Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
D.N. Patel, Jyoti Singh, JJ.
All India Backward Classes Federation - Appellant
Versus
Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board - Respondent
W.P.(C) 13573 of 2021
Decided On : 03-12-2021
The court held that individual grievances regarding exam results must follow established procedures, and general requests for information cannot be mandated without substantiation.
Headnote:(A) Public Interest Litigation - Right to Information Act, 2005 - The petitioner sought to compel a regulatory body to provide candidates with access to their answer sheets and to disclose values for a Normalisation Formula used in examinations. The court held that such requests must be pursued by individual candidates as per established procedures and that vague grievances cannot warrant a general directive. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-7)
(B) Grievance Procedure - Each candidate has the right to seek their answer sheets if aggrieved by examination results but cannot expect blanket provisions extending this right to all. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner requested mandates for public disclosure of examination processes, including answer sheets and Normalisation Formula values, citing a lack of transparency that affects candidate outcomes. (Paras 1-4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that no generalized directions could be issued and emphasized that individuals dissatisfied with their results could pursue recourse through proper channels. (Paras 5-6)
Issues: The core question was whether the regulatory body is obliged to provide individual answer sheets and disclose Normalisation Formula values for each examination. (Paras 1-3)
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that an individual grievance must be substantiated with specific examples and cannot be generalized, aligning with the procedural norms of information requests under the Right to Information Act. (Paras 5-6)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks mandates regarding examination transparency. (Para 1) |
| 2. counsel's arguments on candidate rights and normalization. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's reasoning on lack of specific grievances. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. writ petition dismissed with observations. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT
D.N. Patel, Chief Justice (Oral)
CM APPL. 42837/2021 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 13573/2021
1. Present Public Interest Litigation has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 01 to adopt/follow the process of allowing a candidate, without any specific demand, its system generated response sheet or through/via link, to enable the candidate to view/download his complete answer sheet in PDF format with details, without any specific demand;
(ii) Further issue a writ of mandamus to disclose in each exams the values used in `Normalisation Formula' wherever applicable, for every exam held by it;
(iii) Further a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to disclose the details of question(s) deleted in each examination and pro rata marks given in lieu of the deleted question(s).
(iv) Pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction as deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and looked into the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that Respondent No.1 conducts various competitive examinations for employment under the administrative control of Respondent No.3. The process of selection involve various stages including a written examination involving objective questions where candidates are required to choose one option out of the four given options. In an offline mode the candidates mark their response on an OMR sheet. One of the grievances ventilated in the present petition is that while conducting the offline/online examination, Respondent No.1 does not provide a copy of the response/answer sheets to the candidates; this leaves a candidate only guessing on what questions were rightly/wrongly answered and match the answers with the answer keys released by Respondent No.1. Therefore, it is imperative that a direction is issued to Respondent No.1 to adopt a process of allowing a candidate, without any demand/payment, a system generated response sheet, which can be downloaded or viewed in a PDF format.
4. Another grievance ventilated by the Petitioner is that Respondent No.1 applies a `Normalisation Formula' where examination is held in multiple shifts. After the formula is applied, final marks of a candidate may increase or decrease, depending on the level of difficulty in a question paper of a particular shift. Although the formula has been published, however, Respondent No.1 has never declared the values taken for applying the said formula and in the absence of the same, candidates are unable to decipher the reason for reduction in their marks. Thus, Respondents may be directed to disclose in each exam the values used in the Normalisation Formula, wherever applicable.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that a general direction cannot be issued to Respondent No.1 to upload the response/answer sheets of all the candidates in every exam conducted by Respondent No.1/DSSSB. In case any particular candidate is aggrieved by his/her marks/ranking in any competitive examination, it is always open to the aggrieved candidate to approach the concerned Authority for seeking the answer sheet(s), in accordance with the Rules and Instructions of the examination as well as by taking recourse to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, subject, of-course, to the restrictive conditions therein, with respect to supplying the information sought.
6. Insofar as the di
