Nandita v. National Testing Agency and Ors.

8. In this regard, it is submitted by the petitioner that the NTA in its final answer key has given option 2 as the correct answer, however, option 2 cannot be the correct answer since the question in itself is wrong. In this regard, the petitioner has given the following Explanation: “i In this question GPP (i.e. Gross Primary Productivity) is asked for third trophic level but GPP term doesn't apply for third trophic level. ii. GPP is applicable to only first trophic level (producers). And in NCERT it is mentioned that secondary productivity term is used for consumers. iii. This is not a mathematical question; this is a biology ecology question and GPP term can't be used for third trophic level.”

9. On the basis of the above-mentioned grounds and reasons, the petitioner prays that the present petition be allowed.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 i.e. NTA submits that in terms of Chapter 14.[2] of the Information Bulletin, the NTA had displayed the Scanned images of OMR Answer Sheets and Recorded Responses of NEET (UG)- 2024 of all the candidates, including the petitioner, along with Provisional Answer Keys on its website. It is also submitted that through Public Notices to the same effect, all candidates were informed about an opportunity to make online challenge against the Provisional Answer Key, by paying a non-refundable processing fee of Rs. 200/- per answer challenged, within the stipulated time period. It is also stated that the challenges/objections so received, are then placed before the respective subject experts of NTA who examine the same exhaustively and if the subject experts, on examining the objections, find merit in it, then on the advice of the subject experts, the NTA modifies its answer key accordingly and gives appropriate benefit to the candidates. However, if the subject experts are of the view that the answer contained in the answer key is a correct answer, no modification in the answer key is carried out.

11. It is admitted on behalf of the NTA that the petitioner herein had challenged two questions i.e. question numbers 104 and 149, which are also the subject matter of present writ petition. However, it is argued that the subject experts, after examining the objections, had arrived at a conclusion that there was no error in the Answer Key provided by the NTA. Learned counsel states that the opinion of the subject experts, in respect of question numbers 104 and 149, has been mentioned in the counter-affidavit filed by the NTA, as per which there is no merit in the objections raised by the present petitioner.

12. Learned counsel for the NTA argues that the final answer keys are decided by the experts, and the result is declared on the basis of the final/revised Answer Key recommended by the respective subject experts only. It is stated that the candidates including the petitioner herein have been awarded marks based on their actual performance. It is also submitted that as per the initial result declared by the NTA, the petitioner herein had scored 650 out of 720 marks, alongwith an All India Rank of 30136 for counselling. However, pursuant to the order dated 13.06.2024 passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in W.P. (Civil) 368/2024, Re-test was held for candidates on 23.06.2024 and vide Public Notice dated 30.06.2024, revised score card of all the candidates of NEET (UG)-2024 was released by NTA. All India Rank for counselling was also revised while scores of the candidates remained the same. Thereafter, in terms of the directions passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in W.P (Civil) No. 335/2024 on 23.07.2024, re-revised Score Cards have been issued on account of the revision of the Answer Key of NEET (UG)-2024. It is stated that the petitioner herein has now scored 645 out of 720 marks, and has qualified for NEET (UG)-2024 as her score is more than the cut-off declared for the unreserved/general category.

13. It is also submitted on behalf of NTA that there is no provision for rechecking or revaluation of the answer sheets. It is further argued that if there is any difference in the version of the candidate and examination conducting body based on the records, the version of the official examination conducting body ought to be given precedence over the candidate‟s claim and the said version of the examination conducting body is required to be upheld by the Courts. It is stated that in case any other view is taken by this Court, no finality would be achieved to such exams. In this regard, reliance has also been placed on the following decisions: (i) Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth (1984) 4 SCC 27 (ii) Freya Kothari v. Union of India & Others W.P.(C) 13668/2022.

14. This Court has heard arguments addressed by the petitioner, as well as by learned counsel for the NTA, and has perused the material placed on record.

