- (1.) The instant Special Appeal is in respect of a judgment and order dated 16th May, 2019, passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ A No. 38804 of 2017 (Randheer Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors.). By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge proceeded to dismiss the writ petition observing that the same lacked merit for reasons stated therein.
(2.) This Special Appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, we are of the view that the only issue which falls for consideration is whether this Court - in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - can interfere for the purpose of judicially reviewing the views expressed by an Expert Committee, which were rendered pursuant to an earlier order of the High Court dated 16th May, 2017, even if the same is contrary to the view of a subject matter expert, being a document at page 60 of the papers before us.
(3.) Before we proceed to answer this issue, we need to take notice of the impugned judgment and order, which is reproduced hereinbelow: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the State. This petition has been preferred assailing the final results declared by the respondents for the post of Assistant Engineer (Trainee) Electronics and Telecommunication. A further writ is sought for constitution of an Expert Committee of renowned experts from different top Indian Universities, who may revisit the questions objected to by the petitioner. Undisputedly the petitioner had raised objections to various key answers which were formulated by the respondents. The objection as raised by him as well as others were placed for consideration of an Expert Committee whose report has been placed at page-118. The petitioner now assails the report as submitted by the Expert Committee. Despite repeated queries, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to convince the Court that it would have the authority and competence to evaluate the correctness of the conclusions arrived at by the Expert Committee. This aspect assumes significance since the petitioner seeks to raise issues in respect of papers which carried detailed questions in the field of Electronics and Telecommunication. It is in this context that the scope of judicial review in such matters assumes importance. The report of the Expert Committee is assailed on the ground that it is unreasoned. The Court finds itself unable to countenance that objection for the reason that the Committee of Experts has clearly recorded that the objections were irrelevant and have reiterated the correct answers which were carried in the original answer key. The Committee of Experts is not expected to frame an order carrying detailed reasons for rejection of such objections. Even otherwise and bearing in mind the scope of judicial review which must be borne in such matters, the Court finds no ground to issue the writs as prayed for. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed. " ;