Amit Verma v. Union Of India And Anr. - (High Court of Delhi) (16 Jan 2017)

Courts cannot take over task of correcting answers set in the answer key

MANU/DE/0133/2017

Education

Petitioner, by present petition, seeks a mandamus to the Respondents to declare as factually and conceptually incorrect, the answer keys for question Nos.57, 100 and 107 of Answer Key Booklet “A” published by Respondent No.2, on 15th March, 2016 for National Eligibility Test (NET) for Lectureship held on 20.12.2015 and a further direction to Respondent No.2 to declare Petitioner as qualified for the said examination. During the submissions, learned counsel for Petitioner has restricted his challenge only with regard to question no.57.

Learned counsel for Respondent submits that in question no.57, there were four options given. If the question was read as it was printed then one of the options was correct and if question was read by taking into account the typographical error then another option was correct. It is contended that it was not a case where none of the options given were correct but in either of the two situations one or the other option was correct. The students had to choose the option which was correct as per the question as printed and not as the question should or could have read. It is contended that only in a situation, where all four equations did not satisfy the problem given, the respondent would have treated the same as a typographical error and given benefit to all students who attempted the question irrespective of the answer.

Respondents had called for objections after publishing the first answer key. Several objections were received. The answer key was examined in light of various objections raised by experts. If none of given options had satisfied the given problem, then contention of Petitioner could have merited consideration. Even if assuming that there is a typographical error in equation (b), benefit cannot be granted to Petitioner because option No.2, i.e.(a) only is the correct answer, as has been opined by experts.

This Court in judgment in Sagar Sanjeev Dua (Supra), relying upon decision in Atul Kumar Verma and also decision of the Supreme Court in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission versus Mukesh Thakur And Another (2010) 6 SCC 759 held that it is not permissible for the Court to take up the task of examiner/Selection Board upon itself and to examine the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the question paper and the evaluation thereof. There can be no judicial review of answer key, which question setter/s has prepared and who, upon objection being raised thereto, has reiterated the same.

In the instant case, the experts have examined the answer keys and opined that one of the options, i.e. option No.2 is the correct answer. This Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot take over the task of correcting the answers set in the answer key. Even as per the experts opinion, no benefit can be granted to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.

Relevant : Atul Kumar Verma vs. Union of India & Another, Sagar Sanjeev Dua vs. Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors., Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission versus Mukesh Thakur And Another (2010) 6 SCC 759

Tags : ANSWER CORRECTION DECLARATION