A commission may correct inadvertent scoring omissions without impermissibly changing selection criteria.

The petitioners, serving Police Constables who participated in the 2023 Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for Police Sub-Inspector posts, challenged the revision of their marks in the 800-metre running event.

Under the notified criteria, candidates completing the race in 2 minutes 30 seconds or less received 50 marks; those taking more than 2 minutes 30 seconds received 44 marks.

The petitioners were initially awarded 50 marks and included in the provisional lists. After objections, the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) reviewed the digital timings, applied the recorded milliseconds, and reduced each petitioner’s marks to 44, resulting in their exclusion from the final selection list.

The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissed their challenge, holding that the omission to account for milliseconds could be corrected under Rule 16 of the MPSC Rules of Procedure. The petitioners then sought judicial review of that decision.

1. Whether the MPSC could revise the provisional marks and selection list by applying the milliseconds recorded in the digital timing system, or whether doing so impermissibly changed the selection criteria after the process had begun.

2. Whether the MPSC could make that correction without giving the petitioners a prior opportunity to show cause and without obtaining the Physical Test Committee members’ signatures on the revised day-end reports.

3. Whether the notification implementing the revision was invalid because it was issued by the Deputy Secretary rather than by the Commission itself.

Rule 16 of the MPSC Rules of Procedure, 2014 empowers the Commission to correct clerical, typographical, arithmetical, or other mistakes in a rank list, advice list, or short list, including errors arising from accidental slip or omission, on its own motion or on an application.

The selection criteria required marks to be awarded according to the time taken to complete the 800-metre race; candidates taking more than 2 minutes 30 seconds were not entitled to 50 marks.

Correcting an erroneous application of an existing criterion is distinct from changing the “rules of the game” after the process has begun.

The petitioners relied on K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Prabhjot Kaur v. State of Punjab; the respondents contended that those authorities did not apply because no new criterion had been introduced.

The Court found that the digital system had recorded the candidates’ timings in minutes, seconds, and milliseconds, but the milliseconds had been omitted when the initial day-end reports and marks were prepared.

Applying the complete recorded time did not alter the notified marking scheme or reassess the candidates’ physical performances; it corrected the erroneous application of the existing time-based criterion and therefore fell within Rule 16.

The petitioners did not dispute the accuracy of the revised timings or establish that they had completed the race within 2 minutes 30 seconds, or that the revision had otherwise prejudiced them.

The Court also accepted that the notification gave effect to a decision of the Commission, despite being issued by the Deputy Secretary, and held that the absence of Committee members’ signatures on the revised reports did not invalidate the correction.

It rejected the challenges concerning the absence of a prior hearing, the revised reports’ signatures, and the Deputy Secretary’s authority.

The writ petition was dismissed, the earlier ad-interim order was vacated, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.