Service Law: Examination held for the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari – Awarding of marks – Advertisement issued for filling up the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari – Examination for said post took place on 21.02.2016 – In Examination, one of the question was asked about the name of the Panchayati Raj Minister of State in which option ‘B’ was ‘Kailash Yadav’ – However, Minister for Panchayati Raj of State ‘Kailash Yadav’ passed away on 09.02.2016 i.e. few days prior to examination – After the release of answer key, appellant Commission decided that the candidates who chose option ‘B’ as correct answer or did not mark any option for the said question be awarded 01 (one) mark and no action was required in respect of the candidates who chose option ‘A’, ‘C’, ‘D’ of this question – Respondent-candidate, who offered option ‘A’, challenged the decision of the Commission by filing writ petition before High Court – Division Bench directed the appellant either to delete the said question or award marks to respondent – Instant appeal filed by Commission – Held: The decision of the appellant commission to award marks to those who answered option B or did not mark any option is rationale – Respondent represented those section of candidates who gave an answer which was not correct at any point of time – Distinction drawn between the categories by Commission cannot be characterised as palpably arbitrary – Appellant made out a case for interference.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. This is a case where as on the date when the examination took place, actually none of the answers which were given as options were correct. On the date when the questions were, in fact, set, one answer was correct (Option ‘B’). It is this rationale which apparently has weighed with the appellant Commission in deciding to award marks to those who have answered by ticking Option ‘B’. Those who did not answer any of the options, were given marks on the appellant’s premise that none of the answers were right. The respondent, on the other hand, represented a section of those candidates who went ahead and gave an answer which was not correct by any yardstick, at any point of time. So, it is here that the Commission drew a distinction between the categories which would not therefore, in short, be characterised as palpably arbitrary. [Para 13][143-D-F] Kanpur University Through Vice Chancellor v. Samir Gupta (1983) 4 SCC 309 : [1984] 1 SCR 73 – referred to.
Guru Nanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg and Others (2005) 13 SCC 749 – held inapplicable.
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.