Police Recruitment Exam Should Test Candidates For Reasoning And Logic, Not Physics: Allahabad High Court Orders Recalculation Of Results
While dealing with the challenge to answer in the selection process under U.P. Police (Constable and Head Constable) Service Rules, 2015, the Allahabad High Court has held that the candidates appearing in examination for appointment in police force are tested for logic and reasoning, not for science. Observing that complete hands off approach of no interference has not been suggested by...
While dealing with the challenge to answer in the selection process under U.P. Police (Constable and Head Constable) Service Rules, 2015, the Allahabad High Court has held that the candidates appearing in examination for appointment in police force are tested for logic and reasoning, not for science.
Observing that complete hands off approach of no interference has not been suggested by the Supreme Court in matters relating to selection process, bench comprising of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held,
“A question has to be given its plain meaning and read as a whole. The candidates were being tested for reasoning and logic and not physics.”
The Court further observed,
“For testing logic and reasoning, often questions are based on a given assumption. The assumption on which question is founded is different from the actual state of affairs. The candidates are not supposed to import their understanding of the actual state of affairs, but answer the question on basis of the assumptive premise.”
The selection for 31,360 posts of Constables (Civil Police) and 18,208 posts of Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) was held as per the U.P. Police Service Rules. Selection consisted of five stages i.e. (i) written examination (ii) documentary verification (iii) physical standard test (iv) physical efficiency test and (v) medical examination. The Recruitment Board notified cut off marks of written examination for each category in November 2019. Thereafter, further selection process was carried out for candidates. Though the appellants participated in the selection process, their names did not appear in the final select list.
In the writ petition, it was alleged that Question No.68 of Test Booklet B, Series 17 wrongly declared answer as 'D' when the correct answer was 'C'. The appellants contended that if the answer had been corrected, they would be eligible to participate in the medical examination and consequently, could have been selected against the advertised posts, if found suitable.
Objections were invited to the first provisional answer key. In the second and third answer key, the correct answer was shown as option 'C'. However, in the final answer key, to which no objection could be filed, answer was marked as option 'D'. The writ petition was dismissed on grounds that the Court is not an expert to interpret the question and sit over expertise of an expert body “unless some perversity or malafide is demonstrated.”
In the counter affidavit filed by State respondents, it was contended that the first part of the question, i.e, “At 9 p.m. the hour hand faces north” was merely to confuse the candidates and had no correlation to the second part of the question.
Rejecting the aforesaid contention of respondents as being wholly unsustainable in law, the Court observed, “A question has to be read as a whole. A candidate is never expected to shut his eyes to or ignore any part of question and thereafter answer it.”
Counsels for State further contended that Court should not assume the role of experts, and in case of doubt, benefit should be given to the Recruitment Board rather than the candidates. However, after examining various decisions of the Supreme Court, the Court held,
“a complete hands off approach of no interference has not been suggested in any of the judgments cited on behalf of the State otherwise it would be in derogation of the power of judicial review conferred on the Constitutional Courts. At the same time, interference should be in rare and exceptional situations where the mistake is apparent and where it does not involve any inferential process of reasoning or rationalization.”
The Court held ascribing to the argument given by the agency would amount to entering into the realm of assumptions, which is not acceptable. The Court observed that in the present case examination was conducted for the police force and not engineering, questions had to be read plainly.
The Court observed that even though the Court was empowered to adjudicate upon the correctness of the assumption made in ignoring the first part of the question, it sought clarification from the Professor, Department of Mathematics and Statistic of Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, who stated the correct option as 'C'.
Lastly, the State contended that since the vacancies had already been carried forward, appellants could not be granted posts at this stage. Rejecting the said submission, the Court held that still 603 seats were lying vacant for that year, and the appellants are entitled to be appointed against the vacant posts provided they qualify the medical examination and fulfil other prescribed norms.
The Court distinguished the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others Vs. Pankaj Kumar and Sankar Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal and Others on facts. As in Sankar Mondal, the candidates had approached the Court after 7 years and the case was decided after 24 years whereas in the case of Pankaj Kumar, the candidates were not vigilant enough to approach the High Court within reasonable time. In the present case, the appellants approached the Court as soon as the final result was uploaded.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the decision of the writ court was set aside.
Case Title: Kapil Kumar And 7 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 415 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 93 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 415
Counsel for Appellant: Prashant Mishra, Tarun Agrawal