Cwp No.26250 of 2013 Vs. State of Punjab and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1162461
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnAug-20-2014
AppellantCwp No.26250 of 2013
RespondentState of Punjab and Another
Excerpt:
cwp no.26250 of 2013 -1- in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh cwp no.26250 of 2013 reserved on :31. 7.2014. date of decision:20. 08.2014 manmit singh ....petitioner versus state of punjab and another .....respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice g.s.sandhawalia present: mr. raman goklaney, advocate for the petitioner. mr. aman bahri, addl. advocate general, punjab **** g.s.sandhawalia j.1. the present writ petition has been filed for quashing the result notification dated 19.6.2013 whereby the teacher eligibility test was conducted by respondent no.2 in pursuance of the advertisement (annexure p/1) in view of the large scale irregularities in the question paper and answer key and has also challenged the evaluation process of the answer sheets on the ground of the wrong answer key being present.2. the grouse of the petitioner is that the said result has led to arbitrary short listing of the candidates and has taken away his right to equality and direction may be issued to consider his case for punjab state teacher eligibility test-i (for brevity “pstet) or in the alternative to decide the representation (annexure p/10) which pertains to the discrepancy of question no.93 and 132 and he be declared qualified.3. the case of the petitioner is that a candidate who secured 60% or more marks in the above said examination is considered as pstet pass and qualifying certificate is issued and validity of such certificate is for 7 years. the advertisement was issued in april, 2013 for holding the said test which was held on 9.6.2013 and the petitioner had applied for appointment as teacher in classes i to v and had duly qualified minimum educational qualification. pradeep kumar arorahe i attest to the accuracy of this document high court 21.08.2014 10:03 cwp no.26250 of 2013 -2- secured 89 marks out of 150 marks i.e. one mark short of qualifying marks. the said examination carried 150 multiple choice questions and the minimum qualifying score was thus 90 marks i.e. being 60% of the total marks. several questions were wrong and as much as did not contain correct option or contained multiple correct options. reference was made to two questions namely no.93 and 132 to submit that there were infirmities in the answer key which have resulted in the petitioner not qualifying and a representation had also been filed on 13.9.2013 (annexure p/10) but no action has been taken. hence, the present writ petition has been filed.4. in the short affidavit, the plea taken was that the test was conducted by outsourcing agency i.e. nysa communication pvt. ltd., a-100, sector 65, noida (up). the question papers were set by the said agency and the perusal of result of paper set-b had been prepared and there was only one discarded question. one mark has been given in lieu of solitary discarded question paper set-a. the petitioner could not obtain minimum qualifying marks even after the grace marks in lieu of the discarded question. reference was placed upon the judgment of the hon'ble apex court in himachal pradesh public service commission vs. mukesh thakur and another 2010 (6) scc759to submit that it was not permissible for the high court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself and reliance was also placed upon the judgment of this court in civil writ petition no.7232 of 2010-jyotika nagil and others vs. the state of haryana and others decided on 1.12.2010 to submit that it was not within the jurisdiction of this court to see if any question has been asked out of syllabus or some answers were required to be corrected or some grace marks were to be awarded.5. the issue in question is, thus, whether if the petitioner is to be given the benefit of one mark question which is alleged to have a wrong answer key and make the grade for qualifying the examination since the petitioner was only one mark short. cwp no.26250 of 2013 -3- 6. counsel was at pains to explain that question no.132 had 4 options which reads as under:-“132. rotation is the movement of the earth:- a) on its axis b) on its orbit c) around the sun d) around the sun in a fixed path”.7. the case of the petitioner, thus, was that the correct answer was option 'a' i.e. earth rotates on its axis. since there is no dispute on the said issue and it does not rotate on its orbit or around the sun or around the sun in a fixed path which were other three options since it revolves around the sun. the petitioner, however, had marked the option 'd' because he had answered the question in punjabi wherein the punjabi translation of the word 'rotation' was 'ghumdi'. admittedly, if the answer is attempted in punjabi then the correct version in punjabi would also be option 'd' that the earth rotates around the sun in a fixed path which was the question in dispute.8. counsel for the state was not in a position to explain this ambiguity since in punjabi there would be no equivalent to the word “revolution”.. option 'd' in english that earth rotates around the sun in a fixed path”. would not mean 'rotation' but would mean 'revolution' and therefore, it is apparent that the petitioner has given a correct answer if the version in punjabi is to be seen since the option 'd' in punjabi was 'around the sun in a fixed path' and in punjabi it would amount to rotating around the sun and there would no equivalent to revolving around the sun in punjabi language.9. counsel for the state only answer to this issue is that under the instructions on the answer sheet as per clause 11 if there was any dispute, the question in english will be treated as final and in case of any doubt/confusion/ lack of clarity, the candidates were advised to refer to question in english. clause 11 reads as under:- “in case of any dispute, the question in english will be treated as final. candidates are advised to refer to question in english in case cwp no.26250 of 2013 -4- of any doubt/confusion/lack of clarity.”. 10. however, the said clause cannot be held to be applicable since the petitioner has attempted his paper in punjabi for him there was no such confusion and it would not be possible for him to have such intricate grammatical knowledge of english language. he had rightly ticked the option 'd' since in punjabi it would be the correct answer. in such circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of 1 mark on account of ambiguity being regarding question no.132. the objection of the counsel for the state that this court will not go into the said issue would not be a correct view since if on the face of it, it is apparent that there is a mistake in the answer key and if the petitioner is given the benefit of ambiguity he makes the grade, this court would be failing in its duty if it does not exercise its jurisdiction. reliance can be placed upon the three judges bench of the hon'ble apex court in kanpur university and others vs. samir gupta and others 1983 (4) scc309 in the said case, the high court had accepted the contention of the students that the answers ticketed by them are correct and the key answers furnished by the paper setters were wrong, since there was two options as per hindi and the english version. the publication of the key was approved since the students had benefited otherwise they would have suffered injustice. relevant observation reads as under:- “the findings of the high court raise a question of great importance to the student community. normally, one would be inclined to the view, especially if one has been a paper setter and an examiner, that the key answer furnished by the paper setter and accepted by the university as correct, should not be allowed to be challenged. one way of achieving it is not to publish the key answer at all. if the university had not published the key answer along with the result of the test, no controversy would have arisen in this case. but that is not a correct way of looking at these matters which involve the cwp no.26250 of 2013 -5- future of hundreds of students who are aspirants for admission to professional courses. if the key answer were kept secret in this case, the remedy would have been worse than the disease because, so many students would have had to suffer the injustice in silence. the publication of the key answer has unravelled an unhappy state of affairs to which the university and the state government must find a solution. their sense of fairness in publishing the key answer has given them an opportunity to have a closer look at the system of examinations which they conduct. what has failed is not the computer but the human system.”. 11. the said view thereafter followed by two division benches of the andhra pradesh high court in g. nalini vs. the director of medical education govt. of a.p., hyderabad and others 1984 air (ap) 321 and the calcutta high court respectively in amalendu santra vs. university of calcutta and others 1986 air (calcutta) 153.12. in such circumstances, the present writ petition is allowed. accordingly, a writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to grant the petitioner benefit of one mark on account of correct answer of question no.132 in punjabi language and declare him pass in the pstet examination. the needful be done within a period of 4 weeks from today. 20.08.2014 (g.s.sandhawalia) pka judge
Judgment:

