IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
VIPIN SANGHI, RAKESH THAPLIYAL, JJ.
Tarun Sahni – Appellant
Versus
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, and another - Respondents
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 229 of 2023, WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 265 OF 2023, WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 243 OF 2023, WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 242 OF 2023
Decided on : 13-09-2023
Judicial Service Civil Judge Preliminary Examination 2023 - Examination Regulations, Judicial Review, Expert Committee - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The court examined the scope of judicial review with regards to re-evaluation of answer sheets and the correctness of the answer key finalized by the respondent Commission. The court directed the Commission to constitute an Expert Committee to re-examine certain questions and to re-calculate the marks awarded to the candidates based on the new answers determined by the Experts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners applied for the post of Civil Judge in response to an advertisement for the Uttarakhand Judicial Service Civil Judge Examination 2023. They participated in the preliminary examination and raised objections to the answer key of certain questions. The Uttarakhand Public Service Commission filed counter affidavits stating that the provisional answer key was uploaded on the official website, and objections were considered by subject experts. The Commission contended that the Court cannot re-evaluate answer sheets and that some petitioners did not file objections within the stipulated time.
Finding of the Court:
The Court examined the judgments relied upon by the petitioners and the Commission, and observed that the scope of judicial review with regards to re-evaluation of answer sheets should consider the application of mind by the Expert Body and the material considered or left out of consideration. The Court found that the questions were not clearly framed in the English language and required reconsideration. The Court directed the Commission to constitute an Expert Committee to re-examine certain questions and to re-calculate the marks awarded to the candidates based on the new answers determined by the Experts.
Issues: The issues raised in the writ petitions included the correctness of the answer key, the scope of judicial review, and the application of mind by the Expert Body in finalizing the answer key.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the judgments relied upon by the parties, the examination of the questions and the answers, and the need for an Expert Committee to re-examine certain questions and re-calculate the marks awarded to the candidates.
Final Decision: The Court allowed all the writ petitions, directed the Commission to constitute an Expert Committee to re-examine certain questions, and awarded costs to the petitioners.
JUDGMENT :
1. This bunch of four writ petitions pertains to the Uttarakhand Judicial Service Civil Judge Preliminary Examination 2023. The said preliminary examination was conducted by the Uttarakhand Public Service Examination, which is a body constituted under Article 315 of the Constitution of India and as such, is a constitutional body. Since almost identical issues have been raised in all these petitions in relation to questions formulated by the Commission with the aid of their subject experts, all the writ petition were heard together, and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. For the purpose of recruitment to the post of Civil Judge, an Advertisement bearing no. 10/DR/E-2/Civil Judge/2022–23 was published by the Commission called as Uttarakhand Judicial Service Civil Judge Examination 2023. The examination is designed to be conducted in two steps. First step is a preliminary examination, which is based upon objective type of questions and the second step comprises of a main examination. Those, who qualify in the preliminary examination, are permitted to appear in the main examination. The purpose of holding preliminary examination is to shortlist the candidates for appearing in the main examination.
3. The petitioners applied for the post of Civil Judge in response to the advertisement aforesaid. Since all of them were eligible, they are permitted to appear in the preliminary examination and they have participated in it. The answer keys were published and objections were invited. Various objections were furnished and thereafter, final answer keys were published on 29.05.2023. The date for conducting the main examination was also declared and was scheduled from 23.08.2023 to 26.08.2023. The Commission also published the provisional answer key on their website i.e. https://psc.uk.gov.in and invited objections from the candidates and after receiving objections, and disposal of the objections, the result of the preliminary examination was published on 29.05.2023 with cut off marks for all eligible candidates.
4. Since none of the petitioners in these writ petitions were declared to be qualified in the preliminary examination, they have filed these writ petitions raising identical issues in respect of certain questions asked for in the preliminary examination. In all these writ petitions, petitioners are questioning the answer key in respect of same set of questions.
5. The Uttarakhand Public Service Commission has filed its counter affidavit. The Commission in the counter affidavit submits that as per the aforesaid regulations, the provisional answer key of all the questions were uploaded on the official website of the Commission on 04.05.2023 inviting objections from the candidates. The objections were to be filed online between 05.05.2023 and 11.05.2023 on the official website and it was clearly mentioned in the notification that the objections received, after the last date, would not be considered. A total of 223 objections were received in respect of the provisional answer key, and on the basis of these objections, the number of unique question - answer keys whereof were challenged were 26, which were placed before the subject experts. The subject experts, thereafter, deliberated on these unique questions and found that the questions and answers keys of 25 unique questions were correct and recommended that there is no need to change the answer keys of these 25 unique questions. It is further contended by the Commission that these 25 unique questions also consisted the questions, disputed in present writ petition, which according to the petitioners, do not have correct answer keys. It is further contended by the Commission that on the basis of recommendation made by the subject experts, the Commission did not make any change in the answer options of objectionable questions. The Commission also placed on record the repo
Brij Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (2016) 13 SCC 347
Mohd. Rafiq Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 10 SCC 706
Mohd. Siddiq (D) through LRs Vs. Mahant Suresh Das and others (2019) 7 SCC 633
Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P.
Shayara Bano Vs Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1
Vikesh Kumar Gupta & another Vs. State of Rajasthan (2021) 2 SCC 309
AI
Judicial review of answer keys in public examinations is limited; courts should defer to expert opinions unless errors are demonstrably clear.
Judicial review of examination answer keys is limited; courts should not interfere unless errors are clear and demonstrable.
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 established that an expert committee's evaluation of answer keys in recruitment processes is presumptively correct, allowing judicial restraint unless glaring errors are evident.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.