Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, JJ.
Kapil Kumar And Others – Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL No.93 of 2023, SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 15 of 2023, SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 122 of 2023, SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 163 of 2023, SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 14 of 2023
Decided on : 31-10-2023
Key Answer - Challenge to Written Examination Result - U.P. Police (Constable and Head Constable) Service Rules, 2015 - [U.P. Police (Constable and Head Constable) Service Rules, 2015] - The court discussed the challenge to the written examination result for the posts of Constables and Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) under the U.P. Police (Constable and Head Constable) Service Rules, 2015. The key legal provisions discussed include the rules governing the examination, the authority of the court to interfere in examination matters, and the principles of judicial review in examination disputes.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants challenged the dismissal of their writ petitions seeking a direction to declare them successful in the written examination for the posts of Constables and Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) under the U.P. Police (Constable and Head Constable) Service Rules, 2015. The challenge was based on the contention that the key answer to a specific question was incorrect, affecting their eligibility for the medical examination and appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Recruitment Board had acted irrationally in changing the key answer to a specific question, leading to confusion and ambiguity. The court held that the candidates were not expected to ignore any part of the question and that the question should be clear and capable of one meaning only. The court also emphasized the need for a rare and exceptional situation to interfere in examination matters.
Issues: The issues involved the correctness of the key answer to a specific question, the authority of the court to interfere in examination matters, and the eligibility of the appellants for the medical examination and appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principles of judicial review in examination disputes, the need for a clear and unambiguous question, and the rare and exceptional circumstances required for court interference in examination matters.
Final Decision: The court directed the Recruitment Board to revise the result of the written examination for the appellants who were short of 2.5 or less marks from the cut off marks in their respective categories. It also directed the Board to hold their medical examination and, if successful, appoint them against the vacant posts. The benefits were limited to those who had approached the court and did not disturb those already appointed.
JUDGMENT :
Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.
1. The present batch of intra-court appeals filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules seek to challenge identical orders and judgments of learned Single Judge dated 25.11.2022 dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants for a direction to the respondents to declare them successful in the written examination held for the posts of Constables (Civil Police) and Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) in pursuance of advertisement dated 16.11.2018 issued by U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotional Board (respondent herein).
2. For sake of convenience, we treat Special Appeal No. 93 of 2023 as the leading case and the facts of that case are being noted. The facts of other cases are identical.
3. The selection was held as per the U.P. Police (Constable and Head Constable) Service Rules, 2015 as amended from time to time. It consisted of five stages i.e. (i) written examination (ii) documentary verification (iii) physical standard test (iv) physical efficiency test and (v) medical examination. A total of 31360 posts of Constables (Civil Police) and 18208 of Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) were advertised. The written examination was held on 27.01.2019 and 28.01.2019 in two separate shifts. The Recruitment Board notified the cut off marks of the written examination for each category on 20.11.2019 which are as follows:-
| General | 185.3465 |
| OBC | 172.3272 |
| SC | 145.3905 |
| ST | 114.1932 |
4. Thereafter by a notice dated 22.11.2019, the Recruitment Board intimated the appellants that document verification/physical standard test would be held for candidates numbering 2.5 times the total number of vacancies. Those who were successful, were made to undergo physical efficiency test. The appellants, being successful in document verification/physical standard test, were permitted to participate in physical efficiency test. The aforesaid exercise was held between 28.11.2019 and 28.1.2020.
5. The marks of individual candidates was notified on 20.02.2020 and simultaneously the list of candidates selected for medical examination was also uploaded on the website of the Recruitment Board. The final select list was uploaded on 2.03.2020 and the said list did not include the name of the appellants. All the appellants have obtained marks nearing the cut off marks in their respective category. There are eight appellants and the marks obtained by appellant nos. 1 to 8 therein are A1-174.8497, A2-148.9982, A3-173.8156, A4-174.8497, A5-174.8497, A6-173.8156, A7-175.3667, A8-175.8837 respectively. Each correct answer was awarded plus two marks (+2) and a wrong answer minus 0.5 marks.
6. The writ petition was founded on the ground that key answer to Question No.68 of Test Booklet B, Series 17 pertaining to the candidates in Special Appeal No.93 of 2023 wrongly declares option 'D' as the correct answer, whereas the correct answer was option 'C'. Accordingly, if their contention would have been accepted by the Writ Court, they would have become successful to participate in the medical examination and if found fit therein, being appointed against the advertised posts.
7. Question no. 68 of test booklet-B, Series-17 was as under:
A) North
B) East
C) West
D) South
8. The provisional key answers were initially uploaded on the website of the Board on 05.02.2019 and objections were invited on the same. According to the key answer uploaded on 05.02.2019, the correct answer to question no. 68 was option (C). Again on 12.03.2019, another set of provisional key answers was uploaded on the website and once again objections were invited by the Board. In second key answers uploaded on 12.03.2019 also, the correct
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to interfere in examination matters, the requirement for clear and unambiguous questions, and the need for rare and exception....
The burden of proof to challenge an answer key is heavy, and the benefit of doubt should go to the examining authority. A clear demonstration of error in the answer key is required for judicial inter....
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....
Courts should defer to the opinion of subject experts in public examinations and should not interfere with the examination process unless there is a glaring mistake that is totally apparent without a....
The court emphasized the need for restraint in challenging key answers and the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in recruitment disputes.
Courts should defer to expert committees' evaluations in academic matters unless mala fides are alleged; presumption of correctness applies to expert answers.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
