Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: August 22, 2023
43093/2023 SIDDHARTH MISHRA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Saaket Jain and Ms. Shivangi Anand, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Mr. Shauryanker Kaushik and Ms. Shikha John, Advocates for UOI.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA V. KAMESWAR RAO (Oral)
CM APPLs. 43092/2023 and 43093/2023 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
JUDGMENT
1. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to an order dated August 03, 2023, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (‘Tribunal’ for short) in O.A. No. 1782/2023, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioners.
2. The facts as noted from the record are that the petitioners were Civil Service aspirants and had participated in the Civil Services Examiniation- 2023 (CSE-2023) conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). The examination, conducted in three stages is yet to be concluded. The petitioners have participated only in the first stage, which is the preliminary examination.
3. Their grievance before the Tribunal was that General Studies Paper-II or the Civil Services Aptitude Test (CSAT), which forms one of the two papers in the preliminary examination contains a large number of questions, which were not in accordance with the syllabus notified for the said examination. It was also their case that the CSAT/Paper-II is only qualifying in nature, however, the implications are that only those candidates who qualify in this paper, are considered for position in the merit on the basis of the marks obtained in Paper-I. According to them, this essentially means that no matter how well they will perform in Paper-I, if they did not meet the qualifying marks prescribed for Paper-II, they would be virtually out of the competition. It was also represented that the qualifying marks in CSAT Paper-II are 33%. It was also elaborated by them before the Tribunal that the syllabus for the CSAT/Paper-II is supposed to be of Class X Level Arithmetic/ Mathematics, whereas a large number of questions asked in the said paper related to Commutation, Permutation and Combination, which is not a subject taught in Class X, and infact the questions generally were those put forth to evaluate the candidates for admission in higher engineering institutions like IITs, etc. The paper being in contravention to the syllabus that has been notified, has severely impaired the prospects of the candidates to compete on their own merits in the Civil Services Examination without having to be subjected to discrimination, as students with humanities background would face unreasonable disadvantage.
4. The case of the respondent before the Tribunal was that the question paper for CSAT was set up by a committee of experts and their wisdom and knowledge cannot be questioned in a legal forum through judicial review. It was also their case that more than six lakh candidates have participated in the CSE-2023, whereas only 15 persons, who are applicants before the Tribunal, have aired their grievance qua the said examination. It was the case of the UPSC that the examination has been conducted strictly in accordance with the rules and instructions governing its conduct and also in a transparent, fair and objective manner. It was also stated, no malafide has been alleged or speculated as far as the conduct of the respondents in conducting the said examination is concerned.
5. UPSC had also justified the qualifying marks of 33%, having been prescribed in accordance with rules governing the examination and hence, the petitioners cannot seek the change of the cut off percentage to 23% for their convenience.
6. The Tribunal while dismissing the O.A. has in paragraphs 18 to 26 stated as under:
7. Even today, the learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the stand taken by the petitioners before the Tribunal, inasmuch, as the respondent despite notifying the syllabus as Class X level Mathematics, has asked questions, which were of Class XI & XII level. In that sense, they have contravened the very notification by which they have prescribed Class X syllabus for CSAT/Paper-II. His submission is primarily that persons with Humanities as a background did not had a level playing field, qua those candidates with Science background, having pursued mathematics and even engineering. According to him, it is in this background that the petitioners had suggested to the Tribunal to constitute a committee, to look into CSAT/Paper-II, to ensure that the questions which were asked, were as per the syllabus. He also states, this would ensure that every candidate has a level playing field.
8. On a specific query to the learned counsel for the petitioners, as to whether all the candidates are from Humanities background, he would state on instructions, out of 15 petitioners, petitioner no. 1 has an Engineering qualification, petitioner no. 4 has qualification in History, petitioner no. 6 has qualification in Commerce, petitioner no. 8 has qualification in Mathematics, petitioner no. 13 has qualification in Sociology, petitioner no. 14 has qualification in Political Science and petitioner no. 15 has qualification in Commerce.
9. As per the information given with regard to seven petitioners, it is clear that all of them do not belong to Humanities background. Infact, we find that two of the petitioners are from Engineering and Mathematics background.
10. If that be so, the case set up by the petitioners that they did not had a level playing field in the CSAT Exam, cannot be accepted.
11. We agree with the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal in paragraphs 22, 23, 24 & 25, which we have already reproduced above.
12. Before the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the UPSC had referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ranjan Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2014) 16 SCC 187; Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 85; Ashok Kumar & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2017) 4 SCC 357; and Union of India & Ors. v. Mahendra Singh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 909. The Tribunal had rightly observed that the said judgments restrain judicial bodies/fora from interfering with competitive selection processes merely on the ground that some of the candidates may have questioned the selection process or the syllabus of the examination, even though they had voluntarily participated in the examination. It is not for this Court to examine or question the wisdom of the panel of experts that has prepared the question paper, and re-assess the relative merits of the questions. This Court cannot sit in appeal against the considered decision of such a panel of academic experts, unless such decision is demonstrated to be manifestly arbitrary, malafide or illegal. Such is not the case here. The only ground set up by the petitioners to attack the question paper is that some questions were of Class XI & XII level. Suffice it to state, the decision as to what questions need to be included in the paper, and what should be the nature and complexion of such questions, necessarily remains in the exclusive domain of the panel of academic experts. Such a decision cannot be assailed before us in judicial review, only on the ground that some questions were out of syllabus.
13. For the reasons stated above, we do not see any merit in the petition. The petition and the connected application are dismissed. No costs.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J. August 22, 2023