Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Gau) 955

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT ITANAGAR BENCH
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Joram Hania S/o Shri Joram Taka – Petitioner
Versus
The Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission – Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 342 of 2022
Decided On : 31-08-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S.K. Deori.
For the Respondents: M. Pertin, T.Y. Bhutia, A. Apang, K. Wangmo.

Point of Law : if a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation”

Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 – Service Law - Appointment - Post of Sub-Inspector - Recruitment process - Whether answer key are correct or not, and that APPSC has its own experts to evaluate answer script and it is not possible to evaluate the answer script through some other expert – A grave injustice may be occasioned to a writ applicant in certain circumstances - Case may arise where even though there is no provision for revaluation it turns out that despite giving the correct answer no marks are awarded. Para 20
Finding of Court : Representation of petitioner to the respondent authorities for re-evaluation was rejected on the ground of absence of any provision in the Rules - Action of the respondent No. 1, in respect of not awarding any mark to petitioner, despite giving of correct answer by him in respect of question No. 18 and 96 seems to be arbitrary - It is also held that award of marks by an examiner has to be fair and considering fact that re-evaluation is not permissible under Statute at the instance of candidate, the examiner has to be careful, cautious and has the duty to ensure that the answers are properly evaluated.
Result : Writ petition stands disposed of

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Deori, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. T.Y. Bhutia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4; Mr. A. Apang, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Ms. K. Wangmo, learned Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is instituted by the petitioner, namely, Shri Joram Hania seeking following reliefs:

(i) To direct the respondent No. 1 for review, re-verification of the “Answer Key” of Question No. 18 and 96 of Elementary Mathematics Paper by an expert resource person.

(ii) To direct the respondent No. 1 to award 1[one] mark to the petitioner if the answer of the petitioner is OMR Sheet of Question No. 18 and 96 of Elementary Mathematics Question Paper is found correct after re-verification by Expert person.

(iii) To direct the respondent No. 1 to recommend the petitioner for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspect [Civil/IRBN].

BACKGROUND FACTS:

3. The petitioner, namely, Shri Joram Hania had applied for and participated in the recruitment process initiated by Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission [herein after “APPSC”] for filling up the post of Sub-Inspector [Civil/IRBN] in the Home Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner was declared unsuccessful in the said recruitment process. Thereafter, on meticulous verification of Elementary Mathematics Question Paper with OMR Sheet and the Answer Key, the petitioner had found that the answers to the question No. 18 had wrongly been marked in the official “Answer Key” as Option “A” whereas the correct answer in question No. 18 ought to have been option “A” & “B” and answer to the question No. 96 had wrongly been marked as option “A” whereas, the correct answer ought to have been option “C.” The petitioner had correctly answered both the questions in the OMR sheet. But, he was not awarded 2 [two] marks despite the correct answer given by him because of the wrong and demonstrably erroneous “Answer Key” set by the respondent APPSC.

4. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the total marks awarded to him was 197.33 and the same ought to have been 199.33, if 2[two] marks were added to the same, and in that event, his position would have been at serial No. 122 in the Merit List of 123 candidates, published by the respondent APPSC. Being aggrieved the petitioner has requested the respondent No. 1, APPSC for re-verification of question No. 18 and 96 of the Elementary Mathematics Question Paper with his OMR and Answer Key from an expert resource person from recognized Institutions. But, the respondent authorities denied the same. Being aggrieved the petitioner has approached this court seeking the relief(s) aforesaid.

5. The respondent No. 1-APPSC had filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the commission has its penal of experts entrusted with the task of setting question paper and evaluation of the answers scripts and in the instant case the result was prepared by commission based on “Answer Key” as provided by the experts, assigned with the task, and there is no negligence on the part of the commission and the examination was conducted strictly as per SOP, as contained in the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Conduct of Examination Guidelines, 2017 and there is no provision for re-evaluation of Answer Key and this position was duly informed to the petitioner vide letter No. PSC-R/09/2008/2058, dated 01.09.2022.

6. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 also filed their affidavit-in- opposition, wherein they have categorically denied the assertions made in the petition. The respondent No. 3 however, made no comment in respect of paragraphs No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 & 24 of the writ petition. It is stated that APPSC had conducted the examination and furnished the list of selected candidates