CWP No.26250 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.26250 of 2013 Reserved on :

31. 7.2014. Date of decision:

20. 08.2014 Manmit Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr. Raman Goklaney, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Aman Bahri, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab **** G.S.Sandhawalia J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the result notification dated 19.6.2013 whereby the Teacher Eligibility Test was conducted by respondent no.2 in pursuance of the advertisement (Annexure P/1) in view of the large scale irregularities in the question paper and answer key and has also challenged the evaluation process of the answer sheets on the ground of the wrong answer key being present.

2. The grouse of the petitioner is that the said result has led to arbitrary short listing of the candidates and has taken away his right to equality and direction may be issued to consider his case for Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test-I (for brevity “PSTET) or in the alternative to decide the representation (Annexure P/10) which pertains to the discrepancy of question No.93 and 132 and he be declared qualified.

3. The case of the petitioner is that a candidate who secured 60% or more marks in the above said examination is considered as PSTET pass and qualifying certificate is issued and validity of such certificate is for 7 years. The advertisement was issued in April, 2013 for holding the said test which was held on 9.6.2013 and the petitioner had applied for appointment as Teacher in Classes I to V and had duly qualified minimum educational qualification. PRADEEP KUMAR ARORAHe I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court 21.08.2014 10:03 CWP No.26250 of 2013 -2- secured 89 marks out of 150 marks i.e. one mark short of qualifying marks. The said examination carried 150 multiple choice questions and the minimum qualifying score was thus 90 marks i.e. being 60% of the total marks. Several questions were wrong and as much as did not contain correct option or contained multiple correct options. Reference was made to two questions namely No.93 and 132 to submit that there were infirmities in the answer key which have resulted in the petitioner not qualifying and a representation had also been filed on 13.9.2013 (Annexure P/10) but no action has been taken. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. In the short affidavit, the plea taken was that the test was conducted by outsourcing agency i.e. NYSA Communication Pvt. Ltd., A-100, Sector 65, Noida (UP). The question papers were set by the said Agency and the perusal of result of paper Set-B had been prepared and there was only one discarded question. One mark has been given in lieu of solitary discarded question paper Set-A. The petitioner could not obtain minimum qualifying marks even after the grace marks in lieu of the discarded question. Reference was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and another 2010 (6) SCC759to submit that it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself and reliance was also placed upon the judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.7232 of 2010-Jyotika Nagil and others Vs. The State of Haryana and others decided on 1.12.2010 to submit that it was not within the jurisdiction of this Court to see if any question has been asked out of syllabus or some answers were required to be corrected or some grace marks were to be awarded.

