JAYASREE P.R. v. COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC & INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH, HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT GROUP (EXAMINATION UNIT), CSIR, NEW DELHI & UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 7863 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER/S:** JAYASREE P.R AGED 35 YEARS SREENANDANAM, KALPAKA GARDEN, KOLAZHI P.O, THRISSUR PIN 680 010 BY ADVS. ADARSH S. V.N.SUBHANGAN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC & INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, EXAMINATION UNIT, CSIR COMPLEX, LIBRARY AVENUE, PUSA, NEW DELHI, PIN 110 012 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2 DEPUTY SECRETARY (EXAM) COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH, HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, EXAMINATION UNIT, CSIR COMPLEX, LIBRARY AVENUE, PUSA, NEW DELHI PIN 110 012 3 UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BAHADUR SHAH SAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI PIN 110 002 BY ADVS. S.MANU S.SIKKY SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ADV. JAYESH K. UNNIKRISHNAN AND SIKKY RAVISANKAR FOR R1,2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31.08.2022, THE COURT ON 25.10.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.7863 of 2022 -2- ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 25[th] day of October, 2022 The petitioner has acquired the qualification, M.Sc in Physics and B.Ed in Physical Science. She also qualified for the State Eligibility Test (SET) and has cleared the exam for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor of Physics in the Collegiate Education Department conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission in January 2021. Prior to that, on 18.12.2016, the petitioner had appeared for the CSIR-UGC Test conducted by the first respondent for Junior Research Fellowship and Eligibility for Lectureship (National Eligibility Test-NET). In that exam, question papers for the Physical Sciences test were distributed in three different codes, viz, 5A, 5B and 5C. The petitioner was given the question booklet with Code No.5C. The ## W.P.(C) No.7863 of 2022 -3- total marks for the exam was 200, and the question papers were divided into three parts. Part A questions carried two marks each, Part B questions, 3.5 marks each, and Part C questions, 5 marks each. 25% of the marks were to be deducted for wrong answers. The petitioner’s grievance is regarding the multiple choice answers given for question number 75 in Part C, extracted hereunder; _"75. What should be the minimum energy of a photon for it to split an a-particle at rest into a tritium and proton ? (The masses of '4He, ³H and 'H1 are 4.0026 amu, 3.0161 amu and 1.0073 2 amu, respectively and 1 amu = 938 MeV)_ _1. 32.2 MeV_ _2.3 MeV_ _3. 19.3 MeV_ _4.931.5 MeV"_ 2. According to the petitioner, the correct answer to the question is 19.56 MeV. Since 19.56 ## W.P.(C) No.7863 of 2022 -4- MeV was not included among the choices, petitioner chose the nearest correct answer _viz_ ; answer number -3, 19.3 MeV. In Ext.P5 provisional answer key published by the first respondent, 19.3 MeV was shown as the correct answer. But, to the petitioner’s dismay, in Ext.P5 final answer key, the correct answer for question No.75 was altered as answer No.1, 32.2 MeV, instead of 19.3 MeV. Thereby, the petitioner secured only 33.56% marks, as against the cut off mark of 34.09%. According to the petitioner, if had option No.3 been accepted or question No.75 deleted, the petitioner would have secured the cut off percentage. In spite of the mistake in the final answer key being pointed out with the aid of expert opinion, the objection was not taken into consideration. Hence, the petitioner, along with two others, filed W.P.(C) No.11673 of 2017. When that writ petition came up for consideration, it W.P.(C) No.7863 of 2022 -5- was submitted that an identical challenge was considered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the first respondent directed to call for objections from the examinees. The objections accepted by experts were to be put up on the website, inviting cross objections thereto. The original paper setters were also asked to respond to the objections. The entire materials were then to be referred to different set of independent experts who would then give their opinion on the correctness of the questions/answers and remedial measures to be taken. After this process the revised result was to be published. In the light of the above direction, W.P.(C) No.11673 of 2017 was disposed of by Ext.P10 judgment, holding that the relief granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court will be applicable to the petitioners also. It was also observed that grant of benefits to the petitioners will be subject to orders, if any, to be passed in the appeal filed against the ## W.P.