WP(C) 337/2023 Serial No.19 Regular cause list IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on 13.05.2025 Pronounced on 16.05.2025 WP(C) 337/2023 CM(697/2023) MASROOR ELAHI MALIK …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Shafqat Nazir, Advocate with Ms. Heena Baqal, Advocate Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT) ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr, A. R Malik, Sr. AAG with Mr. Ilyas Nazir, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT Sanjay Parihar-(J) 1. Petitioner by the medium of aforesaid writ petition has assailed order dated 06-08-2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Jammu bench in OA No 62/21/2020 titled Masroor Elahi Malik Vs UT of J&K & Ors, and Order dated 22-09-2021 of that very tribunal in review petition No R.A 62/10/2021 as well as impugned Appointment Order No 140-JK(HUD) of 2020, dated: 21-04-2022 being aggrieved thereof in the factual background, which being, that the petitioner had applied for the post of Executive Officer in Housing and Urban Development Department Srinagar/Jammu for which applications were invited by the respondent on 01-09-2015 which posts were got to be filled by a written examination conducted by respondent No 2 J&K Service Selection Board Srinagar. Petitioner being eligible had applied for the same and took part in the examination that was held on 09-05- 2019. On 15-05-2019 the respondent board published the “official answer key” of the said examination and also invited WP(C) 337/2023 objections/representations from the candidates. Petitioner appears to have filed representation concerning some questions, but more particularly on question No 107 and 117. Such objections with regard to five other questions is said to have been considered and the answers rectified. However, his representation for the aforesaid two questions is stated to have been declined. For ready reference, the question No 107 is reproduced: Q.No. 107 Choose the network that interconnects different computers around the world. A LAN B MAN C Internet D WAN Previous Answer :: C Final/Revised Answer :: C Similarly question No 117 is reproduced herein: Q.No. 117 Which of these can act as both input and output device? A Joystick B Modem C Projectors D Electronic White Board Correct Ans :: B Final/Revised :: B The petitioner had in response to question No 107 chosen option D whereas the respondent claim that right answer was option C. In response to question No 117, the answer recorded by petitioner happened to be option D whereas, the correct answer was stated to be option B. On not finding himself successful, the petitioner approached the respondent to consider his representation as he claimed that had said answers been rightly recorded, he would have secured merit of 77.50 instead of 76.50, thus got omitted from the selection list for WP(C) 337/2023 which he filed petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal for redressal of his grievances which petition was dismissed on 06-08- 2021. Thereafter he sought review by filing R.A No 62/10/2021 before that very tribunal which too in terms of Order dated 22-09-2021 has been dismissed forcing the petitioner to file the aforesaid writ petition in which both the orders are assailed on the premise that the board has misled the tribunal who has returned a finding, which is erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 2. Respondents in their counter have taken the plea that the orders passed by the Administrative Tribunal are in tune with existing norms and do not call for interference because grievances of the petitioner were rectified since both of his answers to question No 107 and 117 were wrong. 3. There appears to be no malafide on the part of the respondent, had that been the case, then the answer key of petitioner with regard to some other questions could not have been rectified. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in so far as question No 107 is concerned, the right answer had to be option D but not option C and similarly for question No 117, the right answer being option D instead of option B and to bring home this argument, the petitioner has relied upon standard literally source work after downloading from web and claims that the answers given by him were correct and most-appropriate, which however is denied by the respondent on the strength that even if it may be accepted that the options given by the petitioners were suitable answers, however it is for the expert domain to examine those answers and that this Court cannot sit-over in an appeal over the decision of the expert as both the questions were of technical nature and given the fact that the respondent had outsourced the examination and petitioners objection regarding some questions were thoroughly considered and answers rectified accordingly insofar as question No 107 and 117 are concerned, there are no malafides on the part of the respondent. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the answers given by him were more suitable because WAN means Wide Area WP(C) 337/2023 Network which has no physical or continental boundary, thus answer key of WAN was the right answer instead of key Internet. Similarly the answer to question No 117 had got to be Electronic White Board but not Modem, as is being urged by respondents. