Education/Educational Institutions – Matters of academic nature – Interference by the court – Extent and power of – Upper Subordinate Services preliminary examination – Key answers challenged by the candidates as incorrect – High Court overruled the view of the Commission which was based on the report of expert Committee – On appeal, held: Judges are not experts and cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters – They must exercise great restraint in such matters and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts – Courts should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers – When the candidate demonstrates that the key answers are patently wrong on the face of it, the courts can enter into the academic field, weigh the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides and hold as to which of the answer is better or more correct – On facts, all the three questions needed a long process of reasoning and High Court itself noticed that the stand of the Commission is also supported by certain text books – High Court over stepped its jurisdiction by giving the directions amounting to setting aside the decision of experts in the field – Answer given by the Commission is correct – Order passed by the High Court is set aside.
Allowing the appeal filed by UP Public Service Commission and dismissing the appeals filed by the candidates, the Court
HELD: 1.1 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. [Para 12][34-C-D]
1.2 In the instant case, 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. All the 3 questions needed a long process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed 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. [Para 14][34-H; 35-A]
1.3 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-R is concerned, after going through the question on which he raised an objection, the prima facie view is that that the answer given by the Commission is correct. [Para 15][35-B-C] Kanpur University, through Vice Chancellor and Others v. Samir Gupta and Others [1984] 1 SCR 73 : (1983) 4 SCC 309; Ran Vijay Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2018) 2 SCC 357 - referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.