Supreme Court Upholds Gauhati HC's Order Awarding 10.5 Additional Marks To Assam Civil Services Exam Candidate

One Hrishikesh Das, who sat for Combined Competitive Examination (CCE), 2015 (conducted by Assam Public Service Commission) moved a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court seeking re-evaluation of the paper concerned and for his appointment to the post of Inspector of Taxes.

It was his claim before the Court that he was wrongly evaluated and was given less marks in respect of a few answers given by him, thus being deprived of at least 12 marks.

Having heard the pleas of the rival parties, the Single Judge [vide order dated 20/08/2018] had allowed the plea and had held that if for admitted correct answers, marks are not given, it would amount to travesty of Justice.

It was also observed by the Court that merely because the Assam Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2010 did not provide any remedy to such a candidate, it would not bar the Hon'ble Court to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Further, it was held that once it is established on the basis of cogent materials on record that the petitioner had suffered a legal injury due to the error committed by the examiner in the evaluation of answers, denying him the benefit of additional marks would not only be unfair but will also be a travesty of Justice.

Accordingly, the Court proceeded to direct the Commission to award additional 10.5 marks to the petitioner, in which event, the petitioner would be entitled to be recommended for appointment to the post of Inspector of Taxes against 1 (one) post which was kept vacant by an earlier Interim Order.

Thereafter, being aggrieved by the aforesaid direction, an appeal was moved by the Assam Public Service Commission before the Division Bench of the High Court.

Division Bench order

However, upholding the order of the Single Judge and dismissing the appeal moved by APSC, the Division Bench, in October 2021, held that in the absence of any safeguards provided for minimizing or reducing errors in evaluation, it is correct to seek to invoke the Principle of "ubi jus ibi remedium".

Significantly, it was also also held that where the Rules are silent on the issue of re-examination, and if demonstratively error had been committed by the APSC, the Court can very well intervene as has been done in the present case.

Thereafter, being aggrieved by the said decision of the Division Bench, the APSC had approached the Supreme Court preferring an SLP.

Now, this SLP has been disposed of by the Apex Court by refusing to interfere with the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, however keeping open the question of law.

Advocates Parthiv Goswami, Ankit Agarwal, Ragni Pandey and AOR Rahul Pratap appeared for the petitioner/commission. AOR Sameer Abhyankar, along with Advocates Arunav Phukan, Shruti Sarma Hazarika, Amish Tandon, Ayush Beotra, Abhinav Mishra, Uddhav Khanna, Nishi Sangtani and Sunil Saraogi, appeared for the respondent candidate.

Case title - The Assam Public Service Commission & Ors. v. Hrishikesh Das & Anr

Click Here To Read/Download Order