2005) 13 SCC 744. It has narrated the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manish Ujwal (supra) in paragraph - 10 as follows:- 
".......At the same time,however, it is necessary to note that the University and those who prepare the key answers have to be very careful and abundant caution is necessary in these matters for more than one reason. We mention few of those; first and paramount reason being the welfare of the student as a wrong key answer can result in the merit being made a casualty. One can well understand the predicament of a young student at the threshold of his or her career if despite giving correct answer, the student suffers as a result of wrong and demonstrably erroneous key answers; the second reason is that the courts are slow in interfering in educational matters which, in turn, casts a higher responsibility on the University while preparing the key answers; and thirdly, in cases of doubt, the benefit goes in favour of the University and not in favour of the students. If this attitude of casual approach in providing key answers is adopted by the persons concerned, directions may have to be issued for taking appropriate action, including disciplinary action, against those responsible for wrong and demonstrably erroneous key answers, but we refrain from issuing such directions in the present case." 
25. Let the corrective steps be taken by the CBSE within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it." 
38. Per contra, the respondents relied upon various other judgment like Division Bench judmgent of this Court in Writ - A No. 65823 of 2015, Gulab Chand Bharati v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad & Another decided on 23.12.2015. Vide judgment 21, 22 & 23 of the said judgment it has been held as under: 
"21. It is also worthwhile to refer to paragraph-25 of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Subhash Chandra (Supra), which provides that if controversial questions have been set and in relation to some questions, there could be more than one answer. In an objective type of test, more than one answers are given. The candidate is required to tick mark the answer, which is the most appropriate out of the plurality of answers. For ready reference relevant portion of paragraph-25 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Subhash Chandra (supra) is being quoted herein below: 
"25. ................................................................. 
3. Several controversial questions were set and in relation to some questions, there could be more than one answer: In an objective type of test, more than one answer are given. The candidates are required to tick mark the answer which is the most appropriate out of the plurality of answers. The questions and answers were prescribed by the experts in the field with reference to standard books. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that a question will have more than one correct answer. Even if the answers could be more than one, the candidates will have to select the one which is more correct out of the alternative answers. In any event, this is a difficulty felt by ail the candidates. 
................................................" 
22. From the side of the petitioner, reliance has been placed on the judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar and ors vs. State of Bihar and ors (2013) 4 SCC 690 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed for re-evaluation, when the selection process/procedure was held to be erroneous evaluation (using wrong answer key). It is in this background the direction was issued by Apex Court for re-evaluation whereas in the present matter, we do not find that any erroneous evaluation had been made by the examiners and as such it is not warranted that the re-evaluation is required in the matter. The petitioner has also relied upon judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikash Pratap Singh vs. State of Chhatisgarh (2013) 14 SCC 494. 
23. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that once the objections had been filed by the candidates; the Commission has proceeded to constitute the expert body and on the recommendation of the expert body, they have proceeded to delete 04 questions, the writ petitions sans merit and are accordingly dismissed." 
39. The State has also relied upon a judgment of Apex Court delivered on 11.12.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 367 of 2017, wherein vide para 30 it has been so held: 
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) 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; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (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 rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; (iii) 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; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate." 
40. Learned Additional Advocate General has also relied upon a judgment earlier referred to in the case of Rahul Singh (supra). 
41. The legal proposition that has emerged from the judgments referred to hereinabove is settled one and there is no two opinion about that. In case if the questions are incorrectly framed or in case they carry absolutely wrong options or more than one options to be correct, the question deserves to be deleted and the re-distribution of marks ought to be done considering the remaining questions. 
42. In competitive examinations when there is inter se competition amongst the candidates seeking selection for appointment, there would be requirement of Examination Conducting Authority to be more careful and conscious in allotment of marks while adjusting equity amongst the candidates in respect of wrong questions or more than one correct answers of the questions as one mark more or, one mark less may adversely affect the entire career of a candidate while contesting with others, but in respect of qualifying examination of which no merit is carried forward irrespective of the marks obtained and no inter se merit is scaled on the basis of the marks obtained, a little lenient yardstick can be adopted in matters of allotment of marks and adjusting equity amongst the candidates. 
43. U.P.T.E.T. Examination is merely a qualifying examination to enable a candidate to apply for selection of Assistant Teachers at Elementary Education Level and as such only minimum pass marks are prescribed. 
44. Whether one scores 90 in general Category or 82 in reserved category or more than cut off in either of the categories, it does not make any difference. Those who score more than minimum cut off, it does not give any edge to such candidates over and above the candidates scoring lesser marks. So there is no element of inter se competition at all. And, if the equity is adjusted by allotting one mark for the wrong answer or for the deleted question or in cases where more than one options are the correct answers, it will enable such candidates to acquire eligibility to participate in the selection process in future and more especially, in respect of those candidates who might be having the last chance as per the requirement of age for the purposes of appointment of Assistant Teachers under the Rules. 
45. Large number of candidates before this Court in these petitions in general category have either obtained 89 marks or in reserved category have obtained 81 marks so they are just one mark behind the pass marks as 90 and 82 respectively fixed by the respondents. 
46. Since the respondent Examination Regulatory Authority itself has provided one mark in respect of question No. 20 of 'A' Series (Child Development and Teaching Method) which has been deleted, to all the candidates irrespective of the fact whether they opted for any option or not, the equity can be adjusted in the present case following the same principle in respect of question No. 38 of 'C' Series (Hind) where two options were taken to be the correct answers as well as question No. 55 of 'C' Series (Hindi) in respect of which two options are also taken to be the correct answers. Similarly, in respect of Urdu paper, the question No. 65 of 'A' Series deserves to be deleted and as the respondents have opted for alloting one mark in identical situation in respect of question No. 20 of 'A' Series (supra) similarly those who have opted for Urdu paper, also deserve to be benefited identically irrespective of the fact whether they opted to answer the question or not or have opted wrong answers, such benefit, equity demands, should be given to all. 
47. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority U.P. Allahabad/Prayagraj to allot one mark to every candidate in respect of question No. 38 of 'C' Series (Child Development and Teaching Method), Question No. 59 of 'C' Series (Hindi) and so also question No. 61 of 'D' Series of (Urdu) and in respect of same question bearing different serial numbers in different series. 
48. With the re-distribution of marks as directed hereinabove, the results shall be declared afresh of such candidates whose position stands altered / benefited in terms of increase in marks, if any. 
49. The entire exercise is to be carried out immediately. The State-respondent is also directed to extend the last date for application prescribed for under the advertisement dated 01.12.2018 for selection of Assistant Teachers (Primary Level) in respect of only those candidates who are declared to have obtained qualifying marks as a result of exercise undertaken by the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority U.P. in the light of the directions contained in this judgment. 
50. The writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. 
Order Date: 19.12.2018 
Sanjeev/IrfanUddin/Atmesh
Advertisements

Share this

Related Posts

Previous
Next Post »

Related Ads