Court Upholds Tribunal's Decision in Junior Engineer Recruitment Dispute.
29 February 2024
Employee Related >> Corporate Law
In a recent judgment of Atul Baban Rupnavar v/s State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Public Works Department, Mumbai & Others, the Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal’s (MAT) decision regarding a dispute in the Junior Engineer (Group ‘B’) recruitment process. The petitioner, who had applied for the position and appeared in the examination, raised concerns over the ambiguity in a question related to antonyms. The question in dispute asked for the opposite of the word "Alleviate," with the petitioner selecting "Enhance" while the examiners marked "Heighten" as the correct answer.
The petitioner argued that "Enhance" was the correct antonym based on the Cambridge Dictionary, and that marks should have been awarded for this answer. However, the court emphasized that its scope for judicial review in such matters is limited, and that the examining authority’s decision, backed by expert opinion, should be presumed correct unless it is "palpably wrong." The court cited the Supreme Court's guidelines, which caution against judicial re-evaluation of answers in academic matters.
The Tribunal had already dismissed the petitioner’s original application, and the High Court agreed, noting that allowing the petitioner’s claim would disrupt the entire recruitment process, as other candidates had also responded to the question and would be affected by a reversal of the answer key. The petition was therefore dismissed, and the writ was discharged with no order for costs.