Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 350 OF 2023
The Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission
& Another …Appellants
Versus
Miss Hage Mamung & Others …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 10.02.2022 passed by the Gauhati High Court (Itanagar
Bench) in Writ Appeal No.12/2019, by which the Division Bench of the
High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by respondent No.1
herein and has directed the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ’Public Service Commission’)
Signature Not Verified
for re-evaluation of the papers of respondent No.1 and respondent No.4
Digitally signed by
Neetu Sachdeva
Date: 2023.01.20
16:12:09 IST
Reason:
herein by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated
1
05.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.
62/2018, the Public Service Commission has preferred the present
appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:
That the Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on
21.09.2016 for filling up of 22 posts of Agriculture Development Officer.
Respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 herein applied for the said posts. They
successfully cleared the written examination and were called for viva-
voce test. However thereafter when the Public Service Commission
published the result by shortlisting 22 candidates, the name of the
original writ petitioner – respondent No.1 did not figure in the said list.
Respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner filed one RTI application and
was furnished the answer sheet and statement of marks. As per the
information furnished, the original writ petitioner got 268.45 marks in the
written examination. It was found that respondent No.4 herein – original
respondent No.5 was awarded 268.75 marks and was placed at serial
No. 21 in the select list. It appears that the answer keys with respect to
question No.12 and question No. 31 were found to be wrong and
therefore it was decided by the Public Service Commission to cancel the
said question Nos. 12 & 31 and it was decided to give marks to all the
candidates on pro-rata basis for the said two questions in respect of
which answer keys were found to be wrong.
2
2.1 Respondent No. 1 herein – original writ petitioner thereafter filed a
writ petition before the learned Single Judge of the High Court
contending, inter alia , that she gave correct answers to both the
questions, namely, question Nos. 12 & 31 and respondent No. 4 herein
– original respondent No. 5 answered correctly only question No. 31 and
she admittedly answered question No. 12 wrongly and therefore she
could not have been awarded two marks for question No. 12 and
question No. 31 and if that would have been done, in that case, she
would have secured more marks than respondent No. 4 herein – original
respondent No.5 and therefore she ought to have been placed in the
merit list at serial No. 21 in place of original respondent No. 5 –
respondent No. 4 herein.
2.2 The learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition.
However, by the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of
the High Court has allowed the writ appeal and has quashed and set
aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, by
ordering re-evaluation of the papers of respondent No.1 herein – original
writ petitioner and respondent No. 4 herein – original respondent No. 5
accepting the case/submission on behalf of respondent No.1 - original
writ petitioner that as original respondent No. 5 wrongly answered
question No. 12 and correctly answered question No. 31 only, she would
3
be entitled to only one mark instead of two marks allotted by the Public
Service Commission.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court ordering re-
evaluation of the papers of respondent No.1 herein – original writ
petitioner and original respondent No. 5, the Public Service Commission
has preferred the present appeal.
3. Shri Anil Srivastav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Public Service Commission has vehemently submitted that in the facts
and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any provision for
re-evaluation of the papers, the Division Bench of the High Court has
materially erred in ordering re-evaluation of the papers of the original writ
petitioner and original respondent No. 5. Reliance is placed upon the
decision of this Court in the case of Dr. NTR University of Health
Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh & Others (Civil Appeal No. 8037/2022,
decided on 04.11.2022) . He has also relied upon and taken us to the
relevant provisions in the Manual for Arunachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission and the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission
Conduct of Examination Guidelines, 2017 (for short, ‘Guidelines 2017’),
in support of his submission that there is no provision for the re-
evaluation of the papers.
4
3.1 It is further submitted that in the present case as the answer keys
with respect to both the questions were found to be wrong, it was
decided to cancel the said questions and to allot the marks on pro-rata
basis to all the candidates with respect to each question. It is submitted
that the same was in consonance with clause 38(v) of the Guidelines
2017.
4. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Manish
Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 –
original writ petitioner.
4.1 It is vehemently submitted that in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, the Division Bench of the High Court has not
committed any error in ordering re-evaluation of the papers of original
writ petitioner as well as original respondent No. 5.
