Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 742
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R. Raghunandan Rao, J.
Sheik Shanawaj – Appellant
Versus
Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. No. 13705 of 2019
Decided On : 22-10-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A. Satya Prasad, Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of U.D. Jai Bhima Rao
For the Respondent: Addanki Rama Chandra Murthy and R.V. Mallikarjuna Rao
THE PROHIBITION OF NON-PROGRAMMABLE CALCULATORS AND THE MISTAKES IN TRANSLATION IN THE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION CONDUCTED BY THE A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION WERE NOT GROUNDS TO SET ASIDE THE EXAMINATION.
Headnote:
GROUP-I PRELIMINARY EXAM - CALCULATORS - TRANSLATION MISTAKES - VALIDITY - A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - [APSC NOTIFICATION NO. 27/2018] - THE COURT HELD THAT THE PROHIBITION OF NON-PROGRAMMABLE CALCULATORS AND THE MISTAKES IN TRANSLATION IN THE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION CONDUCTED BY THE A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION WERE NOT GROUNDS TO SET ASIDE THE EXAMINATION.
Fact of the Case:
PETITIONERS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENT IN NOT ALLOWING NON-PROGRAMMABLE CALCULATORS AND MISTAKES IN TELUGU TRANSLATION IN THE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION CONDUCTED BY THE A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT HELD THAT THE PROHIBITION OF NON-PROGRAMMABLE CALCULATORS WAS NOT A CHANGE IN THE CONDITIONS AND THAT THE MISTAKES IN TRANSLATION WERE NOT GROUNDS TO SET ASIDE THE EXAMINATION.
Issues: 1. WHETHER THE PROHIBITION OF NON-PROGRAMMABLE CALCULATORS WAS A CHANGE IN THE CONDITIONS? 2. WHETHER THE MISTAKES IN TRANSLATION WERE GROUNDS TO SET ASIDE THE EXAMINATION?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. THE COURT HELD THAT THE INSTRUCTION IN THE NOTIFICATION THAT "NON-PROGRAMMABLE CALCULATORS WOULD BE PERMITTED, WHEREVER NECESSARY" MEANT THAT THE DECISION TO PERMIT CALCULATORS WAS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. 2. THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT THE INSTRUCTION IN THE QUESTION PAPER BOOK THAT "THE ENGLISH VERSION WILL BE CONSIDERED AS AUTHENTIC VERSION FOR VALUATION PURPOSE" MEANT THAT ANY ERRORS IN TRANSLATION WOULD NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THE EXAMINATION.
Final Decision: THE COURT DISMISSED THE WRIT PETITION.
ORDER :
R. Raghunandan Rao, J.
1. The petitioners, who are 15 in number in the present writ petition, are seeking a declaration that the action of the respondent in not allowing non-programmable calculators for Paper-II (General Aptitude) and blatantly neglecting Telugu translation mistakes in at least 51 questions in Paper-1 (General Studies) & Paper-II (General Aptitude) of Group-I Preliminary examination vide notification No. 27/2018 conducted on 26.05.2019 as arbitrary, illegal and violation of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside Group-I Preliminary examination vide notification No. 27/2018 conducted on 26.05.2019.
2. The A.P. Public Service Commission had issued a notification dated 31.12.2018 for filling up various carry forward vacancies and fresh vacancies falling under Group-I Service. The said notification also set out the conditions under which the recruitment process would be carried out. The selection process was in three stages, viz., preliminary examination, main examination and interview. All persons, who are eligible in terms of age and other qualifications were permitted to appear for the preliminary examination, which was an objective, multiple choice test consisting of two papers, Paper-I was to test the candidates in-(a) History and Culture; (b) Constitution Policy, Social Justice and International relations; (c) Indian and Andhra Pradesh Economy and Planning; and (d) Geography. Paper-II was to test the candidates in-(a) General Mental Ability, Administrative and Psychological Abilities; and (b) Science and Technologies, and Current events of Regional, National and international importance.
3. The preliminary examination was a screening examination to shortlist candidates appearing for the Main exam in the ratio of 1:50. Thereafter, depending upon their performance in the main examination, candidates would be called for the interview in the ratio of 1:2 of the vacancies available. The performance of the candidates in the main examination and interview would be taken into account for issuing the final merit list from which candidates would be selected for various vacancies in accordance with the rule of reservation and other parameters.
4. Each of the papers, for the preliminary examination for 120 marks consisted of 120 multiple choice. As a measure of preventing malpractices, four sets of question papers, viz., Set-A, Set-B, Set-C and Set-D papers were prepared for each of the question papers. In all the paper sets, the questions were same. However, the order in which they were placed in the question papers was changed.
5. About 50,000 candidates appeared for the preliminary examination, which was conducted on 26.5.2019. As a measure of transparency, the key to the questions, giving the correct choices as decided by the Public Service Commission, was published on 26.05.2019. The candidates were permitted to raise objections to any of the answers indicated by the Public service commission till 10.06.2019. The objections so received were referred to subject experts for verification. A report of the subject experts on the objections raised by the candidates was received on 05.9.2019 and the revised key was published on 06.09.2019. According to the revised key, 19 questions in Paper-I and 6 questions in Paper-II were found to be incorrect and the marks in relation to those questions were deleted. As a further measure, objections were again called for in relation to the revised key published on 06.09.2019 up to 17.09.2019. These objections were received and referred to the subject experts on 18.09.2019. At that stage, 15 candidates have filed the present writ petition seeking the relief of setting aside the entire preliminary examination on the following two grounds:
(I) The original notification dated 31.12.2018 in general instructions to the candidate at internal page-35 in Instruction D.5 provided as follows:
D.5:-The candidates are not allowed to bring any Electroni
