Police SI Selection | Supreme Court Finds Fault With HC For Not Considering Candidates' Objections To Questions
In a major relief to a section of police job aspirants in Jharkhand, last week, the Supreme Court set aside a high court order denying relief to candidates for the post of police sub-inspector who did not receive minimum qualification marks in a limited competitive examination, but had raised objections with respect to nine questions before the declaration of results. The...
In a major relief to a section of police job aspirants in Jharkhand, last week, the Supreme Court set aside a high court order denying relief to candidates for the post of police sub-inspector who did not receive minimum qualification marks in a limited competitive examination, but had raised objections with respect to nine questions before the declaration of results. The bench held:
“The high court ought to have considered the objections on merits and/or called for the expert’s opinion on nine questions of which, as per the original writ petitioners, answers were incorrect. If the expert’s opinion would have been taken on the correct answers and/or on the answers with respect to such nine questions for which the objections were raised, the truth would have come out.”
Notably, the division bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar observed that even if the objections had been raised by the petitioners beyond the prescribed period of submitting them, but before the declaration of results, the high court ought to have considered the objections on their merits.
The apex court was hearing a set of appeals preferred by a group of unsuccessful candidates who had appeared for a limited competitive examination conducted by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission for appointment to the post of police sub-inspector. Their cases were not considered for appointment as they were found ineligible, having failed to achieve the minimum qualifying marks. Both a single-judge bench as well a division bench of the state high court refused to grant them relief, on the ground that the objections had been filed by them beyond the period stipulated for the purpose.
However, the petitioners informed the bench that the first representation had been made by them in December 2017, which was within the time limit for submitting the objections. Thus, they argued that the high court had materially erred in non-suiting the original writ petitioners on the ground that the objections were not raised within the stipulated time for raising the objections. This argument found favour with the Supreme Court, which held:
“The high court has noted that the objections were filed in January 2018. However, it is the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that the first objection was submitted in December 2017, a copy of which is placed on record. Therefore, the high court ought to have considered the objections on merits and ought to have considered obtaining the expert’s opinion.”
While holding that the Jharkhand High Court erred in refusing to consider the petitioners’ objections on merits, the bench criticised the ‘too technical view’ adopted by the division bench of the high court. It also held:
“At this stage, it is required to be noted that even if, the objections were raised on January 6 and 8, 2018, the same was prior to the date of the declaration of result, i.e., on January 9, 2018. Therefore, the high court ought to have considered the objections on merits and/or called for the expert’s opinion on nine questions of which as per the original writ petitioners, answers were incorrect.”
The Jharkhand High Court had also observed that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners because of its refusal to grant them relief since any number of marks added to their total scores for every erroneous question, would also be added to the total scores of other successful candidates. “There will be no change in the merit position,” the division bench of the high court had held. The apex court, however, took a markedly different stand, holding that the Jharkhand High Court had ‘materially erred’. The bench observed:
“If some marks were added [to the total scores of the petitioners], they would have achieved the minimum qualifying marks. Therefore, they would have been eligible, and their cases would have been considered on merits. Therefore, the high court is not right in observing that no prejudice would be caused to the original writ petitioners.”
On these grounds, the bench allowed the appeals in part and set aside the Jharkhand High Court’s decision. However, the apex court decided to remand the matter to the high court for it to consider the letters patent appeals afresh. The bench pronounced, “The appeals on remand be decided and disposed of at the earliest preferably within a period of three months from the date of the present order. It will be open for the division bench to call for the expert’s opinion with respect to the questions. However, the same is left to the High Court.”
Case Title
Sachit Kumar Singh & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. | Civil Appeal Nos. 2793-98 of 2023
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 382
Headnotes
Objections to Questions in Competitive Examination – Appeals by unsuccessful candidates appearing for limited competitive examination conducted by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission for appointment to the post of police sub-inspector – Jharkhand High Court refused to consider objections raised by petitioners on merits on the ground that they were filed beyond the stipulated period for filing objections – Held, high court erred in refusing to consider the petitioners’ objections on merits and took a too technical view – Further held, even if the objections had been raised by the petitioners beyond the prescribed period of submitting them, but before the declaration of results, the high court ought to have considered the objections on their merits –Appeals allowed in part – Appeals remanded to high court to be considered afresh.