IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Shubham Pal & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Staff Selection Commission & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 16593 of 2023 & CM APPL. 66822 of 2023, CM APPL. 66823 of 2023, CM APPL. 67529 of 2023, CM APPL. 1389 of 2024, CM APPL. 3666 of 2024, CM APPL. 4190 of 2024, CM APPL. 7523 of 2024
Decided On : 16-02-2024
Judicial Review - Examination Process - Expert Committee - Additional Marks - [JUDICIAL REVIEW] - [EXAMINATION PROCESS] - [CGLE 2023] - [Article 226 of the Constitution of India] - [Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357] - The court considered the detailed arguments and analysis given by the Subject Matter Experts in reaching conclusions. The court concluded that there is no unreasonable analysis which would require judicial intervention under the power of judicial review. However, the court found two questions where the Final Answer Key was incorrect, and directed the respondents to publish altered results and grant additional marks to the candidates who filled the correct answers.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the results of the Combined Graduate Level Examination Tier-II, 2023 (CGLE 2023) conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) on the basis of errors in the final answer key, seeking re-evaluation of their answer scripts and stay on the pre-appointment procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the arguments of both parties and the analysis of the Subject Matter Experts. It concluded that the Final Answer Key was incorrect for two questions, directing the respondents to publish altered results and grant additional marks to the candidates who filled the correct answers.
Issues: The issues revolved around the correctness of the final answer key, the need for re-evaluation of answer scripts, and the stay on the pre-appointment procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the analysis of the Subject Matter Experts and the principles of judicial review, as outlined in the Supreme Court's judgment in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357.
Final Decision: The petition along with all the pending applications was disposed of, with the court directing the respondents to publish altered results and grant additional marks to the candidates who filled the correct answers.
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
1. The present petition has been filed seeking declaration that the Combined Graduate Level Examination Tier-II, 2023 (in short "CGLE 2023"), conducted by Respondent No.1/Staff Selection Commission (hereafter referred as "SSC") is erroneous, faulty, defective and discriminatory alongwith several other prayers which are as follows:
"a. ISSUE an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the Nature of MANDAMUS or any other Writ to the Respondents thereby declaring that SSC CGL Examination-2023 is erroneous, faulty, defective & discriminatory and violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India;
b. ISSUE an appropriate Wirt Order or Direction in the Nature of MANDAMUS or any other Writ to the Respondents thereby directing the Respondent No. 1 to re-evaluate/rechecking/re-totalling the Question ID: 264330172912, Question ID: 264330164754 and Question ID: 264330162641, Question ID: 264330164417, Question ID: 264330172352, Question ID: 264330173697, and Question ID: 264330171997 and its corresponding questions asked in SSC CGL Examination-2023 and release a fresh result dated 15.12.2023 for one Hours;
c. The petitioner respectfully requests that this Hon'ble court, in its wisdom, may constitute an expert committee for the purpose of rechecking the answer key pertaining to the questions raised by the petitioner in the present petition.
d. Issue a Writ of Mandamus Or Any Other Appropriate Writ, Order or Direction Under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the Respondent No.1 to permit reevaluation of answer scripts of candidates who appeared in Examination conducted on 26.10.2023.
e. Pass appropriate writ, order or direction(s) to the Respondent No.1 to re-evaluate/re-checking/retotalling the Petitioners papers.
f. Stay on ongoing joining procedure until the answer key is re- evaluated or link the joining procedures final outcome to the courts final decision in this petition case.
h. PASS any such other and further order(s) and or directions (s) as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The CGLE Mains Examination was conducted on 26.10.2023 in which the Petitioners appeared in all the stages. The Tentative Answer key was released by Respondent No.1/SSC on 30.10.2023 in which the Petitioners checked their correct answers and scored higher marks than the cut-off marks for qualification. Thereafter, the candidates submitted their post Option-cum-Preference Form online.
3. The Respondent no.1/SSC published the final result dated 04.12.2023 on the basis of the revised answer key dated 30.11.2023. The Names and Roll Numbers of the Petitioners were not reflected in the list of shortlisted candidates.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the tentative answer key contained 2 questions which were evaluated incorrectly as per NCERT textbooks. By following the SSC's guidelines regarding challenging of wrong questions/answers, many candidates challenged those questions at the expense of Rs.100 per question. But instead of correcting the wrong questions and their answers, the Respondent No. 1 incorrectly altered the answers of 5 already correct questions in the Answer Key dated 30.10.2023. This incorrect alteration of the answers of 5 already correct questions in the Answer Key dated 30.10.2023 has resulted in a final result in which there is a variation upto 20 marks.
5. The Petitioners thereby had challenged the final Answer Key and question paper of the CGL Examination-2023 and prayed for re- evaluation of the answer script of the Petitioners and also prayed for stay on the pre-appointment procedure until the final outcome of the present petition.
6. This Court vide its Order dated 21.12.2023 had, while issuing notice on the present petition, also granted an order of no prejudice against the petitioners, which is extracted hereunder:
"21.12.2023
1. This matter is received on transfer.
2. Heard.
3. Issue notice.
4. Learned counsel a
H.P. Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur & Anr. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759;
Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission
Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P.
The court's decision emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in examination processes and the need for demonstrable errors to warrant intervention.
Judicial review in academic evaluations is restricted; courts should not interfere unless there is clear illegality or arbitrariness in expert decisions.
The court established that the correctness of examination answer keys must be based on widely accepted academic standards, and any demonstrably erroneous answers must be rectified to ensure fairness ....
Point of Law : Practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation and that too in absence of any specific provision in relevant rules for re-evaluation and tha....
The court upheld the authority of the examination body, emphasizing minimal judicial intervention in academic matters unless clear errors are demonstrated.
The Court cannot interfere with expert opinion unless key answers are patently wrong, and there is no provision for re-evaluation.
Point of Law : Law that compassion sympathy or claim on basis of assessment cannot be permitted as entire examination process is derailed because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or p....
Judicial review is justified in cases of demonstrable error in examination answer keys, ensuring fair evaluation and selection processes.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.