Supreme Court Upholds Selection List Based on 2nd Answer Key in Teacher Recruitment Case: Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2020)

Date of the Judgment: December 7, 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 686
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Hemant Gupta, J., Ajay Rastogi, J.
Can a High Court interfere with the recommendations of an expert committee regarding answer keys in a public service examination? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the recruitment of Senior Teachers in Rajasthan. The Court upheld the selection list prepared on the basis of the second answer key, emphasizing that courts should not re-evaluate or scrutinize answer sheets, as academic matters are best left to academics. This judgment clarifies the extent of judicial review in such cases. The bench comprised Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, and Ajay Rastogi, with the judgment authored by Justice L. Nageswara Rao.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute arising from the recruitment process for Senior Teachers (Grade II) in Social Science in Rajasthan. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) issued an advertisement on July 13, 2016, for the selection of 9,551 Senior Teachers in various subjects, including Social Science. Written examinations were conducted on May 1, 2017, and July 2, 2017, for General Knowledge and Social Science, respectively. Following the exams, the RPSC released a first answer key on February 6, 2018, and declared the results.

Some candidates, including the Appellants, were initially included in the list of selected candidates. However, their appointments were withheld due to defects in their application forms. Subsequently, on April 25, 2018, a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, ordered the reconsideration of three questions from the first answer key by an Expert Committee. Similarly, on May 5, 2018, a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench, referred eight more questions for reconsideration by an Expert Committee.

The Expert Committee revised the answer keys for two questions in Social Science and one in General Knowledge. Consequently, a revised merit list was released on September 17, 2018, based on this second answer key. The Appellants’ names were not included in this revised list.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

A Division Bench of the High Court was hearing an appeal against the order of a Single Judge of the Jodhpur Bench, where the appellants had challenged the correctness of 33 questions. The Division Bench, on March 12, 2019, examined the questions and concluded that the answers to five questions were incorrect. The court directed the RPSC to revise the select list, but limited the benefit of this revision only to the appellants before them.

Subsequently, on March 13, 2019, a Single Judge of the Jaipur Bench directed the deletion of ineligible candidates from the select list and the issuance of a revised list. The RPSC published a third answer key on April 8, 2019, but the benefit of this revision was given only to the appellants in the aforementioned Division Bench case. The revised select list was issued on May 21, 2019, excluding ineligible candidates, based on the second answer key. A waiting list was also prepared on May 22, 2019, based on the second answer key.

The Appellants challenged the revised select list, arguing that it should have been based on the third answer key. The Division Bench, in its order dated July 24, 2019, set aside the interim order in favor of the Appellants and upheld the select list based on the second answer key. The Supreme Court was then approached by the Appellants.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the scope of judicial review in academic matters, particularly concerning the evaluation of answer keys in public service examinations. The Supreme Court relied on previous judgments to establish the principle that courts should be hesitant to interfere with the recommendations of expert committees in academic matters.

The Court emphasized that it is not within the purview of the High Court to examine question papers and answer sheets, especially when the Commission has already assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. The Court also referred to the principle that re-evaluation of answer sheets should only be directed if the rules permit, and that sympathy or compassion should not play a role in directing or not directing re-evaluation.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The Appellants argued that the Division Bench of the High Court should not have restricted the benefit of its judgment dated March 12, 2019, only to the appellants in that case.
• They contended that if the third answer key had been applied to all candidates, they would have been included in the list of 124 candidates prepared on May 21, 2019.
• The Appellants submitted that the waiting list should also have been prepared on the basis of the third answer key, not the second.
• They also suggested that there were existing vacancies that could be filled by appointing them.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The State of Rajasthan argued that the selection process was already delayed due to prolonged litigation and that the select list prepared on the basis of the second answer key should be final.
• They submitted that the benefit of the Division Bench’s judgment dated March 12, 2019, was specifically extended only to the 21 appellants in that case.
• The RPSC argued that the merit list was prepared based on the directions of the High Court and that no interference was warranted. They stated that a revised select list was prepared on the basis of the second answer key, and appointments had already been made.
• Contesting respondents argued that the Appellants were “fence-sitters” and not entitled to any relief. They supported the High Court’s decision to restrict the benefit of the judgment to the appellants in the earlier case.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the revised select list dated May 21, 2019, ought to have been prepared on the basis of the second answer key.
2. Whether the waitlist should have been prepared on the basis of the third answer key and not the second answer key.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr. [CITATION]: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that it is not within the purview of the High Court to examine question papers and answer sheets.
• Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors. [CITATION]: This case was used to emphasize that courts should defer to the recommendations of expert committees.
• Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [CITATION]: The Court used this case to support the principle that courts should not re-evaluate answer sheets as they lack expertise in academic matters.
• Richal & Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. [CITATION]: The Court distinguished this case, clarifying that it had not entered into the correctness of the questions and answers by itself.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that courts should not interfere with expert opinions in academic matters. The Court emphasized that it is not within the purview of the judiciary to assess the correctness of questions and answers in examinations. The Court also highlighted the adverse effects of prolonged litigation on public appointments, leading to delays and administrative issues. The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the need to maintain the integrity of the selection process and avoid unsettling appointments already made.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the principle of judicial restraint in academic matters and the need to respect the expertise of expert committees. The Court also considered the practical implications of its decision, aiming to avoid further delays in the appointment process.

Sentiment Analysis

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was predominantly based on legal principles and precedents, with a lesser emphasis on the specific factual details of the case.

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court considered the alternative interpretation that the select list should be revised based on the third answer key, as directed by the Division Bench of the High Court. However, the Court rejected this interpretation, holding that the Division Bench had erred in re-evaluating the answer keys itself. The Court emphasized that it is not within the purview of the judiciary to assess the correctness of questions and answers in examinations. The Court also considered the practical implications of its decision, aiming to avoid further delays in the appointment process.

The Court’s decision was that the revised select list dated May 21, 2019, and the waitlist dated May 22, 2019, prepared on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key, were valid. The Court did not interfere with the appointments already made and directed the RPSC to complete the selection process within 8 weeks.

The Court stated, “Though re-evaluation can be directed if rules permit, this Court has deprecated the practice of re-evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the courts which lack expertise in academic matters.”

The Court also noted, “It is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when the Commission has assessed the inter se merit of the candidates.”

Further, the Court observed, “The delay in finalization of appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a long period of time.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench unanimously agreed on the judgment.

Key Takeaways

• Courts should exercise restraint when reviewing academic matters, especially the evaluation of answer keys in public service examinations.
• Expert committees’ recommendations in academic matters should be given deference by the courts.
• Re-evaluation of answer sheets by the courts is generally not permissible, unless rules permit.
• Prolonged litigation in public appointments causes delays and affects administration.
• The integrity of the selection process should be maintained, and appointments already made should not be unsettled unless absolutely necessary.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the RPSC and the State Government to fill up the existing vacancies from the waitlist in accordance with the merits of the candidates. The selection process, which was stalled due to an interim order, was to be completed within 8 weeks from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that courts should not interfere with the recommendations of expert committees in academic matters, particularly in the evaluation of answer keys in public service examinations. The judgment reinforces the principle that courts should exercise restraint and defer to the expertise of academic bodies. This case does not change the previous positions of law, but rather reaffirms the existing principles of judicial review in academic matters.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the select list and waitlist prepared by the RPSC based on the second answer key. The Court emphasized the need for judicial restraint in academic matters and the importance of respecting the recommendations of expert committees. The judgment aims to streamline the selection process and avoid further delays in public appointments.