Service Law – State Public Service Commission advertised posts of School Lecturers for various subjects under Secondary Education Department – Examination was conducted – Answer keys were published – Commission invited objections regarding the answer key – Candidates submitted objections – Commission declared the result – Appellants contended that certain questions need re-examination by experts – Supreme Court issued directions that certain questions needed re-examination by experts – Pursuant thereto, Expert committee re-examined the objections and the report was filed by the Commission – Appellants contended that in revision also, certain mistakes have not been corrected – Held: Challenges relating to correctness of answer key has to be entertained on a very limited ground and due weight has to be given to the opinion of the subject experts – In instant case, the Expert Committee, constituted for validation of answer key, has gone through every objection raised by the appellants and has satisfactorily answered the same – The Commission has also accepted the report of the Expert Committee and has proceeded to revise the results of appellants – Thus, report of the Expert Committee which has been accepted by the Commission has to be implemented. Service Law – State Public Service Commission conducted examination – Answer keys published – Commission invited objections regarding the answer key – Appellants contended that certain questions need re-examination by experts – Supreme Court issued directions that certain questions needed re-examination by experts – Pursuant thereto, expert committee re-examined the objections and the report was filed by the Commission – However, Commission revised the result of only 311 appellants – Held: Commission should revise the entire result of all the candidates – Key answers having been corrected, merit of all the candidates except those who have already been selected needs to be redetermined – When the key answers of the candidates who appeared in the examination are correct, they are entitled for revision of their result, since, fault does not lie with the candidates but lies with examination body – It shall not be equitable to not extend the benefit to those candidates who have not come to the Court being satisfied with the steps taken by the Commission and its earlier Expert Committee which was given the task of revising the key answers – Equity. Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The appellants have pointed out several questions in paper which according to them have not been correctly answered by the Expert Committee. However, the answers given by the Expert Committee are correct and no error can be found with the answers of the Expert Committee with regard to the questions which have been pointed out. The Expert Committee, constituted for validation of answer key, has gone through every objection raised by the appellants and has satisfactorily answered the same. The Commission has also accepted the Report of the Expert Committee and has proceeded to revised the result of
311 appellants. Thus, the Report of the Expert Committee which has been accepted by the Commission need to be implemented. [Para 20]
2. In the affidavit filed by the Commission it is mentioned that the result has been revised of only 311 appellants who are before this Court. The key answers having been corrected, merit of all the candidates except those who have already been selected needs to be redetermined. The Commission should revise the entire result of all the candidates except those who have been selected on the basis of the report of Expert Committee and publish revised result of all the candidates. When the key answers are correct of the candidates who appeared in the examination, they are entitled for revision of their result, since, fault does not lie with the candidates but lies with the examination body. It shall not be equitable to not extend the benefit to those candidates who have not come to the Court being satisfied with the steps taken by the Commission and its earlier Expert Committee which was given the task of revising the key answers.[Para 23][999-D-F]
Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor and others v. Samir Gupta and others (1983) 4 SCC 309 : [1984]
1 SCR 73; Manish Ujwal and others v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University and others (2005) 13 SCC 744 – relied on.
Guru Nank Dev University v. Saumil Garg and others (2005) 13 SCC 749; Rajesh Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others (2013) 4 SCC 690 : [2013]
4 SCR 753; Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. RPSC & Ors. dated 08.11.2016 in Writ Petition No. 15028/2016 of Rajasthan High Court – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.