15. The grievance of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that the NTA has erroneously marked the correct options for question numbers 104 and 149, of R[4] Test Booklet, in the NEET (UG)-2024, despite the questions being flawed. The petitioner has given her explanation to these questions, on the strength of which, she submits that there were no correct options to choose in respect of these questions. The NTA, however, has refuted these claims of the petitioner on the basis of opinion given by its subject experts.

16. The attention of this Court has been drawn, by learned counsel for NTA, to the following expert opinion on impugned question number 104: “With respect to Question No. 104 as detailed above, it is submitted that B is wrong statement which states alleles do not show any expression, as alleles shows expression. The Option (A, C, D & E only) has been opined as correct by the Subject Experts, as per NCERT Textbook of Class Xllth (pg. 59).”

17. Thus, the subject experts have opined that Option 1 i.e. ‘A, C, D & E only’ is the correct answer to question number 104.

18. Similarly, the expert opinion in respect of impugned question number 149 reads as under: “With respect to Q. 149 above, it is submitted that the Subject Experts have examined the Question and have opined that the Option: 10x (kcal m-2) yr-1 is correct. It has been opined that in this question the concept like 10% of energy transfer, second law of thermodynamics and the energy flow in an ecosystem through different trophic levels are taken into consideration to test the understanding of the examinee. i. NPP of First Trophic Level is the net GPP of autotrophs transferred to the second trophic level. ii. The GPP of the third trophic level is the transferred energy of GPP of autotrophs to the third tropic level by losing 90% of energy at two trophic levels each and the net energy is transferred to the third trophic level. Since the source of energy for all organisms at all trophic levels is the chemical energy generated by the autotrophs (GPP), the energy transferred from first trophic level to the second trophic level (NPP) is the apparent photosynthesis. So, the GPP referred in the Question for the third trophic level in the photosynthetic energy (GPP) available to the organism after undergoing/following 10% law and the rules of energy flow in an ecosystem. Thus, the value/unit of measurement (kcal m-2) yr-I being the same in all the options of answer, 10x perfectly calculates the amount of productivity available at the third trophic level when the apparent photosynthetic energy (NPP) is 100x at the first trophic level. The said explanation can be better understood by the illustration produced herein below:

19. Thus, it has been opined by the subject experts that Option 2 i.e. ‘10x (kcal m-2) yr-1‟ is the correct answer to question number

149.

20. While examining such matters, the jurisdiction of this Court is circumscribed by the law which is well-settled in this regard, in a catena of pronouncements by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. It is a well-settled position of law that the scope of judicial adjudication and jurisdiction in such matters is limited. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in case of Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta (1983) 4 SCC 309, while dealing with the issue of challenge to an answer key by the students, had observed as under:

21. One may also refer, with advantage, to a decision in case of UPSC v. Rahul Singh (2018) 7 SCC 254. In the said case, too, the candidate was aggrieved with the answer key issued by the authority concerned. In para 12 to 14 of the judgment, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court cautioned all Courts, dealing with such matters, in the following words:

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.” (Emphasis Supplied)

22. In case of Wajda Tabasuum v. NTA, W.P.(C) 1260/2021, the Hon‟ble Apex Court vide order dated 30.11.2021 held that it would be beyond the remit of the Court to conduct an exercise of reassessing the correctness of the solutions, when the same had already been examined by a Committee of three subject experts. The relevant observations of the Hon‟ble Apex Court read as under: “It would be beyond the remit of this Court to conduct an exercise of re-assessing the correctness of the solutions. The first respondent, which is the agency entrusted with the duty of conducting the NEET (UG) 2021 examination, while responding to the apprehensions of the students, had the matter scrutinized again by three subject experts. Hence, it would not be open to this Court to substitute its own view. In the circumstances, having given our anxious consideration to the submission which has been urged on behalf of the petitioners, we are unable to interfere. The petition is accordingly dismissed.”

