RBI Vs. RAMESH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Reserve Bank of India Services Board, held a Departmental Examination for promotion to the post of Staff Officer Grade-A. The aforesaid examination had three papers of 50 marks each and for qualifying in the said examination, every candidate was required to obtain 19 marks in each paper. The respondent no.1 was awarded 18.5 marks in English and accordingly he was declared unsuccessful in the said examination. One question in the paper of English read as under:

(2.) THE learned Single Judge, vide the impugned order dated 5.9.2012 held that the answer given by the respondent no.1 was a correct answer and accordingly directed the appellant to add one mark in the total marks obtained by the respondent no.1. The appellants were also directed to promote the respondent from the date his juniors were granted promotions, with all consequential benefits.

(3.) A perusal of Oxford Dictionary would show that the word 'edible' also means 'eatable'. Similarly, the word 'eatable' has been defined in the aforesaid dictionary also to mean 'edible'. Thus, 'edible' and 'eatable' are synonymous words. We, therefore, cannot accept the contention that 'eatable' was not a correct answer. In our opinion, no reasonable person can take a view that 'eatable' is not a correct answer for 'something which is fit to be eaten'. Sometimes there can be two correct answers to such a question and, therefore, 'edible' as well as 'eatable', both are correct answers. It is correct that ordinarily, the Court should not interfere with the view taken by the Examiner who is supposed to be an expert in the field in which the question paper is set by him, as regards correct answer to the question set by him, but, when the view taken by the Board conducting an examination is not only wholly unreasonable but also perverse in the sense that no reasonable person could have taken such a view, it is, in our opinion, be open to the Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to interfere with such a decision of the Board, so that there is no miscarriage of justice on account of a wholly unreasonable and untenable view taken by the concerned Board. When a writ Court finds an arbitrary and irrational exercise of power, resulting in denial of a legal right to a citizen, the Court would be failing to discharge its constitutional obligation to protect the legal rights of the citizens by refusing to interfere in the matter solely on the ground that the decision taken by the Board was based upon the answer framed by the examiner who set the question paper. The Board, in our view, in such a situation, should have independently applied its mind to the issue which arose in this matter and should have independently examine the answer given by the respondent no.1 so as to ensure that no injustice was caused to him. Since the Board entrusted with the task of conducting examination failed to adopt such a course of action and the view taken by the appellants with respect to the answer given by the respondent no.1 is found to be arbitrary, irrational and wholly unjustified, it would not be appropriate for us to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge in favour of the respondent no.1.