Sanjay Kumar Bharti v. University Grants Commission & Anr

1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.10.2015 in CMNo.20012/2015 in W.P.(C)No.5667/2014.

2. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant herein praying inter alia to direct University Grants Commission (UGC) to issue a NET Certificate to him after re-evaluatioh of his answer sheets in the NET Examination conducted by UGC in June, 2012. The contention wasthat the LPA895/2015 Page I of[4] 2015:DHC:11342 I answer keys to the questions mentioned therein were wrong and ihat-UGC had erroneously rejected his representation purportedly on the bjasis of a report ofan Expert Committee. The said writqDetition was heard along with W.P.(C) No.4326/2014 filed by a similarly situated person and both the writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by comnjion order dated 29.04.2015 directing the UGC to reconsider the representations ofthe writ petitioners and dispose of the same after obtaining the vi(jw of an expert, ifnecessary. Itwas also observed that UGC may consider excluding Question Nos. 11 and 48 for the purpose of evaluating the petitioners. In pursuance thereof, the UGC having reconsidered the representation of the petitioners passed a fi'esh order rejecting the representation of the writ petitioner/appellant herein. Thereafter, the appellant herein moved CM No.20012/2015 seeking clarification of the order of the learhed Single Judgedated29.04.2015 andseekingadirectiontoUGCtoexcludejQuestion Nos.11 and 48 for the purpose of evaluating the marks ofthe petitioner. The ! contention was that despite the specific direction by this court tja exclude Question Nos.l1and 48, UGC failed to do so and rejected his representation simply reiterating its earlier sta;nd.

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed CM No.20012/2015 by order dated 16.10.2015 observing: "The"dispute regarding whether the answers providejd in the answer keys are correct or not cannot be sutyect matter of examination under Article 226 of! the Constitution of India. This Court had clarified that! the examination would be limited to the decision making process and in the present case the UGC had followed an I LPA 895/2015 Page[2] of[4] " I. elaborate and fair process of rectifying any errors in the answer keys. This Court is also of the opinion that the answers to the question as contended by the applicant were preferable and perhaps correct. However, the expert committee of UGC does not share the said opinion. In my view that would be the end of the matter as the scope ofthe present proceedings does not extend to adjudicating the correctness of the answers provided by the Expert Committee. Thus notwithstanding that this Court feels that the answers provided by the petitioners to the concerned questions are preferable to the ones as insisted by the Expert Committee of UGC, no further interference is called for. No clarification, as sought for, is required. The application is, accordingly, dismissed." 4., Admittedly, the order in the main writ petition dated 29.04.2015 has become final and the same has also been acted upon. The only ground upon which CM No.20012/2015 came to be filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein was that the specific direction in the order dated 29.04.2015 to exclude Question Nos.l 1 and 48 forthe purpose of evaluating the petitioners has been wrongly interpreted by UGC as a mere observation and thus despite the said direction the Expert Committee of UGC has reiterated its earlier stand. Hence, the clarification as mentioned above was sought.

5. The learned Single Judge dismissed the application holding that no clarification as sought for is required. It was also heldby the learned Single Judge that the writ proceedings does not-extend to adjudicating the correctness of the answers provided by the Expert Committee. The conclusion of the learned Single Judge is basedon the settled principles LPA 895/2015 oflaw and cannot be found fault with on any ground whatsoever. At any rate, since the learned Single Judge himselfmade it clear thatthe order dated 29.04.2015 needs no clarification, the matter. deserves no further consideration, particularly, by way ofan appeal under Letters Patent.

6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed...

JUSTICE DECEMBER 11,2015 'anb' LPA 895/2015 RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW, J Page 4 of[4]