Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 662 (PAT)

Lokpal v. Bihar Staff Selection Commission

2013-06-19

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, R.M.DOSHIT

body2013
ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The delay of 46 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. 2. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re. L.P.A. Nos. 98 of 2013, 103 of 2013, 190 of 2013 & 291 of 2013: 3. These four Appeals preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arise from the common judgment and order dated 30th October 2012 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC Nos. 10268 of 2012, 12209 of 2012 and 12506 of 2012. 4. Pursuant to the advertisement No. 110 of 2010 published on 18th June 2010, the appellants-writ petitioners applied for selection and appointment to Graduate Level Posts under the State of Bihar. The recruitment process was undertaken by the respondent Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’), a statutory body. Pursuant to their application the appellants were admitted to Graduate Level Ist Preliminary Combined Competitive Examination, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Preliminary Examination’) conducted on 18th December 2011. The result was declared on 12th April 2012. The writ petitioners having failed at the Preliminary Examination approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above writ petitions to challenge the result of the Preliminary Examination published on 12th April 2012. 5. The appellants challenged the result of the examination on several grounds, to direct a C.B.I. enquiry in the manner in which the examination was conducted; to cancel the examination and to conduct the examination afresh. According to the appellants, the advertisement was issued for 1569 vacancies whereas the result was declared for more than double the vacancies advertised. The appellants also questioned certain questions asked in the examination and the model answers to the said questions. Several of the questions were physically picked up from the earlier I.A.S. examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission. Many of the questions did not have a correct option and many had two possible correct answers. Several questions were asked out of the syllabus. The answer key prepared by the Commission was not accurate; in many questions, the answer selected by the Commission was wrong. These irregularities found in the setting up of the question papers and in the defective answer key have resulted in a lopsided result of the Preliminary Examination. The appellants also raised the plea of mala fide, favouritism and nepotism. 6. The petitions were contested by the Commission. These irregularities found in the setting up of the question papers and in the defective answer key have resulted in a lopsided result of the Preliminary Examination. The appellants also raised the plea of mala fide, favouritism and nepotism. 6. The petitions were contested by the Commission. The Commission admitted that some questions were ambiguous having two possible correct answers and for some questions the answer key was defective i.e. the answer contained in the answer key was not the correct answer to the question. In view of the objections raised against the question papers and the answer key, the Commission appointed a committee of experts to examine the question papers afresh. The committee of experts considered the suggestions received from the examinees and reviewed the question papers and the answer key. Pursuant to the recommendations/ suggestions made by the committee of experts, for Question No. 27 both options ‘C & D’ were treated as correct answers. The Question No. 90 which had no correct option was totally deleted. After accepting the suggestions made by the committee of experts, the answer sheets were re-examined and results were declared afresh. Under the revised result, some 1411 more candidates were declared successful; whereas 915 candidates who had been earlier declared successful did not find their place in the revised result. Nonetheless, the said 915 candidates also were allowed to take the main examination along with other successful candidates. The appellants are those candidates who have failed at the Preliminary Examination under both the results, the original published on 12th April 2012 and the revised result published in July 2012. They were, therefore, not eligible to take the main examination. The learned single Judge has considered the challenge to the result and the remedial measures undertaken by the Commission. 7. The learned single Judge has upheld the result published by the Commission and has refused to interfere with the recruitment process. Therefore, these Appeals. 8. Learned advocates Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava and Mr. Kamala Kant Tiwari have appeared for the appellants. Learned Advocate Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava has taken the lead. Mr. Shrivastava has submitted that having advertised 1569 vacancies, the Commission has expanded the result for 3285 vacancies. He has submitted that any change/alteration in the vacancy position had to be declared prior to conducting the Preliminary Examination. Abhinav Shrivastava and Mr. Kamala Kant Tiwari have appeared for the appellants. Learned Advocate Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava has taken the lead. Mr. Shrivastava has submitted that having advertised 1569 vacancies, the Commission has expanded the result for 3285 vacancies. He has submitted that any change/alteration in the vacancy position had to be declared prior to conducting the Preliminary Examination. However, in the present case, the Commission has, contrary to the stipulations made in the public notice, altered the number of vacancies after the result of the Preliminary Examination was declared. The action of the Commission is, therefore, arbitrary and contrary to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Mr. Shrivastava has taken us through some of the questions, more particularly Question Nos. 27 and 117. He has submitted that the model answer adopted by the Commission to Question No. 27 is wrong