U.P.P.S.C., THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN & ANR versus RAHUL SINGH & ANR. on 14 June 2018

28

SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2018] 5 S.C.R. 28

[2018] 5 S.C.R.

AU.P.P.S.C., THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN & ANR.

v.

RAHUL SINGH & ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 5838 of 2018)

BJUNE 14, 2018

[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]

Education/Educational Institutions – Matters of academicnature – Interference by the court – Extent and power of – UpperSubordinate Services preliminary examination – Key answersCchallenged by the candidates as incorrect – High Court overruledthe view of the Commission which was based on the report of expertCommittee – On appeal, held: Judges are not experts and cannottake on the role of experts in academic matters – They must exercisegreat restraint in such matters and should not overstep theirDjurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts – Courts should bereluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the keyanswers – When the candidate demonstrates that the key answersare patently wrong on the face of it, the courts can enter into theacademic field, weigh the pros and cons of the arguments given byboth sides and hold as to which of the answer is better or moreEcorrect – On facts, all the three questions needed a long process ofreasoning and High Court itself noticed that the stand of theCommission is also supported by certain text books – High Courtover stepped its jurisdiction by giving the directions amounting tosetting aside the decision of experts in the field – Answer given byFthe Commission is correct – Order passed by the High Court is setaside.

Allowing the appeal filed by UP Public Service Commissionand dismissing the appeals filed by the candidates, the Court HELD: 1.1 The onus is on the candidate to not onlyGdemonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is aglaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential processor reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong.The Constitutional Courts must exercise great restraint in suchmatters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challengingHthe correctness of the key answers. [Para 12][34-C-D]

1.2 In the instant case, even before publishing the first listof key answers the Commission had got the key answersmoderated by two expert committees. Thereafter, objections wereinvited and a 26 member committee was constituted to verify theobjections and after this exercise the Committee recommendedthat 5 questions be deleted and in 2 questions, key answers bechanged. It can be presumed that these committees consisted ofexperts 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 arepatently wrong on the face of it, the courts cannot enter into theacademic field, weigh the pros and cons of the arguments givenby both sides and then come to the conclusion as to which of theanswer is better or more correct. All the 3 questions needed along process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticedthat the stand of the Commission is also supported by certaintext books. When there are conflicting views, then the court mustbow down to the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannotbe experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise greatrestraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset theopinion of the experts. [Para 14][34-H; 35-A]

1.3 The High Court over stepped its jurisdiction by givingthe directions which amounted to setting aside the decision ofexperts in the field. As far as the objection of the appellant-R isconcerned, after going through the question on which he raisedan objection, the prima facie view is that that the answer givenby the Commission is correct. [Para 15][35-B-C]

Kanpur University, through Vice Chancellor and Othersv. Samir Gupta and Others [1984] 1 SCR 73 : (1983) 4SCC 309; Ran Vijay Singh and Others v. State of UttarPradesh and Others (2018) 2 SCC 357 - referred to.

Case Law Reference

ABCD

E

F

G

H

ACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5838of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.03.2018 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-A No. 4734 of 2018.

WITH

B

C. A. Nos. 5839, 5840-5842 of 2018.

Maninder Singh, ASG, Ankit Yadav, Shrish Kumar Misra, BadriPrasad Singh, Satendra Tripathi, Narendra M. Sharma, Ms. AnanditaS., Ankur Sood, J. N. Patel, Ms. Romila Mandal, K. Ruza Faridi, SanjayCRastogi, Shahbaaz Jameel, Gopal Jha, Bankey Bihari Sharma, Advs. forthe appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DEEPAK GUPTA, J. 1. Applications for impleadment areallowed.D

2. Leave granted.

3. These appeals are being disposed of by a common judgmentsince they arise out of one judgment delivered by the High Court ofAllahabad on 30.03.2018.

E4. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for the decision of this caseare that the appellant U.P. Public Service Commission (for short ‘theCommission’) issued an advertisement on 22.02.2017 inviting applicationsfor filling up vacancies in the Upper Subordinate Services of the State.The selection is conducted through a three stage test consisting ofpreliminary written examination, main examination and interview. ThoseFcandidates who clear the preliminary examination are entitled to appearin the main examination.

E

5. The preliminary examination consisted of two papers namelyGeneral Studies-I and General Studies-II. We are in this case concernedonly with the General Studies-I paper which carried 200 marks andGconsists of 150 objective type questions with multiple choice answers.After the preliminary examination was conducted, key answers werepublished by the Commission. Many persons including the petitionersbefore the Allahabad High Court contended that some of the key answerswere incorrect or that some of the questions had more than one correctanswer.

H

6. It is not disputed before us that the Commission initiallyconstituted two separate expert committees; one comprising of 15 expertsand the other comprising of 18 experts. This was done even before thekey answers were displayed on the official website of the Commission.After these two committees gave their expert opinion the key answerswere uploaded on the official website of the Commission during theperiod 18.11.2017 to 23.11.2017. Objections to the key answers were tobe submitted by 24.11.2017.

