Vague examination questions that allow multiple correct answers may lead to unfair disadvantage, necessitating reevaluation of candidate scores.

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Kumar, CJ.

1. We have heard Dr. A. Saraf, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. P. Baruah and P.K. Bora for the petitioner and Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. P.P. Dutta for the Gauhati High Court.

2. The petitioner herein is a practicing advocate of this Court and had appeared in the Assam Judicial Service (Grade-III) Preliminary Examination but could not pass the examination for 1(one) mark. He hails from Unreserved Category; for which category the cut-off marks was 75 and the petitioner learnt from the results/marks uploaded on the official website of the Gauhati High Court that he has obtained 74 marks, i.e. one mark short of crossing the threshold.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that one of the questions in the Preliminary Examination, namely, Question No.97, obligated the candidates to answer one of the choices from the multiple choices given. According to the petitioner, two choices were correct and, therefore, the petitioner should have been marked for attempting that question. Had he been marked for that question, he would have got 75 marks and have crossed the threshold.

4. Question No.97 (English translation) is reproduced as hereunder:-

“97. Under which Section of the Bharatiya Sakhya Adhiniyam is a dying deliration mentioned?

(a) Section 32

(b) Section 28

(c) Section 26

(d) None of the above.”

5. The contention of the petitioner is that the question pertains to the provision containing Dying Declaration.

6. In Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872, the provision of dying declaration is found in Section 32 , whereas in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, the new legislation of the year 2023, the provision is contained in Section 26 . Both the options were given in the multiple answers provided from where an applicant had to choose. The Hindi and Assamese translation of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT also is Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.

7. Thus, it is contended by the petitioner that without specifying the year of enactment of the statute, the question became vague and a candidate could have understood the question as Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 or Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872. The petitioner answered considering the question to be from Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 and marked Section 32 [Option (a)] as the correct option.

It has also been submitted that in the syllabus for the Preliminary Examination, both, the Indian Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 was included. Thus there was ample confusion in the matter for which a candidate ought not to be subjected to any disadvantage.

8. That apart, Dr. Saraf has argued that when the model answer key was published indicating that the question entailed the answer from the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 only, an objection was raised by the petitioner but the same was ignored without any reason. It is, therefore, argued that the Question No.97 was vague and, therefore, both the answers, namely, Option (a) [ Section 32 ] and Option (c) [ Section 26 ], have to be treated as correct answer.

9. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior Advocate for the High Court does not dispute this proposition.

10. Courts normally do not interfere in the evaluation of the question papers or with the provided answer keys considering the fact that such answers are provided by the experts and unless it is shown to be palpably incorrect or ambiguous, the same should not be interfered with.

11. But in the case at hand, a “hands-off” approach would not be advisable as such vague question would have led many candidates in