U.P.P.S.C., THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN & ANR versus RAHUL SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 5 S.C.R. 28 · Decided: 14-06-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
28
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
U.P.P.S.C., THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN & ANR.
v.
RAHUL SINGH & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 5838 of 2018)
JUNE 14, 2018
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
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]
[2018] 5 S.C.R. 28
28
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
29
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.
Case Law Reference
[1984] 1 SCR 73
referred to
 Para 10
(2018) 2 SCC 357
referred to
 Para 11
U.P.P.S.C., THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN v. RAHUL SINGH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5838
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.03.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-A No. 4734 of 2018.
WITH
C. A. Nos. 5839, 5840-5842 of 2018.
Maninder Singh, ASG, Ankit Yadav, Shrish Kumar Misra, Badri
Prasad Singh, Satend

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.