5. The issue in question is, thus, whether if the petitioner is to be given the benefit of one mark question which is alleged to have a wrong answer key and make the grade for qualifying the examination since the petitioner was only one mark short. CWP No.26250 of 2013 -3- 6. Counsel was at pains to explain that question No.132 had 4 options which reads as under:-

“132. Rotation is the movement of the earth:- a) On its axis b) On its orbit c) Around the sun d) Around the sun in a fixed path”.

7. The case of the petitioner, thus, was that the correct answer was option 'A' i.e. Earth rotates on its axis. Since there is no dispute on the said issue and it does not rotate on its orbit or around the sun or around the sun in a fixed path which were other three options since it revolves around the sun. The petitioner, however, had marked the option 'D' because he had answered the question in Punjabi wherein the Punjabi translation of the word 'Rotation' was 'GHUMDI'. Admittedly, if the answer is attempted in Punjabi then the correct version in Punjabi would also be option 'D' that the earth rotates around the sun in a fixed path which was the question in dispute.

8. Counsel for the State was not in a position to explain this ambiguity since in Punjabi there would be no equivalent to the word “Revolution”.. Option 'D' in English that earth rotates around the sun in a fixed path”. would not mean 'rotation' but would mean 'Revolution' and therefore, it is apparent that the petitioner has given a correct answer if the version in Punjabi is to be seen since the option 'D' in Punjabi was 'around the sun in a fixed path' and in Punjabi it would amount to rotating around the sun and there would no equivalent to revolving around the sun in Punjabi Language.

9. Counsel for the State only answer to this issue is that under the instructions on the answer sheet as per Clause 11 if there was any dispute, the question in English will be treated as final and in case of any doubt/confusion/ lack of clarity, the candidates were advised to refer to question in English. Clause 11 reads as under:- “In case of any dispute, the question in English will be treated as final. Candidates are advised to refer to question in English in case CWP No.26250 of 2013 -4- of any doubt/confusion/lack of clarity.”. 10. However, the said clause cannot be held to be applicable since the petitioner has attempted his paper in Punjabi for him there was no such confusion and it would not be possible for him to have such intricate grammatical knowledge of English language. He had rightly ticked the option 'D' since in Punjabi it would be the correct answer. In such circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of 1 mark on account of ambiguity being regarding question no.132. The objection of the counsel for the State that this Court will not go into the said issue would not be a correct view since if on the face of it, it is apparent that there is a mistake in the answer key and if the petitioner is given the benefit of ambiguity he makes the grade, this Court would be failing in its duty if it does not exercise its jurisdiction. Reliance can be placed upon the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kanpur University and others Vs. Samir Gupta and others 1983 (4) SCC309 In the said case, the High Court had accepted the contention of the students that the answers ticketed by them are correct and the key answers furnished by the paper setters were wrong, since there was two options as per Hindi and the English version. The publication of the key was approved since the students had benefited otherwise they would have suffered injustice. Relevant observation reads as under:- “The findings of the High Court raise a question of great importance to the student community. Normally, one would be inclined to the view, especially if one has been a paper setter and an examiner, that the key answer furnished by the paper setter and accepted by the University as correct, should not be allowed to be challenged. One way of achieving it is not to publish the key answer at all. If the University had not published the key answer along with the result of the test, no controversy would have arisen in this case. But that is not a correct way of looking at these matters which involve the CWP No.26250 of 2013 -5- future of hundreds of students who are aspirants for admission to professional courses. If the key answer were kept secret in this case, the remedy would have been worse than the disease because, so many students would have had to suffer the injustice in silence. The publication of the key answer has unravelled an unhappy state of affairs to which the University and the State Government must find a solution. Their sense of fairness in publishing the key answer has given them an opportunity to have a closer look at the system of examinations which they conduct. What has failed is not the computer but the human system.”. 11. The said view thereafter followed by two Division Benches of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in G. Nalini Vs. The Director of Medical Education Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad and others 1984 AIR (AP) 321 and the Calcutta High Court respectively in Amalendu Santra Vs. University of Calcutta and others 1986 AIR (Calcutta) 153.

12. In such circumstances, the present writ petition is allowed. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to grant the petitioner benefit of one mark on account of correct answer of question No.132 in Punjabi language and declare him pass in the PSTET examination. The needful be done within a period of 4 weeks from today. 20.08.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) Pka JUDGE