and the answer suggested by the writ petitioners is the correct answer. He has submitted that Question No. 117 does not have a correct answer. On account of wrong answer adopted by the Commission, the petitioners and such others have suffered double jeopardy. The correct option answered by the appellants has been treated as wrong entry. He has submitted that the Commission had adopted negative marking system. For each correct answer, the candidate would receive four marks whereas for each incorrect answer the candidate would lose one mark. For the aforesaid Question No. 27, all those appellants who had answered correctly should have received four marks for that answer; instead on account of wrong answer key they have suffered loss of one mark. Thus, the appellants have lost five marks from the total marks. Same would be true for other questions which had a wrong answer key. He has submitted that in the circumstances, the Commission should be directed to cancel the results of the Preliminary Examination and to conduct the Preliminary Examination afresh. In support of his submissions, Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Akshey Lal Pandit v. State of Bihar; { 2011(3) PLJR 258 }. He has submitted that in the present case also, similar relief be given to the appellants i.e. the qualifying marks for the main examination be reduced. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Satyabir Bharti has appeared for the Commission. He has contested the Appeals. He has submitted that in the present case also, similar relief be given to the appellants i.e. the qualifying marks for the main examination be reduced. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Satyabir Bharti has appeared for the Commission. He has contested the Appeals. He has demonstrated before us that the model answer to Question No. 27 is in fact the correct answer. He has further submitted that having taken the remedial measures; having allowed 1411 more candidates to enter the arena of main examination, the Commission also allowed 915 candidates to take the main examination although they did not find place amongst the successful candidates in the revised result. He has submitted that in the circumstances before the Commission, the Commission has taken due care that no candidate may suffer prejudice or injustice. He has submitted that after taking remedial measures and after allowing 1411 more candidates to take main examination, the process of recruitment undertaken by the Commission need not be stalled. In support of his submissions, Mr. Satyabir Bharti has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar v. State of Bihar; { 2012(1) PLJR 578 }. Mr. Satyabir Bharti has submitted that in the present case also, the Commission has already taken remedial measures as suggested by the committee of experts which should satisfy the conscience of this Court. No further relief is, therefore, required to be granted to the appellants. 10. In the matter of Akshey Lal Pandit (supra,) a similar dispute was raised in respect of the preliminary examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission for recruitment to 217 vacancies in the subordinate judiciary of the State of Bihar. One of the challenges was omission of 25 questions from consideration. It transpires that 25 questions did not have the correct answer key. Eventually, the said 25 questions were omitted from consideration of total marks. In the circumstances, this Court directed the Commission to reduce the cut off marks by 25 marks. In the matter of Manoj Kumar (supra), in the similar circumstances, the Bihar Public Service Commission prepared the answer key afresh and re-evaluated all the answer sheets. The said exercise was held to be sufficient to mitigate the situation faced by the Commission. 11. We are afraid, we are unable to agree with the aforesaid arguments advanced by Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava and adopted by the learned advocates Mr. The said exercise was held to be sufficient to mitigate the situation faced by the Commission. 11. We are afraid, we are unable to agree with the aforesaid arguments advanced by Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava and adopted by the learned advocates Mr. Sanjeet Kumar and Mr. Kamala Kant Tiwari. Once the question papers and the answer key were reviewed by the committee of experts and the remedial measures were taken by the Commission as suggested by the committee of experts, we have no reason to interfere with the result of the Preliminary Examination. Further, we do not suppose that the result of the Preliminary Examination affecting more than 27000 candidates should be vitiated or invalidated at the instance of a few hundred candidates. 12. We may particularly note here that it is not the case of the appellants before us that any of them had answered any of the disputed questions correctly and that they were given minus marks for such correct answer on account of defective answer key. It is not the case of any of the appellants before us that they are anywhere near the cut off marks. In absence of specific plea in respect of each appellant, the result of the examination cannot be adversely affected on a vague submission or on a vague plea. 13. We may further note that the appellants are the candidates who had attempted the Preliminary Examination in December 2011, did wait for the result till April 2012, having failed at the Preliminary Examination have challenged the result thereof as aforesaid. Had there been a genuine dispute with regard to correctness of the question or the options offered by the Commission, the dispute would have been raised at the earliest soon after the Preliminary Examination was conducted. The challenge is clearly an after thought arising from the failure to pass the Preliminary Examination. 14. As we have recorded hereinabove, the Commission has already taken remedial measures as suggested by the committee of experts. Some 1411 more candidates have had the opportunity to take the main examination. No reduction in the cut off marks is warranted. 15. We see no merit in these Appeals. Appeals are dismissed in limine. 16. Interlocutory Applications stands disposed of.