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the record of tribunal and proceed to hold that the issues raised by the writ petitioner before the tribunal have been duly considered with, and the reasoning upon which the tribunal has proceeded to dismiss the case of the writ petitioner that was the only reasonable view that ought to have been taken so does not call for interference. This is because, what the petitioner is arguing is that the answers given to question No.s 107 and 117 by him were the right answers as opposed to the one given by the expert who had examined the question papers. Though the learned counsel has persuaded us to peruse the literary material laid in support to buttress the argument that answers tendered by him were correct but before proceeding ahead, it is desirable first to underscore as to what is the scope of writ court in considering such questions after all the answer keys have been confirmed by the experts who are the best authorities to view and disapprove the answers. The answer keys opined by the board are assumed to be correct unless it is proved that the answers reflected therein are wrong, rather it must be clearly demonstrated that the answers given by the expert were wrong. In this regard, law is very clear, as in 2023 SCC in Delhi 7117, it was held: “Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot substitute its own conclusion to the one arrived at by experts until and unless there is gross miscarriage of justice which strikes at the root of the case. A team of experts have considered the case and have arrived at a conclusion and this Court cannot hazard a venture into this domain. It is well-settled that the courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable.” 7. In 2020 (2) RLW 1268 (Raj.), there too the issue was whether the court in exercise of writ jurisdiction can sit in an appeal over the answer keys, it was held: “Having gone through the above judgment and some other judgments of the Apex court, this Court is of the opinion that a writ Court cannot become a super-expert or Appellate Authority over the experts. In WP(C) 337/2023 exercise of its power of judicial review, a writ Court can only examine as to whether the question itself as framed was wrongly framed and/or in a given case interfere if the answer is so erroneous that no person having acquaintance with the subject would endorse it.” 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid in 2018 (7) SCC 254 where it was faced with the issue of selection conducted through three stage test consisting of preliminary written examination, main examination, interview and issues were raised that the answer keys published by the commission were untrue, it was held “P.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. P.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. P.14 - In the present case we find that all the 3 questions needed a long process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed WP(C) 337/2023 that the stand of the Commission is also supported by certain text books. When there are conflicting views, then the court must bow down to the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts. P.15 - In view of the above discussion we are clearly of the view that the High Court over stepped its jurisdiction by giving the directions which amounted to setting aside the decision of experts in the field. As far as the objection of the appellant - Rahul Singh is concerned, after going through the question on which he raised an objection, we ourselves are of the prima facie view that the answer given by the Commission is correct.” 9. So, the aforesaid legal preposition clearly lays down that the court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate since it has no expertise in the matter and academic issues are best left to experts in the field. Besides, it should presume the correctness of the answer keys and the process undertaken thereafter on the assumption that the expert has in his wisdom and clarity provided the answer keys rightly. The only caveat is that in case malafides are shown by the candidate as well as that the answer given by him was most appropriate in the eyes of the reasonable person, it is then only court’s interference is called for. 10. It is the case of the petitioner that in addition to the question No 107 and 117, he had also an issue with some other questions as well which were suitably addressed by the respondent, so on the face of it, there appears to be no malafides attributable towards the respondent. Had that been so, then respondents would not have addressed the issues raised by petitioner qua the other questions. We have also gone through the material produced by the petitioner with regard to what could have been the answer to question No 107 and 117. On the face of it both these questions relate to technical aspect. So merely because WAN would mean Wide Area Network does not make it as only viable answer as against the answer key of Internet. Similarly, for question No 117 as per the literature available option B and D could be suitable WP(C) 337/2023 answers, however, that does not mean that answer B is incorrect one. As discussed above, the examination process involves scrutiny of answers and until and unless the marking given on the strength of answers provided by the candidates is proved to be perverse or irrational, it cannot be assumed that the answer keys of the two questions as projected by the petitioners were the only correct one as against the one laid by the Board. We are of the considered view that the tribunal was not having any material before it to warrant a view that the answers given by the petitioners were correct or to presume otherwise. This is because neither the tribunal nor the writ court has got any expertise to re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of the candidates, and as laid above, it is best left to the academics to see the genuinity of the claim. Here the petitioner has not demonstrated that the key answers to question No 107 and 117 are patently wrong on the face of it. He himself claims that the answers given by him were suitable but that does not mean that the answers given by him were the only suitable alternatives as against the one declared by the respondents. The examination setter provided the key answers and there is no reason to disbelieve or verify the correctness of the key. The respondents herein have adopted due process of law inasmuch have also invited objections from the suitable candidate including petitioner as regards the answer keys. So, on that basis we are of the considered view that it would be unreasonable to take a contrary view to the one taken by Tribunal. Petitioner has thus not been able to persuade us on any other grounds to question the reasoning propounded by the tribunal. In the given context, there is no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 16.05.2025 “Adil” Whether the judgment is reportable Yes/No