23. This Court‟s attention was also drawn towards the findings of Coordinate Bench in case of Freya Kothari (supra), where under similar circumstances and while hearing challenge to answer key of some questions of NEET (UG)-2022 Examination, this Court held as under:

papers and deciding the appropriate answers for such questions.

28. It is a matter of fact that various objections raised are duly considered by these experts and final answers are published and there is no material before this Court to doubt the decision taken by such experts.

29. Moreover, this Court is not an expert in the field of medical science to sit over the decision taken by the experts and substitute it with its own wisdom.

30. As noted above, the scope of judicial review in such cases is limited.

31. It can be seen that the questions asked from the candidates are tricky and their answers cannot be argued to be in a straitjacket formula, as sought to be done by the petitioner.”

24. The petitioner, who appeared in person and very ably argued the case, emphasized that answer as suggested by her to question numbers 104 and 149 of R[4] Test Booklet of NEET (UG)-2024 conformed to the NCERT textbooks and therefore have to be taken to be correct. However, as already noted hereinabove, the jurisdiction of this Court in such matters is limited. In this Court‟s opinion, it is not for this Court to re-evaluate the correctness of the answers contained in the answer key or correctness of the question contained in the question paper.

25. This Court is further of the opinion that in cases where the error in the answer key is self-evident, and there can be only one possible answer to it while the answer key suggests another answer, the Court will be within its jurisdiction to interfere, the error being self evident. However, in the present case, a perusal of the questions and answers, with which the petitioner is aggrieved, disclose that the errors in the answers to the questions are not self-evident. Further, if Courts were to proceed into a detailed analysis, reasoning and research on the questions or the answers by perusing text books, reference books etc. and re-analyse the nature of question or the answer, it may be possible that another answer may be possible to a question. This Court, however, is of the considered view that this Court has no jurisdiction to undertake such an exercise, in exercise of the power of judicial review as provided by Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

26. In the present case, it is not disputed that consequent to the receipt of objections, NTA had the issue examined by subject experts. Learned counsel for NTA has submitted that it is not possible to individually respond to various candidates, keeping in mind the number of objections received and the time constraints within which the results are to be announced. However, the expert opinion has been placed before this Court by NTA, which contains the opinion of three subject experts. At the cost of repetition, this Court emphasizes that as per judicial precedents, this Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the decision of the experts regarding the correct answers to the questions.

27. During the course of arguments, the petitioner also prayed for the impugned questions being referred for correct answers to a third party, as has been done by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in case of Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Others W.P. (Civil) No.335/2024 in respect of one question. However, in this Court‟s opinion, as per the judicial precedents and guidelines in this regard laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, once the questions challenged in the present petition have already been dealt with by the concerned Subject Experts of NTA, re-appraisal of the decision of the subject experts is not permissible. It is also to be noted that the question which was referred to an Expert Committee for opinion by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in case of Vanshika Yadav (supra) was on account of NTA treating two options as correct answers to one question, and moreover, that the same had been disputed by more than 13000 students, which is not the case herein.

28. This Court notes that after the subject experts had examined and evaluated the impugned questions, the results have already been declared and the counselling is scheduled to commence from 14.08.2024. Therefore, the results as well as the schedule for counselling cannot be disturbed at this stage, sans any ground to hold that the impugned question numbers 104 and 149 of R[4] Test Booklet of NEET (UG)-2024 are incorrect or the answers thereto, as finalised by the NTA, are incorrect.

29. This Court further reiterates that where the error is not selfevident, the Court cannot reappreciate, reanalyse or reassess for itself the correct answers to the disputed questions. Thus, when the facts of the present case are viewed in the background of the judicial precedents such as the decision of UPSC v. Rahul Singh (supra) and Wajda Tabasuum (supra), this Court is of the opinion that no case for interference by this Court is called for.

30. In view of the above discussion, this Court is unable to allow the present writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed with no orders as to costs. Pending applications also stand dismissed.

31. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J AUGUST 1, 2024