7. The Commission received 962 objections. The Commissionconstituted a committee consisting of 26 members to consider theobjections raised by the candidates. This 26 member expert committeeexamined all the objections over a period of two days and, thereafter, onthe basis of the recommendations of this committee 5 questions weredeleted and the key answers of 2 questions were changed. As aconsequence the result was declared on the basis of 145 questions.Thereafter, various candidates filed writ petitions in the Allahabad HighCourt wherein challenge was raised to the correctness of the key answersin respect of 14 questions. The High Court examined these questionsand after elaborate discussion and reasoning negatived the prayer of thepetitioners in respect of 11 questions but in respect of one question theHigh Court held that the question should be deleted; in respect of anotherquestion it held that there were two correct answers and in respect ofone more question it disagreed with the view of the Commission andaccepted the submission of the petitioners that the answer given in thekey was incorrect. This judgment is under challenge in these appeals.

8. In the appeal filed by the Commission it has been urged that theHigh Court transgressed its jurisdiction and went beyond the scope ofjudicial review available in such cases and it should not have overruledthe view of the Commission which was based on the report of twocommittees of experts. On the other hand one of the original writpetitioners in his appeal claims that as far as the question where theHigh Court has held more than one answer is correct, the same shouldbe deleted and in respect of another question it is urged that the HighCourt wrongly accepted the answer of the Commission.

9. What is the extent and power of the Court to interfere in mattersof academic nature has been the subject matter of a number of cases.We shall deal with the two main cases cited before us.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A10. In Kanpur University, through Vice Chancellor and Othersvs. Samir Gupta and Others [1], this Court was dealing with a caserelating to the Combined Pre Medical Test. Admittedly, the examinationsetter himself had provided the key answers and there were nocommittees to moderate or verify the correctness of the key answersprovided by the examiner. This Court upheld the view of the AllahabadBHigh Court that the students had proved that 3 of the key answers werewrong. Following observations of the Court are pertinent:- “16………..We agree that the key answer should be assumed tobe correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not beheld to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by aCprocess of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to bewrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body ofmen well-versed in the particular subject would regard ascorrect………”

The Court gave further directions but we are concerned mainlyDwith one that the State Government should devise a system for moderatingthe key answers furnished by the paper setters.

11. In Ran Vijay Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradeshand Others[2], this Court after referring to a catena of judicialpronouncements summarized the legal position in the following terms:-E

“30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and weonly propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:

30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examinationpermits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of ananswer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conductingFthe examination may permit it; 30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examinationdoes not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (asdistinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluationor scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without anyG“inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation”and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error hasbeen committed; 1 (1983) 4 SCC 309

2 (2018) 2 SCC 357

H

30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise theanswer sheets of a candidate—it has no expertise in the matterand academic matters are best left to academics; 30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the keyanswers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to theexamination authority rather than to the candidate.”

We may also refer to the following observations in Paras 31 and32 which show why the Constitutional Courts must exercise restraint insuch matters:-

“31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassiondoes not play any role in the matter of directing or not directingre-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by theexamination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers.The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailedonly because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied orperceive some injustice having been caused to them by anerroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates sufferequally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helpedsince mathematical precision is not always possible. This Courthas shown one way out of an impasse — exclude the suspect oroffending question.

32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of thisCourt, some of which have been discussed above, there isinterference by the courts in the result of examinations. This placesthe examination authorities in an unenviable position where theyare under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massiveand sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes withan air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates putin a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must notbe forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equallygreat efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormityof the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the courtmust consider the internal checks and balances put in place bythe examination authorities before interfering with the efforts putin by the candidates who have successfully participated in theexamination and the examination authorities. The present appeals A

B

C

DEF

G

H

A

Aare a classic example of the consequence of such interferencewhere there is no finality to the result of the examinations evenafter a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authoritieseven the candidates are left wondering about the certainty orotherwise of the result of the examination — whether they havepassed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapprovedBby the court; whether they will get admission in a college oruniversity or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. Thisunsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody’s advantageand such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worseconfounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that publicCinterest suffers.”

12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to notonly demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is aglaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process orreasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. TheDConstitutional Courts must exercise great restraint in such matters andshould be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of thekey answers. In Kanpur University case (supra), the Courtrecommended a system of - (1) moderation; (2) avoiding ambiguity inthe questions; (3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspectedquestions and no marks be assigned to such questions.

E

E

13. As far as the present case is concerned even before publishingthe first list of key answers the Commission had got the key answersmoderated by two expert committees. Thereafter, objections were invitedand a 26 member committee was constituted to verify the objectionsand after this exercise the Committee recommended that 5 questions beFdeleted and in 2 questions, key answers be changed. It can be presumedthat these committees consisted of experts in various subjects for whichthe examinees were tested. Judges cannot take on the role of experts inacademic matters. Unless, the candidate demonstrates that the keyanswers are patently wrong on the face of it, the courts cannot enterGinto the academic field, weigh the pros and cons of the arguments givenby both sides and then come to the conclusion as to which of the answeris better or more correct.

14. In the present case we find that all the 3 questions needed along process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed that theHstand of the Commission is also supported by certain text books. When there are conflicting views, then the court must bow down to the opinionof the experts. Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and,therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not oversteptheir jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts.

15. In view of the above discussion we are clearly of the viewthat the High Court over stepped its jurisdiction by giving the directionswhich amounted to setting aside the decision of experts in the field. Asfar as the objection of the appellant - Rahul Singh is concerned, aftergoing through the question on which he raised an objection, we ourselvesare of the prima facie view that the answer given by the Commission iscorrect.

16. In view of the above discussion we allow the appeal filed bythe U.P. Public Service Commission and set aside the judgment of theAllahabad High Court. The appeals filed by Rahul Singh and Jay BuxSingh and Others are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposedof.

Nidhi Jain

Appeals disposed of.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H