Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1003 (HP)

Sanjay Verma v. H. P. Public Service Commission

2012-12-19

KURIAN JOSEPH, SANJAY KAROL

body2012
JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) In all these writ petitions except CWP No. 7618 of 2012, the petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by the key answers published by the Public Service Commission, for the HAS Examination, 2012. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the Commission the key answers as prepared by the Commission was published initially, then objections were sought, objections were referred to key Committee and on the basis of the opinion given by the key Committee the key answers were modified and it is the modified key answers that has now been published. 2. At the outset, we may note that as per the key Committee ten questions from the Aptitude Test are to be scrapped since those questions pertain to an expert field of psychology and the candidates who are otherwise qualified in psychology will alone be getting additional advantage. Preliminary examination is not to be limited to any particular subject(s). Apart from scrapping ten questions, the Commission has also varied four answers in the Aptitude Test. One question has been scrapped from the General Studies paper and answer for one question has been varied also. Thus, on the side of the Commission, it is submitted that papers would be valued out of 380, after scrapping ten questions and the candidates who have answered the question as per the key initially published and the candidates who have answered the question as per the revised key will also be given the marks for those five questions for which answers have been varied by the Commission. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Commission inviting reference to the decision of Apex Court in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission versus Mukesh Thakur and another, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759 has submitted that the Court may not attempt a revaluation since there is no such enabling provision in the scheme. However, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the decision of the apex Court in Mukesh Thakur’s case may not apply as such to the facts of the present case since the Supreme Court in that case has been dealing with the situation of the written examination whereas the instant is a case of examination on objective type questions. However, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the decision of the apex Court in Mukesh Thakur’s case may not apply as such to the facts of the present case since the Supreme Court in that case has been dealing with the situation of the written examination whereas the instant is a case of examination on objective type questions. It is also submitted that this is not a final examination but only a screening process so as to shortlist the candidates to be admitted in the final examination. Still further, it is pointed out that where the answers are demonstrably wrong, the Court should in the interest of justice pass appropriate orders. Yet another contention is that since a few questions have been scrapped, on the same analogy a few more questions are to be scrapped. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in CWP No. 7618 of 2012 contends that since 10% of the questions in one paper and one question in another paper have been scrapped by the Commission itself, it is an ideal situation where the Court should direct the conduct of a fresh examination without giving room to any such objections. We are afraid that the contention cannot be appreciated. More than thirteen thousand candidates have appeared in the examination. No doubt, a few questions have been scrapped. But the benefit of scrapping is uniformly available to all the candidates. Had they not been scrapped, there would have been an effective challenge on the ground of Article 14 since undue advantage would have been enured to the candidates who are specialized in psychology, as rightly observed by the key Committee. 5. Having heard the counsel appearing on both sides and having regard to the pleadings taken by the parties, we are of the view that without doing any violation to the settled principles of law, the Commission should undertake a further exercise. It may not be out of context to make an observation that paper setters themselves have been directed to avoid questions which may yield more than one answer, questions which are ambiguous and which are otherwise wrong in the proposition. We have also gone through some of the opinions expressed by the experts that in such an examination at the preliminary stage, the questions which require in depth studies on a subject should be avoided. We have also gone through some of the opinions expressed by the experts that in such an examination at the preliminary stage, the questions which require in depth studies on a subject should be avoided. This observation will be kept in mind by the Commission while conducting the examination in the next year. Needless also to say that the required changes would be introduced in the relevant rules/instructions. 6. Having regard to the pleadings in these writ petitions and having gone through the opinion of the experts and the materials, it is fairly clear that on the very same analogy adopted by the experts two more questions from the Aptitude Test are to be scrapped. They are Question Nos. 49 and 70. Few more questions would obviously yield more than one answers. They are: 1. General Studies, A Series Question No. 17 A & B. Question No. 52 A & D. Question No. 58 B & D. 2. Aptitude Test, Paper-II, A Series Question No. 2 C & D. Question No. 4 B & D. Question No. 7 B, C & D. Question No. 10 A & B. Question No. 45 B & D. Question No. 46 C & D. Question No. 58 C & D. Question No. 61 C & D. Question No. 76 C & D. Question No. 88 A & D. 7. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of as follows: As far as the answers which have been varied are concerned, all the petitioners who have given answers as per the original key should also be given the marks as if they have answered the questions correctly. The candidates who have answered the questions as per the varied answers, needless to say will also be given the marks. 8. We may also refer to a submission made by the counsel for the petitioners that instead of valuing the answer sheets out of 374, a more just and fairer method would be to value the answers giving proportionate credit to the candidates. We find force in the above submission. Therefore, there will be a direction to give a proportionate credit of the scraped question to all candidates. We find force in the above submission. Therefore, there will be a direction to give a proportionate credit of the scraped question to all candidates. Since there are more than thirteen thousand candidates who appeared in the examination, we make it clear that the exercise on giving marks for varied answers be limited to the petitioners only and in the case of those candidates whom the Commission has already cleared, they shall not be affected since they have been in any case cleared by the Commission as eligible to participate in the final examination. It is relevant to note in this context that despite the declaration of the result on 20.10.2012 and publication of the key on 26.10.2012 so far none else has expressed any objection either before the Commission or has approached this Court and none else had also approached the Commission when the initial key was published. 9. The petitioners have made a final submission that the cut off marks should be appropriately fixed in view of the scrapping of quite a few questions. Learned counsel appearing for the Commission has invited the attention to the rules which provides for admission of about 20 times of the approximate number of vacancies. We are informed that this year number of vacancies invited by the Commission are only 27. Having regard to the very peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, without treating it as a precedent, there will be a direction to the Commission to invite the candidates in the ratio of 1:21. Needless to say that this ratio will be followed category-wise. Needless also to clarify that the benefit of the change in ratio to 1:21 will not be restricted to the petitioners only and will be available to other candidates as well. 10. With the above observations, the writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.