Improper To Look At Specific Questions: Patna HC Declines Candidates' Plea To Appear In District Judge Recruitment Mains Exams Due To Wrong Prelims Questions
Yash Mittal
15 July 2024 5:35 AM GMT
The Patna High Court on Friday (July 12) denied relief to the candidates who appeared in the Bihar District Judges (Entry Level) Recruitment Exam wherein the Court's indulgence was sought by the candidates in directing the Selection authority to consider their candidature for the mains examination due to erroneous questions.
The candidates approached the High Court against the erroneous questions that appeared in the Preliminary Exam due to which they were not able to qualify Preliminary exam to qualify for the mains examination. The petitioners disputed the answer key of several questions and wanted re-evaluation based on the correct answers.
The petitioners claimed that due to wrong answers published by the Selecting Authority, they were not able to clear the cut-off in the preliminary examination to qualify for the main examination.
Out of the several questions, one question appeared as Question no. 58 was "Whether the Right to Vote is a legal right or constitutional right?". The Petitioner-Candidate based on the Judgement delivered by the Supreme Court in Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India opted for "Constitutional Right". However, the said answer was not considered by the Examination Committee and the Candidate missed the cutoff under the EWS Category by 4 marks.
The Petitioner had challenged the answer to question no.58, to get 4 marks to become eligible for Mains Examination. However, the Hon'ble Patna High Court held that the "right to vote is a statutory/legal right" and hence the answer of the candidate was not correct and she couldn't cross the cut-off mark to become eligible to appear in the main examination.
Because the interference of the Court in the matters of re-valuating the answers cannot be called for unless a larger public interest is involved, the Bench comprising Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy said that it may not be proper to look at specific questions and the answers pointed out by the different petitioners to re-evaluate each of the petitioners.
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's case of Ran Vijay and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2018) 2 SCC 357, wherein it was held that sympathy or compassion cannot be a reason to direct re-evaluation of the answer sheet and the entire examination process cannot be derailed only because some candidates were disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer.
In Ran Vijay Singh, the top Court held that even if there is some doubt about the answer key to one or the other of the impugned answers, on account of some material based on an outside expert's opinion, the doubt has to be resolved in favour of the examining body.
The High Court also referred to the case of the High Court of Tripura v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and Others to hold that there is no legal right to claim or ask for revaluation in the absence of any statutory provision.
Accordingly, the Court believed that there was no reason to cause interference to the results of the screening test or the main examination scheduled on the 14th of July 2024.
The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Case Details: Krishna Kumar Singh and Ors. versus The High Court of Judicature at Patna through its Registrar General and Ors., Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9746 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 59
