Back
Upholds Coal India's Uniform Marks for Wrong Questions in Promotion
The has dismissed two challenging a promotion process conducted by , holding that the uniform award of marks to all candidates for 19 questions found to be erroneous or outside the syllabus did not amount to changing the “” after commencement of the selection process.
Justice Amrita Sinha observed that since there was no in the Computer Based Test, awarding marks uniformly to all candidates in respect of the disputed questions did not prejudice any candidate.
A Long-Drawn Promotion Process
The selection process originated in a notification inviting applications for promotion from the non-executive to executive cadre within , a subsidiary of Coal India. The written examination conducted in was cancelled due to shortcomings attributable to the agency conducting the selection. A fresh Computer Based Test was eventually held on , with the same set of eligible candidates and on the same syllabus.
The petitioners successfully cleared the written examination and were subsequently shortlisted for interview. Following publication of the model answer key, Coal India invited objections from candidates through a Response Query Management Portal. While some petitioners raised objections, others did not. After considering the objections, the examining body found 19 questions to be either erroneous or outside the syllabus and decided to award marks for those questions to all candidates, irrespective of whether they had attempted them.
The petitioners were shortlisted for interview but ultimately failed to secure sufficient marks for inclusion in the final merit list. The cut-off for the unreserved category was 144.88, whereas the petitioners scored below the cut-off. The promotion process was concluded in , and 109 candidates were selected and promoted.
The Petitioners’ Grievance
The petitioners argued that the examining agency had altered the marking pattern without informing the candidates. According to them, awarding marks even to candidates who had not attempted the disputed questions violated . They contended that candidates who attempted the disputed questions and those who did not attempt them constituted distinct classes and ought not to have been treated identically.
The petitioners relied upon the ’s decisions in and to contend that the rules governing a selection process cannot be altered after the selection has commenced.
Coal India’s Response
Opposing the petitions, Coal India submitted that the selection had been conducted centrally in accordance with the applicable cadre scheme and notified procedure. It argued that the 19 disputed questions were referred to subject experts and, after they were found to be erroneous or outside the syllabus, full marks were uniformly awarded to all candidates in order to maintain parity. Coal India further contended that the petitioners had participated in the examination and interview without raising any objection to the process and could not challenge it only after failing to secure promotion.
The Court was also informed that 109 candidates had been selected and promoted pursuant to the process and had been functioning in their promotional posts since . None of the successful candidates had been impleaded in the .
No Prejudice from Uniform Award
Rejecting the challenge, Justice Sinha noted that there was no in the examination. Marks were awarded only for correctly answered questions, and a candidate would not lose marks merely for attempting a question incorrectly. Therefore, when marks for the disputed questions were uniformly awarded to every candidate, the Court found that no candidate had been prejudiced.
“Had wrong answers carried , then only there would have been some difference in the competitiveness of the candidates,” the Court observed.
The Court further held that the petitioners’ contention that the 19 questions were actually correct and within the syllabus could not be adjudicated by the . That determination fell within the domain of expert examiners, who had concluded that the questions were erroneous or outside the syllabus.
‘’ Principle Not Attracted
The Court acknowledged that the principle that the cannot be changed after the game has begun is well settled. However, it held that the principle was not attracted in the present case because the uniform award of marks did not confer any additional advantage on one class of candidates over another.
“Had marks been awarded to only those candidates who attempted the disputed questions, then an issue of prejudice or discrimination could have been raised,” the Court said.
The Court also rejected the argument that candidates who attempted the disputed questions and those who did not attempt them constituted separate classes requiring different treatment. Since the marks were awarded uniformly, neither class received an advantage or suffered a disadvantage.
Court Declines to Reopen Promotion After Four Years
Justice Sinha also took note of the fact that the promotion process had been concluded in and the successful candidates had already served in their promotional posts for more than four years. Any order interfering with the selection list could adversely affect those promotees, who had not been impleaded as parties. Such an order, passed behind their back, would offend the .
The Court further observed that the petitioners had participated in the selection process and challenged the promotion process only after failing to secure a position in the final merit list. Referring to the settled principle that a candidate who consciously participates in a selection process cannot subsequently challenge its method and outcome after being unsuccessful, the Court held that interference at such a belated stage would not be appropriate.
A Fair and Balanced Approach
The Court concluded that Coal India had not acted arbitrarily or illegally. It found that the examining body had adopted a “reasonable and balanced approach” by uniformly awarding marks after considering objections to the disputed questions, thereby ensuring that no candidate was unfairly affected.
“The petitioners have failed to make out any case to show that the act of the respondents in conducting the promotion process was in any manner ,” the Court held.
Holding that the authority had adopted a fair and balanced approach in concluding the promotion process, the Court dismissed both with .
Case Title:
Case No:
WPO No. 3171 of and WPO No. 1386 of 2023
Judgment Date:
