SINDHU B.S. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a candidate who appeared in the UGC/NET during December 2020 and June 2021 cycles for the subject 'Computer Science and Applications' conducted by the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, there were several anomalies in the questions and the answer key published. The petitioner along with two others had filed WP(C) No.9359/2022, which was disposed of by this Court directing the respondents to consider Ext.P17 representation submitted by the petitioners therein and adverting to Exts.P3 to P14 produced in the said writ petition and decide after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Ext.P4 is the judgment in WP(C) No.9359/2022. Pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment, the 3rd respondent formed a three-member committee which has submitted Ext.P1 report. Ext.P1 report would show that during verification of the provisional answer keys, the Subject Experts have opined to drop question ID 2366 and 2478, which were dropped. Regarding question ID 2439, the petitioners' claim that there could be two answers for the same question, was rejected as erroneous. Regarding question ID 2365, it was noted that the challenge had been rejected by the Subject Experts, that no change was made in the answer key, that petitioners 1 and 2 in the earlier writ petition had answered the question correctly, and hence no such issue arose. Regarding question ID 2433, the Subject Experts had observed that there is a difference between the English and Hindi versions, and it would not affect the petitioner who had opted for English as the medium of answering the question. Concerning question ID Nos.2477, 2395, 2345 and 2470, the Committee noted that though no challenges had been received against the said questions, the Subject Experts had examined the same and found that the claim of the candidates against the final answer key is wrong, and the relief sought for by the petitioners in the earlier writ petition was liable to be rejected.

(2.) The petitioner has now challenged the findings in the report. One of the main contentions put forward is that with regard to question ID No.2439, regarding who developed the 'Swayam platform', option ID 9754 which says MHRD and Microsoft, is correct, and not option ID 9753 which says MHRD and Google. The petitioner produced Ext.P11 to submit that 'Swayam' was indigenously developed by MHRD ' AICTE with the help of Microsoft. The Subject Experts opined that as per the official website of "Swayam', the current 'Swayam' platform was developed by the Ministry of Education and NPTEL, IIT Madras with the help of Google and persistent system and that is why the option was changed from option ID 9754 to 9753. The respondents have produced the relevant page of the 'Swayam' platform as Ext.R3(a). The respondents have also submitted that Ext.P11 was not placed before the Subject Experts and such materials cannot be relied on at this stage in the writ petition.

(3.) The question regarding the correctness or otherwise of an answer key is a purely academic matter which is not an aspect that can be reviewed in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court had on the earlier occasion directed consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner and others, and pursuant to the judgment of this Court a committee of experts had been appointed to go into the question. It is thereafter that Ext.P1 report has been prepared. This Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision of the expert body [See the judgment in HP Public Service Commission V. Mukesh Thakur and others (2010) 6 SCC 759 and Ram Vijay Singh and Others V. State of U.P and Others (2018) 2 SCC 857. It is also settled law that the Court while exercising its power of judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process and not the decision as such and a mere disagreement with the decision-making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional court to interfere. [See Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd. [(2016) 16 SCC 818], Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v. Port of Bombay [(1989) 3 SCC 293], Tata Cellular v. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 651] and Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa [(2007) 14 SCC 517].