Delhi High Court Dismisses UPSC Aspirant’s Petition
Whereas dismissing a petition of a Civil Companies aspirant who claimed that just a few questions in CSE 2023 have been out of syllabus, the Delhi Excessive Court docket has noticed that the discovering by the Court docket {that a} query is out of syllabus, can hardly be returned, save and besides in essentially the most distinctive circumstances. The query have to be obviously out of the syllabus.
The petitioner, Pranav Pandey, approached the Excessive Court docket below Article 226 of the Structure, difficult the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing his unique utility.
The Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul stated, “In truth we’re of the opinion {that a} discovering by the Court docket {that a} query is out of syllabus, can hardly be returned, save and besides in essentially the most distinctive circumstances. The query have to be obviously out of syllabus. As long as it’s broadly throughout the syllabus prescribed, even when it’s a query which is unusually tough or one which nobody besides a pupil of extraordinary capability would be capable of try, that can’t be an element for the Court docket to declare the inclusion of the query as unlawful, or meriting judicial interference.”
Advocate Sandeep S. Tiwari represented the Petitioner whereas Advocate Ravinder Agarwal represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The Civil Companies Examination is carried out by the Union Public Service Fee for entrance into numerous civil providers below the Authorities of India. The Civil Companies Aptitude Take a look at is qualifying in nature, and to qualify for additional consideration for choice, a candidate is required to attain not less than 33% marks within the CSAT. The petitioner was an aspirant for the Civil Companies and, subsequently, underwent the CSE 2023. He was not profitable in getting chosen for recruitment to the Civil Companies. He, thereupon, instituted the Authentic Utility difficult the query papers for each Paper I and Paper II (CSAT).
The Petitioner sought a route to the UPSC to conduct a re-examination or enable a compensatory try to all candidates, and additionally to have the questions in Paper I and Paper II, examined by an professional. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the appliance by relying upon its determination in Siddharth Mishra v UPSC (2023).
Reasoning
The Bench defined that challenges to query papers or to mannequin reply keys fall into two classes. One class is of these circumstances by which the advised reply is challenged as being incorrect. The second class of circumstances is these by which it’s argued that the questions are out of the syllabus. Within the current case, this problem had additionally been raised by the petitioner, however regarding Paper II.
Coming to the primary class of circumstances by which it is argued that there’s multiple right reply to a query, the Bench stated, “Even in such circumstances, the Court docket have to be happy past any doubt, that the query and the advised solutions are unacceptable, because the advised reply as both incorrect, or it isn’t the one right reply. If a transparent case in that regard is made out, the Court docket has to grant reduction, and can’t then conceal behind the cloak of circumspection. The place there’s some extent of ambiguity, or whether or not it isn’t attainable to say with certainty that the advised right reply will not be the precise right reply, the Court docket wouldn’t substitute its subjective view for the view of the examiners or the individuals who had set query paper. In that occasion, the Court docket should defer to their knowledge as the knowledge of specialists.”
With respect to the objection raised with respect to Paper-1, the Bench noticed that it’s equally open to the paper setter, as a substitute, to require the candidate to establish the variety of right choices among the many choices supplied, as within the current case. “The mere proven fact that, in the latter case, all candidates who reply by stating that solely one of many advised choices is right, can be equal marked, no matter whether or not they knew which the right possibility was, is not any floor for the Court docket to strike down the query”, it stated whereas additionally including, “We, subsequently, discover no substance within the problem raised by the petitioner in as far as Paper I is involved. A Court docket can not even recommend, a lot much less intrude with, the way in which questions are framed in a query paper, as long as there isn’t any ambiguity within the query or the solutions supplied.”
With respect to Paper-II, the Petitioner contended that Query numbers 19 and 26 have been out of the syllabus. On a perusal of the questions below problem vis-à-vis the syllabus prescribed, the Bench held that the questions weren’t out of the syllabus. As per the Bench, the mere proven fact that some questions may additionally determine in textbooks for increased lessons or at higher-level research textbooks, or be requested in different aggressive examinations, doesn’t point out that the questions are out of the syllabus.
“It’s a well-known proven fact that the CSE entails lakhs of scholars. Within the CSE 2023, it’s averred that over six lakhs college students appeared. When setting a paper for over six lakhs college students, it can’t be presumed that every one college students can be of the identical normal or would have a standard syllabus. Moreover, the extent of problem of the paper may additionally be increased, in view of the variety of candidates making an attempt it. A point of play within the joints has, subsequently, to be granted to the authorities who set the paper”, it noticed.
Thus, discovering no purpose to intrude with the impugned judgment, the Bench dismissed the Petition.
Trigger Title: Pranav Pandey v. Union Public Service Fee (Impartial Quotation: 2025:DHC:5189-DB)
Look
Petitioner: Advocates Sandeep S. Tiwari, Nikhil Joshi
Respondent: Advocates Ravinder Agarwal, Manish Kumar Singh
