The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to cancel a recruitment examination due to substantial defects in the question paper and model answers, and to order the conduct of a fresh examination for the affected candidates.

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. These all appeals have come for consideration in a peculiar circumstances affecting all those persons who had participated in the selection process held for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in pursuance of Advertisement issued on 14.8.2006 in which 2268 posts were advertised. Against the advertised posts 210 candidates were selected and of them 186 joined.

3. The selection process required taking written text in two papers of 100 marks each. One paper was about General Knowledge and the other is about Civil Engineering. The controversy relates to defects in conduct of Civil Engineering paper of 100 marks having 100 objective questions Candidates were to attempt as many as they could within the fixed period. Each question is to be answered. Correctness of the answer is to be tallied with set of model or key answers.

4. Some of the candidates who had not cleared the examination vide five separate writ petitions challenged the correctness of result alleging that the question paper of Civil Engineering which was in the form of objective questions had model answers with which the answers given by the candidates were to be tallied. The model answers were incorrectly stated in large number affecting adversely all those who had answered such questions correctly but because of error in model answers their result was affected adversely.

5. In the writ petitions candidates have given different number of such questions which they have attempted, according to them, correctly but because of the wrong model answers they could not get the credit of correct answer.

6. The Court directed production of answer books of some of the candidates on deposit of rupees ten thousand and thereafter on production, question papers in Civil Engineering, General Knowledge and model answers, the Court, finding some substance in the allegation made about the correctness of model answers in Civil Engineering papers, vide order dated 16.5.2007 directed the Commission to look into the matter and make a report on 13.11.2007.

7. Learned counsel for the Staff Selection Commission filed a supplementary affidavit stating that out of twenty eight questions referred for examination to the expert the model answers in respect of 26 questions were found to be incorrect.

8. Considering this aspect, the Court directed on 13.11.2007 that the Commission should obtain a report of the expert about the correctness of all the model answers.

9. In pursuance of this direction, ultimately the Commission produced a report, according to which, as many as 41 model answers out of 100 were wrong, two questions were wrongly set and two were repetition of questions already stated elsewhere. Thus, in all, out of possible 100 marks of 100 questions the question paper with model set. of answers in respect of 45 questions affecting 45 marks was erroneous.

10. Considering that the substantial part of the model answer (45%) in Civil Engineering were defective and had affected large number of candidates in their performance evaluation and the selection process, the Court directed to cancel the examination conducted by the Commission in pursuance of Advertisement No. 1406 of 2006 for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in Water Resources Department and to hold fresh examination. Those who have been appointed pursuant to the advertisement, their appointment were directed to be cancelled after giving an opportunity of hearing to them within three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order for which notice to be served on them through their appointing authority and the fresh examination in the light of the order to be conducted at the earliest, in any case within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order of learned Single Judge.

11. Further directions were given to take appropriate action against those who were responsible for setting up incorrect questions and for providing incorrect mode