Out Of Two Right Answers, Bombay High Court Allows MPSC To Treat Only One As Correct To Avoid Burdening The Commission And Disturb The Selection Of Candidates

The Bombay High Court Bench of Aurangabad has set aside the judgement of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal which directed the Maharashtra Public Service Commission to recount the marks of candidates who appeared for the Sub-Registrar/Stamp Inspector (Grade-1) position test . The Administrative Tribunal had accepted that the question in fact carried two right answers, therefore, directed the Commission to exclude the marks assigned to the problematic question only for the candidates who applied against the seats reserved for EWS category. The original applicant before the Tribunal had applied for EWS reserved post.

In appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court, comprising Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Y. G. Khobragade observed that re-evaluation would modify the marks of candidates leading in an overall change in the merit list causing cancellation of appointment orders and resulting in the Commission being overburdened. Therefore, the Division Bench decided to treat one out of the two correct answers for awarding marks.

BACKGROUND:

The Maharashtra Public Service Commission published an advertisement for various positions, including Sub Registrar/Stamp Inspector (Grade I), as part of a recruitment process. The candidates belonging to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) also participated in this process. A total of 78 posts were available, out of which six were reserved for EWS candidates. Many candidates applied for the preliminary examination, and 975 qualified for the main exam.

A candidate (applicant in the original application before the Tribunal) raised an issue in relation to a question which according to him offered two correct options to one question , however, the answer keys reflected only one as the correct answer. He claimed a seat only in the EWS category asserting that he scored the highest in that category.

The Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh and others vs. State of UP and others, (2018) 2 SCC 357 wherein it was held that the resolution to a problem of this nature was to exclude the suspect or offending question.

Disapproving the contention of the public service commission, that only the answer mentioned in the answer key was correct, the Tribunal directed the Commission to recount the marks scored by the candidates. However, it was held that there was no requirement for recounting the marks of all the candidates as the applicant was the only candidate who had raised the dispute and had made a claim only against the seat reserved for EWS candidates. Accordingly, the Tribunal in its order directed the Commission to recount the marks only for the seats reserved for EWS category in the mains examination held for the said post.

Aggrieved, the Commission and some of the other appointed candidates filed a writ petition asking the High Court to quash the order of the Administrative Tribunal.

Findings of the Court:

The High Court considered the issue as to whether restricting the recounting of marks to EWS and directing the Commission to make a fresh select list was a right decision taken by the Tribunal.

Secondly, in terms of determining the correctness of answers, it was stated that the court was not expected to decide as to which answer can be deemed to be a correct as the answer to the question was related to the field of law and expected to be easily deduced. The Court referred the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh and others vs. State of UP and others, (2018) 2 SCC 357 which reads,

“the Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate-it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academicians.”

The Supreme in this case, highlighted a few significant conclusions as mentioned below, which were relied upon by the High Court to decide the dispute.

1. If the rules do not allow revaluation, courts can only permit it in rare cases where a clear error is shown.
2. The Court should not revaluate answer sheets due to lack of expertise in academic matters and academic matters are best left to academicians;
3. The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption;
4. In case of doubt, benefits should go to the examination authority, not the candidate.
5. The Court should exclude the suspect or offending question.

The Apex court had also held that the ongoing interference of Courts in such matters would leave both examination authorities and candidates uncertain about outcomes, often for years, which undermine the integrity of the process, ie, the candidates are left questioning their results, college admissions, and job prospects, creating confusion and public dissatisfaction. While candidates put in significant effort, examination authorities also work hard to ensure fairness, and their internal checks should be respected to maintain the integrity of the examination.

Considering the highlights specified in Ran Vijay Singh and others vs. State of UP and others, (2018) 2 SCC 357, the High Court concluded that deletion of the question in dispute would result in the Commission to carryout revaluation which would be highly burdensome and may also result in different issues.

Finally, the court found it in the interest of justice to presume the correctness of one of the two right answers as per the key. It was held that the benefit would go to the Examination Authority rather than to the candidates as per the judgement relied upon.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the order of the Administrative Tribunal which directed the Commission to recount the marks of the EWS category and allowed the Writ Petitions.

Case Title: WRIT PETITION NO. 4173 OF 2024 MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION NO. 4191 OF 2024 BABAR SURAJ SAHEBRAO AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Click Here To Download The Order/Judgement