Judicial Service - Disclosure Of Main Examination Marks Before Vivavoce May Be Avoided ; Allow Candidates To Retain Multiple Choice Question Paper: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the disclosure of the marks in the main examination before interview/viva­voce is conducted, may be avoided.

"Where the written examination is followed with interview/viva­voce and the members in the interview board are made aware of the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination that may likely to form bias affecting the impartial evaluation of the candidates in viva­voce", the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar observed.

In this case, the appellant before the Apex Court had participated in the selection process for direct recruitment to Punjab Superior Judicial Service/Haryana Superior Judicial Service. Aggrieved of not being qualified in the written examination, he had filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which was dismissed.

One of the submission made by the appellant was that when he applied for obtaining the marks which he had secured in the written examination, under the right to information, that was declined and his application was rejected. In this regard, the bench observed that as long as the process is not complete, the marks of the written examination are not to be uploaded or made available to the candidates and if it is being permitted, that will not be in the interest of the applicants.

"The disclosure of the marks in the main examination before it is finalised and the viva­voce is conducted, would be against the principles of transparency, rather it will invite criticism of bias or favouritism.. To clarify further, in such cases, where the written examination is followed with viva­voce, declaration of result of the written examination before conducting viva­voce may not be valid and justified but in cases where determination of merit is based on written examination, it must be declared and made available to candidates without any loss of time and this Court can take a judicial notice of the fact that in such cases where the written examination is followed with interview/viva­voce and the members in the interview board are made aware of the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination that may likely to form bias affecting the impartial evaluation of the candidates in viva­voce and in our considered view, it may always be avoided."

Another  objection raised was that in the question paper of General Knowledge (Paper VI), which was of multiple choice/objective type paper, the OMR sheet was not supplied and the candidates were called upon to make a circle out of the four multiple choices, which according to them is correct option and the question paper supplied has to be returned back to the Invigilators. In this regard, the court opined:

"But to keep transparency in the process of holding examination, particularly in such cases where there is a multiple­ choice question paper, it is always advisable that for such question papers, there shall always be an OMR sheet which may be provided to the candidates so that the question paper can be retained by each of the participants and after the examination is held, a provisional answer key is to be uploaded inviting objections from the candidates who had participated in the selection process, to be furnished within a reasonable time and after collating such objections, the same be placed before a subject expert committee to be constituted by the recruiting/competent authority and after the report is submitted by the subject expert committee, the same be examined by the recruiting authority and thereafter the final answer key is to be uploaded. We make it clear that no presumption is to be drawn that the result has to be declared, but at least the candidates may be provided the final answer keys to enable them to make their own assessment. This is one of the mechanisms by which fairness and transparency which is a sine qua non in the public employment can be resorted to."

The appellant further submitted that Paper V (Criminal Law) was of 200 marks but at the commencement of the examination, the question paper handed over to the candidates was incomplete and it contained only 4 questions whose aggregate came out to be 160 marks instead of 200 marks as shown on the overleaf of the question paper, but when the candidates made complaint of the alleged discrepancy to the notice of the invigilator, after approx. one hour of the commencement of examination, question no.4 was handed over as supplementary question paper to all the candidates and apart from this being a procedural defect, it created a panic among the candidates and no extra time was given for answering the additional question.

In this regard, the court observed that this is a serious lapse on the part of the recruiting authority and somebody must be held responsible for it. The court, therefore, allowed the appeal and directed as follows:

"We direct the respondents to valuate the marks obtained of question nos. 1,2,3 and 5 of Paper V (Criminal Law) (out of total 160 marks) and after undertaking the process, a fresh result of the written examination be declared of the candidates in reference to Punjab/Haryana Superior Judicial Service Examination, 2019 and those who qualify and fall in the zone of three times the number of vacancies may be called for viva­voce and result of the selection process, thereafter be finally declared in accordance with the scheme of Rules, 2007."

Case details

Harkirat Singh Ghuman vs Punjab & Haryana High Court | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 720 | CA 5874 OF 2022 | 29 August 2022 | Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar

Summary

Judicial Service Examination -  Where the written examination is followed with viva­voce, declaration of result of the written examination before conducting viva­voce may not be valid and justified but in cases where determination of merit is based on written examination, it must be declared and made available to candidates without any loss of time and this Court can take a judicial notice of the fact that in such cases where the written examination is followed with interview/viva­voce and the members in the interview board are made aware of the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination that may likely to form bias affecting the impartial evaluation of the candidates in viva­voce and in our considered view, it may always be avoided. (Para 28-29)

Judicial Service Examination -  Particularly in such cases where there is a multiple choice question paper, it is always advisable that for such question papers, there shall always be an OMR sheet which may be provided to the candidates so that the question paper can be retained by each of the participants and after the examination is held, a provisional answer key is to be uploaded inviting objections from the candidates who had participated in the selection process, to be furnished within a reasonable time and after collating such objections, the same be placed before a subject expert committee to be constituted by the recruiting/competent authority and after the report is submitted by the subject expert committee, the same be examined by the recruiting authority and thereafter the final answer key is to be uploaded. We make it clear that no presumption is to be drawn that the result has to be declared, but at least the candidates may be provided the final answer keys to enable them to make their own assessment. (Para 26)

Punjab/Haryana Superior Judicial Service Examination, 2019 -  High Court dismissed writ petition challenging the examination process - Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court directed : Valuate the marks obtained of question nos. 1,2,3 and 5 of Paper V (Criminal Law) (out of total 160 marks) and after undertaking the process, a fresh result of the written examination be declared of the candidates in reference to Punjab/Haryana Superior Judicial Service Examination, 2019 and those who qualify and fall in the zone of three times the number of vacancies may be called for viva­voce and result of the selection process, thereafter be finally declared in accordance with the scheme of Rules, 2007. 

Click here to Read/Download Judgment