Can't Adjudicate Correctness Of Response, But Can Rectify Examiner's Failure To Correct Response: Allahabad HC Awards Additional Marks To 2022 UPPCS(J) Candidate
While entertaining a writ petition, the Allahabad High Court awarded two additional marks to a candidate who had appeared for the U.P. Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2022, thereby qualifying him for selection. The Court further directed for the petitioner's selection against the vacancies available in the General Category, for which he was eligible.The...
While entertaining a writ petition, the Allahabad High Court awarded two additional marks to a candidate who had appeared for the U.P. Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2022, thereby qualifying him for selection. The Court further directed for the petitioner's selection against the vacancies available in the General Category, for which he was eligible.
The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that by principle, the Courts were not to judge the correctness of the answer responses and intervene with the scale of marks awarded. However, where the examiner had failed to correct the response submitted, the Court was entitled to offer correction and the same would not be considered as 'judging' the correctness of an answer response.
“If the court were to refrain from offering this necessary correction, it would only create permission for negligence and even open the door for corrupt practices to develop. Therefore, wherever the expert such as the Commission may have erred in not evaluating an answer response the Court may always offer measured but necessary correction,” held the Court.
Case Background
Petitioner had applied for selection under the UPPCS(J), 2022. He qualified the preliminary as well as the written examination and had been called for the interview. However, on declaration of the final result by the Uttar Pradesh Public Commission (The Commission) on 30.08.2023, the petitioner was not selected. Aggrieved by this, petitioner sought for an inspection of his answer copy for the General Knowledge exam.
Petitioner was allowed inspection of his answer copy on 22.11.2023. During said inspection, petitioner discovered that he had been awarded zero marks against his responses to Question No. 9(d) and Question No.10(D)(i), which according to him, he had answered correctly. He further discovered that he had been awarded only 1 mark instead of the full 2 for Question Nos.9(a), (b) and (e), despite his responses to the questions being entirely correct. It was submitted that if the petitioner's responses had been marked correctly, he would have qualified the 590-mark cut-off for the General Category, whereas in the present scenario, he was only awarded a total of 588 marks, making him ineligible for the selection.
Petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to bring on record the answer key of the General Knowledge exam. Petitioner further prayed that the Court issue a direction to place him on the final list after considering his responses to the questions under contention and awarding him 6 marks for the same. It was submitted by counsel for petitioner that there were 10 vacancies in the General Category against which the petitioner could be selected without disturbing the last selected candidate.
Per Contra, counsel for respondent contended that the evaluation of answers and the subsequent awarding of marks fell under the domain of expertise of the Commission. It was submitted that the Court “may always refrain” from judging the correctness of the evaluation of answers and the marks given by the Commission. It was concluded that in such circumstances, the question that less marks were awarded to the petitioner, did not rise at all. Further, it was submitted that as regards Question No.9(d), petitioner had answered it in more words than the limit permitted and that Question No. 10(D)(i) had been answered altogether incorrectly.
High Court Verdict
The Court examined the responses submitted by the petitioner which had been sought through an earlier order and held that though the Courts cannot adjudicate upon the correctness of a response, but if an examiner has failed to correct a response, the same can be done by the Court.
The Court placed reliance on Kanpur University and Ors. v. Samir Gupta and Ors. where the Apex Court held that if the answer submitted by the student had been shown to be correct beyond doubt, it would be unfair to penalise the student for not giving the answer as per the answer key, which had been shown to be incorrect.
The Court held that despite the recognised principle that marks awarded need not be justified, where plain errors were seen to exist, the same would not apply. It was held that in the present scenario petitioner had given the correct responses to the questions. Accordingly, it was required that a direction be issued to the Commission to award marks to the petitioner, held the Court.
“The petitioner had given his answer responses as have been noted above. The correctness of the same is not disputed in the counter affidavit. Therefore, the facts in the present case warrant a direction to be issued to the Commission to make the necessary correction to award marks to the petitioner for his correct answer responses.”
Finding that the petitioner required just two marks to be selected, the Court stated that there was no point in directing the Commission to make corrections. It was held that two more marks be awarded to the petitioner for the General Knowledge examination, qualifying him for selection.
On discovering that there were 9 vacancies for which the petitioner was eligible, the Court directed that an appointment letter be issued to him. However, it was specified that the same would not have a bearing on the petitioner's seniority and that he would he be treated as the last selected candidate.
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.
Case Title: Shivam Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 657 of 2024]