It is submitted that the total marks secured by respondent No. 1
herein were 268.45 and that of original respondent No. 5 were 268.75. It
is submitted that therefore the difference in the marks between two of
them was 0.30 marks only. It is submitted that each objective question
carried one mark. It is submitted that even the Public Service
Commission has admitted two wrong answer keys to question Nos. 12 &
31. It is submitted that respondent No.1 herein – original writ petitioner
correctly answered both question Nos. 12 & 31 and therefore entitled to
two marks (one mark each for each question). It is submitted that
5
however original respondent No. 5 who has been allotted two marks on
pro-rata basis correctly answered only question No. 31 and answered
question No. 12 wrongly. It is submitted that therefore only one mark
should have been awarded to her, instead she has been awarded two
marks on pro-rata basis, thereby causing injustice to the original writ
petitioner.
4.2 It is submitted that original respondent No. 5 is placed at serial No.
21 in the select list and on the basis of the total marks, original writ
petitioner – respondent No.1 herein will be at serial No. 23. It is
submitted that therefore if original respondent No.5, who is placed at
serial No. 21, would have been allotted only one mark for giving correct
answer to only one question, i.e, question No. 31 only and in that case,
the original writ petitioner would have been at serial No. 21. It is
submitted that therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Division Bench of the High Court has rightly ordered re-evaluation to do
complete justice to the original writ petitioner.
4.3 It is submitted that giving pro-rata marks to all the candidates
irrespective of whether the said two questions were correctly answered
or not by them would mean putting a premium on wrong answers.
4.4 It is further submitted that as such Clause 38(v) of the Guidelines
2017, which has been heavily relied upon by the Public Service
Commission shall not be applicable at all. It is submitted that the same
6
shall be applicable only in a case where the questions are found to be
wrong and not the answer keys are found to be wrong.
4.5 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of High Court
of Tripura through the Registrar General v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee
and others, reported in (2019) 16 SCC 663 , it is vehemently submitted
by Shri Manish Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.1 herein – original writ petitioner that as observed and
held by this Court, the re-evaluation of the papers even in absence of
any specific provision is permissible.
4.6 Making above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present
appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at
length.
At the outset, it is required to be noted that as the answer keys
with respect to two questions, namely, question No. 12 and question No.
31 of the General Knowledge Paper were found to be wrong, a
conscious decision was taken by the Public Service Commission to
cancel the aforesaid two questions and with a view to see that no
candidate should be penalised for the mistakes in the answer keys
provided by the resource persons, it was decided to award marks
against question No. 12 and question No. 31 to all the candidates on
pro-rata basis. The original writ petitioner including original respondent
7
No. 5 and all the candidates therefore were awarded two marks each on
pro-rata basis. Therefore, after such process with corresponding
increase in the marks of all the candidates, the rank/merit would remain
the same and in fact remained the same. In fact, the original writ
petitioner is also allotted two marks on pro-rata basis with respect to
question Nos. 12 & 31 along with all the candidates. Merely because,
according to the original writ petitioner, she correctly answered both
question Nos. 12 & 31 and original respondent No. 5 answered one
question correctly and one question wrongly, the Division Bench of the
High Court is not justified in ordering re-evaluation of the papers of only
two candidates, namely, the original writ petitioner and original
respondent No. 5, against a conscious decision taken by the Public
Service Commission to award two marks to each candidate on pro-rata
basis with respect to two questions of which the answer keys were found
to be wrong.
6. As per clause 38(v) of the Guidelines 2017, where in the question
in the examination paper itself is wrong and thus could not possible be
evaluated to have correct answer, there may be deletion of such
incorrect questions and the consequent pro-rata distribution of the marks
allocated to them. Applying the same analogy with respect to wrong
answer keys and thereafter when a conscious decision was taken to
allocate the marks on pro-rata basis with respect to two questions whose
8
answer keys were found to be wrong and when all the candidates were
awarded two marks (one mark each for the aforesaid two questions), it
cannot be said that the Public Service Commission acted illegally and/or
arbitrarily and/or committed any wrong. Therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Division Bench of the High Court has
committed a very serious error in ordering re-evaluation of only two
candidates, namely, the original writ petitioner and original respondent
No. 5 only.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
impugned judgment order passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set
aside. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned
judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
ordering re-evaluation of the papers of respondent No.1 and respondent
No. 4 herein is hereby quashed and set aside and the judgment and
order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition
preferred by respondent No.1 herein is hereby restored. No costs.
………………………………..J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………J.
JANUARY 20, 2023. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
9