(C) No.7863 of 2022 -6- Single Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 3. Alleging that the first respondent failed to take prompt action in terms of Ext.P10 judgment, the petitioner preferred Contempt Case (C) No.162 of 2021. Thereupon, the first respondent published Ext.P11 notice inviting counter representations to the answer key. The petitioner responded to the notice by submitting Ext.P12 representation. On 11.08.2021, the first respondent published Ext.P13 final notice stating that “the result of the joint CSIR-UGC JRF NET Exam held on 11.08.2021 remains unchanged”. The above decision was taken based on Ext.P14 expert opinion. Aggrieved, this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “ _I) Call for the records leading to Exhibit P6, P7, P13 and P14 and peruse them and quash Exhibit P6 by the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction._ W.P.(C) No.7863 of 2022 -7- _II) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to constitute an Expert Committee which includes the members from Universities like Cochin University of Science and Technology or IIT's / Institute of National Importance, immediately._ _III) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to rectify Exhibit P6 by chosing option No.3 in Exhibit P3 for question No.75 as the correct answer or by deleting that question and accordingly review the result published by it in connection with the NET Examination held on 18.12.2016._ _IV) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to declare the petitioner is having qualified the NET Examination for Physical Sciences held on 18.12.2016.”_ 3. Adv.Adarsh S., learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the first respondent committed gross illegality by refusing to delete the question for which only wrong answers were given as option. In support of this contention, W.P.(C) No.7863 of 2022 -8- reliance is placed on the Apex Court decision in _**- Kanpur University, through Vice Chancellor and others v. Samir Gupta and others [(1983) 4 SCC**_ _**309]**_ . It is contended that, credentials of the expert who gave Ext.P14 opinion was not made available, presumably for the reason that the expert is not an acclaimed person. 4. Adv.Sikky Ravisankar, learned Counsel for the first respondent contended that the writ petition is barred by _res judicat_ a. It is contended that the earlier writ petition, W.P.(C) No.11673 of 2017, was filed for the same reliefs and no cause of action having arisen subsequent to Ext.P10 judgment, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed outright. To buttress this contention, attention is drawn to the relief sought in the earlier writ petition. On merits, it is contended that option No.1 to question No.75 is the correct answer. The provisional W.P.(C) No.7863 of 2022 -9- answer key was reviewed by subject experts and based on their recommendation, option No.3 given was changed to option No.1 while publishing the final answer key. It is pointed out that, as against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Ext.R1(a), the first respondent had filed appeal. In the appeal, the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court passed an order permitting the respondents to publish the result of the examination without adhering to the procedure laid down by the Single Bench. The petitioner had filed Contempt Case before this Court thereafter. Finding substance in the respondent’s stand that its action was based on the Division Bench order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Contempt Case was closed as per Ext.R1(d). It is argued that the scope for interference in academic matters is very limited and as far as the instant case is concerned, the respondent’s action has already been subjected to -10- ## W.P.(C) No.7863 of 2022 judicial scrutiny once and therefore warrants no further interference. 5. The first respondent having raised an objection that the writ petition is barred by _res judicata_ , it is to be considered whether the petitioner is seeking the same reliefs, as in W.P.(C) No.11673 of 2017. The prayers in that writ petition are as follows; “ _i. Call for the records leading to Exts.P12, P13, P14 and P15 and quash Ext.P12 to the extent wrong answer is selected by the CSIR for question No.75 in question booklet No.5C and Exts.P13 to P15 to the extent the petitioners are treated as not qualified in the NET Examination conducted on 18.12.2016, by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction._ _ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to rectify Ext.P12 by choosing option No.3 in Ext.P5_ W.P.(C) No.7863 of 2022 -11- _for question No.75 as the correct answer or by deleting that question and accordingly review the result published by it in connection with the NET Examination held on 18.12.2016._ _iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to declare the petitioners as having qualified the NET Examination for Physical Sciences held on_ _18.12.2016. and_ _iv. grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including the costs of this Writ Petition (Civil).”_ On a comparison of the prayers in both writ petitions, it is seen that in the first writ petition, the prayer was to rectify Ext.P12 by choosing option No.3 as the correct answer to question No.75 or delete that question and to accordingly review the result of the NET Examination held on 18.12.2016. In the instant -12- ## W.P.