Writ Jurisdiction Can't Be Invoked To Check Correctness Of 'Answer Key', Purely Academic Matter: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that the correctness of an answer key cannot be considered under the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution since it is a purely academic matter.Justice T R Ravi stated that the High Court would not sit over in an appeal against the decision of an expert committee that evaluated the correctness of an answer key prepared by the...
The Kerala High Court has held that the correctness of an answer key cannot be considered under the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution since it is a purely academic matter.
Justice T R Ravi stated that the High Court would not sit over in an appeal against the decision of an expert committee that evaluated the correctness of an answer key prepared by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
“The question regarding the correctness or otherwise of an answer key is a purely academic matter which is not an aspect that can be reviewed in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court had on the earlier occasion directed consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner and others, and pursuant to the judgment of this Court a committee of experts had been appointed to go into the question. It is thereafter that Ext.P1 report has been prepared. This Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision of the expert body.”
The petitioner is a UGC/NET candidate who appeared for an examination conducted by the University Grants Commission (UGC). The petitioner stated that there were several anomalies in questions and the answer key published and a writ petition was also filed. That writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the UGC to consider the petitioner's representation and afford an opportunity to hear.
Pursuant to the judgment, a three-member committee was formed which submitted a report regarding the questions and the answer key. Based on this report by the expert committee, the petitioner's grievances were considered, and reliefs were rejected. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has approached the Court challenging the findings of the report submitted by the expert committee.
The Court stated that it would not evaluate the correctness of the report prepared by the expert committee. It stated that the High Court being a Constitutional Court cannot sit over in appeal over the decision of an administrative authority for mere disagreement.
“It is also settled law that the Court while exercising its power of judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process and not the decision as such and a mere disagreement with the decision-making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional court to interfere”, stated the Court.
The Court concluded by stating that it would not interfere in the decision-making process or the decision of an administrative authority unless there is malafide, favoritism, arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates R.Sanjith, C.S.Sindhu Krishnah, Alex John Pulimood
Counsel for Respondents: Central Government Counsel T C Krishna, Advocates H Subhalekshmi, S. Krishnamoorthy S, Nirmal S
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 285
Case Title: Sindhu B S v Union of India
Case Number: W.P.(C). No.21640 of 2023