The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in academic matters and the discretion available to the Commission as a Selecting Body. The court emphasized the deference to be shown to the opinion of professional experts and the need to respect the decisions taken by specialized bodies for holding competitive examinations.

JUDGMENT :

1. On 09.08.2021, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “Commission”) issued an advertisement inviting applications for Combined State (Civil) Lower Subordinate Service Examination-2021. The selection process consisted of (i) Preliminary Test, (ii) Main Examination and (iii) Interview.

2. Petitioners responded to the said advertisement and they were permitted to appear in the preliminary examination held on 12.12.2021. Since petitioners could not qualify preliminary examination, therefore, they are before this Court, challenging the decision taken by the Commission to award bonus marks to all candidates in respect of 12 questions, which were found to be erroneous.

3. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, these petitions are clubbed together and are being heard & decided together. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPSS No. 481 of 2022 alone are being considered.

4. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 481 of 2022 has been filed by two persons, seeking the following relief :-

(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record of the case and quash the impugned decision of Respondents dated 10.02.2022 and 24.02.2022 so far as it relates to giving bonus marks for 12 questions and fixing cut-off marks accordingly.

(ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to re-fix the cut-off marks by excluding bonus marks and 12 questions and consequently allow the Petitioners to participate in the further examination and declare result accordingly.

5. Petitioners applied for Combined State (Civil) Lower Subordinate Service Examination-2021 in response to an advertisement issued by the Commission and they were issued Admit Card for appearing in the preliminary examination. Petitioners appeared in the preliminary examination and secured 103.75 and 103.50 marks, respectively.

6. According to petitioners, they were entitled to reservation available to economically weaker sections and cut-off marks in preliminary examination for the said category was 105. There were 150 Multiple Choice Questions in preliminary examination, which were common to all the candidates; however, these questions were rearranged in different set of question papers. It is further the case of the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 was given Question Booklet Series ‘C’, while petitioner No. 2 was given Question Booklet Series ‘A’. After preliminary examination, provisional answer key to different Question Booklet Series was uploaded in the web-portal of the Commission and candidates were told that they can submit objection against a wrong question or a incorrect answer, shown as ‘correct’ in the answer key. Petitioners did not submit any objection to the answer key.

7. Petitioners have challenged the decision taken by the Commission, whereby it was decided to give bonus marks in respect of certain questions and also the answers to certain questions, which were shown as ‘correct’ in the answer key.

8. According to the petitioners, if 12 bonus marks were not decided to be given to all candidates then petitioners’ names would have figured in the list of successful candidates. Petitioner No. 1 has also challenged Question No. 91, setout in Question Booklet Series ‘C’, which reads as under:-

91. As per census 2011, in India per 1000 males, the number of females is:-

(a) 910 (b) 940 (c) 920 (d) 980

9. It is contended that option ‘(b)’ gives the correct answer to the aforesaid question, and petitioner No. 1 had marked option ‘(b)’ in answer to the said question, therefore, he was entitled to ‘1’ mark and anyone, who had given wrong answer to the said question, gets negative mark to the extent of -0.25 (minus .25 marks). However, by the impugned decision, a candidate who gave wrong answer to the said question also became entitled to ‘1’ mark. This, according to petitioners, is unjust and amounts to treating unequals as equal. Decis