(C) No.7863 of 2022 writ petition, the second relief is to direct the respondent to constitute an expert committee to include the members from universities like the Cochin University of Science and Technology or IIT’s/Institutes of national importance. The other difference is that in the instant writ petition, Ext.P14 expert opinion is also under challenge. Even if it is accepted that Ext.P14 gives rise to a fresh cause of action, this Court will not be justified in interfering with Ext.P14, since academic matters are best left to the opinion of academicians and subject experts. Moreover, the directions in Ext.R1(a) judgment having been interfered by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by permitting the first respondent to declare the result of the test subject to the outcome of the appeal, it is inappropriate to consider the challenge against the declaration of result in a fresh writ petition, since, Ext.P10 judgment was rendered ## W.P.(C) No.7863 of 2022 -13- based entirely on the Single Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 7. No doubt, in _**Samir Gupta**_ , the Supreme Court has held that answers to multiple choice objective type questions should be clear and unequivocal and if ambiguity in a question is pointed out, prompt and timely decision must be taken to exclude the suspect question from the paper and not to assign any marks for that question. At the same time, contention based on the above decision cannot be entertained in the present proceedings since, relief based on the very same contention was sought in the first writ petition. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- ## **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/ W.P.(C) No.7863 of 2022 -14- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7863/2022** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|PETITIONER EXHIBITS| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED| ||BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P2|A TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET OF THE| ||PETITIONER.| |Exhibit P3|A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF| ||THE QUESTION BOOKLET WITH THE CODE NO| ||5C OF THE PETITIONER.| |Exhibit P4|A TRUE COPY OF THE CARBON COPY OF THE| ||ANSWER SHEET OF THE PETITIONER.| |Exhibit P5|A TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ANSWER| ||KEY| |Exhibit P6|A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ANSWER KEY| ||PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENT CSIR| |Exhibit P7|A TRUE COPY OF THE MARK STATEMENT OF| ||THE PETITIONER| |Exhibit P8|A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION| ||DATED 30-03-2017 FILED BY THE| ||PETITIONER TO THE CHAIRMAN, CSIR/NET| ||-JRF EXAM UNIT| |Exhibit P9|A TRUE COPY OF THE OPINION GIVEN BY| ||DR. RAMESH BABU THAYYULLATHIL.| |Exhibit P10|A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE| ||W.P9C0NO. 11673/2017 (H) DATED 20-02-| ||2020| |Exhibit P11|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BY THE| ||RESPONDENT CSIR DATED 05-08-2021| |Exhibit P12|A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION| ||GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE| ||RESPONDENT ON 06-08-2021| |Exhibit P13|A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL NOTICE BY THE| ||RESPONDENT CSIR DATED 11-08-2021| |Exhibit P14|A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERT OPINION| ||PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENT CSIR| |Exhibit P15|COPY OF THE APPEAL CASE DETAILS FROM| ||THE HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH| -15- ## W.P.(C) No.7863 of 2022 ## COURT ||COURT| |---|---| |Exhibit P16|COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE| ||JUDGMENT DIR CENT MARINE FISHERIES RES| ||INST AND ORS VERSUS A KANAKKAN AND ORS| |Exhibit P16|COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE| ||EMAIL POLICY OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA| |RESPONDENT EXHIBITS|| |Exhibit R1(a)|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF PUNJAB &| ||HARIYANA COURT IN CWP NO.8015/2017| ||DATED 28.09.2017.| |Exhibit R1(b)|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF HON'BLE| ||DIVISION BENCH OF THE PUNJAB &| ||HARIYANA HIGH COURT IN LPA 2243/17| ||DATED 4.12.2017.| |Exhibit R1(c)|TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THIS| ||RESPONDENT IN CCC NO.162/2021 OF THIS| ||HON'BLE COURT DATED 12.08.21.| |Exhibit R1(d)|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CCC| ||NO.162/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT| ||DATED 29.10.2021.| |Exhibit R1(e)|TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN WPC| ||NO.11673/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT| ||DATED 1.4.2017 WITHOUT EXHIBITS.| |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |Exhibit P15|COPY OF THE APPEAL CASE DETAILS FROM| ||THE HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH| ||COURT|