Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 834 (PAT)

Kumod Kumar v. Bihar Staff Selection Commission

2015-06-24

JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA, NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, J. 1. These four Intra-Court Letters Patent Appeals have been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 20.8.2013 passed by learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 3640 of 2013 and analogous writ applications by which the learned Single Judge set aside the results of the Main examination with consequential direction to the Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as Commission) to prepare fresh results of the Graduate Level Combined Examination 2010, in accordance with the directions of the Court in relation to deletion/modification of questions and answers as given therein. 2. LPA No. 1200 of 2013 is by candidates who were not the party to the writ proceedings but had been declared selected as per the results first published but were then shown to be not qualified as per the revised results pursuant to the directions of this Court by the learned Single Judge. The other three Letters Patent Appeals i.e. LPA Nos. 1170, 1174 and 1352 all of 2013 are by candidates who were writ petitioners and assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge in not granting them full relief in respect of all the questions that were questioned. Even after the revised results as per the directions of this Court they have not been selected. 3. It may be noted here that in these Letters Patent Appeals public notices through Newspapers were issued for attention of all the candidates who had been selected pursuant to the revised results and large number of them have been made respondents in representative capacity who have also been served notices personally. 4. In the first Letter Patent Appeal i.e. LPA No. 1200 of 2013, Sri Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel appears for the appellants who had been originally selected but upon revised results pursuant to the direction of this Court failed to get selected. Challenge has been made primarily on the ground that once the results were published and they were selected, this Court ought not to have interfered and even if interfered their selection ought not to have been reversed. If anything, then the whole examination should have been cancelled and re-examination ordered. 5. Having heard Sri Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate, the answers to his submission are simple. If anything, then the whole examination should have been cancelled and re-examination ordered. 5. Having heard Sri Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate, the answers to his submission are simple. In a public competitive examination based on multiple choice questions no one can be permitted to get undue advantage of wrong questions or wrong answers and if it is found that the marking was wrong either because there was mistake in the questions themselves or in the model answer used to evaluate the results, this Court cannot shut its eyes and permit undue advantage to persons who were rightfully not entitled to mark they scored and deprived the candidate who had rightly answered of their rightful place in the merit list. One must keep in mind that in objective multiple choice type examinations with negative marking for wrong answers every question is important and especially when tens of thousands of candidates are appearing. There is great tussle for each mark to get into the select list. In the present examination, there were four marks for every right answer and one negative mark for every wrong answer. Thus, where the model answer by which the results were evaluated were wrong then a person who wrongly answer can be marked right gaining four marks and a person who rightly answer would lose not only four marks but would incur one negative mark. If the model answers being wrong did not tally with the correct answer it has thus serious repercussions. Similarly, if questions were ambiguous then someone would risk answering and depending upon his luck and not knowledge, he would gain unfair advantage and someone seeing the ambiguity would not risk answering at all, that would not be a fair procedure. Therefore, if it is brought to the notice of the Court that the model answers were wrong or if the questions were ambiguous or there was any other conflict then it would be the duty of the Court to do justice to restore fair procedure of selection. Thus, even though, results may be declared and situations so demands for fairness in selection, court interference is not only called for but becomes imperative and not to grant finality to the results howsoever declared. Thus, even though, results may be declared and situations so demands for fairness in selection, court interference is not only called for but becomes imperative and not to grant finality to the results howsoever declared. In exceptional circumstances as has been noted by various judgments, where the process is long over and there is delayed challenge on equitable principles, the court may choose not to interfere. So, also when there is a strict time schedule to be followed then upsetting the results may lead to administrative chaos when interference may not be made. 6. Having said so, I may notice few judgments and binding precedents in this regard. The Apex Court in the case of Kanpur University through Vice-Chancellor and Others vs. Samir Gupta and Others, (1983) 4 SCC 309 has in paragraphs-16 & 18 noted thus:- "16. We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. 18. Fourthly, in a system of multiple choice objective-type test care must be taken to see that questions having an ambiguous import are not set in the papers. That kind of system of examination involves merely the tick-marking of the correct answer. It leaves no scope for reasoning or argument. The answer is yes or no. That is why the questions have to be clear and unequivocal. Lastly, if the attention of the University is drawn to any defect in a key answer or any ambiguity in a question set in the examination, prompt and timely decision must be taken by the University to declare that the suspect question will be excluded from the paper and no marks assigned to it." 7. Then, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2013) 4 SCC 690 wherein in paragraph-19 that is what their Lordships has said:- 19. Then, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2013) 4 SCC 690 wherein in paragraph-19 that is what their Lordships has said:- 19. Given the nature of the defect in the answer key the most natural and logical way of correcting the evaluation of the scripts was to correct the key and get the answer scripts re-evaluated on the basis thereof. There was, in the circumstances, no compelling reason for directing a fresh examination to be held by the Commission especially when there was no allegation about any malpractice, fraud or corrupt motives that could possibly vitiate the earlier examination to call for a fresh attempt by all concerned. 8. Then, we may refer the judgment in the case of Sanjay Singh and Another vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Another, (2007) 3 SCC 720 wherein in paragraph-52 this is what their Lordships has said:- 52. The petitioners have requested that their petitions should be treated as being in public interest and the entire selection process in regard to Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2003 should be set aside. We are unable to accept the said contention. What has been made out is certain inherent defects of a particular scaling system when applied to the selection process of the Civil Judges (Junior Division) where the problem is one of examiner variability (strict/liberal examiners). Neither mala-fides nor any other irregularities in the process of selection are made out. 9. Then, we may refer to the case of Vikas Pratap Singh and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, (2013) 14 SCC 494 wherein in paragraphs-18 & 19 under some what similar circumstances their Lordships has held thus:- 18. It is settled law that if the irregularities in evaluation could be noticed and corrected specifically and undeserving select candidates be identified and in their place deserving candidates be included in select list, then no illegality would be said to have crept in the process of re-evaluation. The respondent Board thus identified the irregularities which had crept in the evaluation procedure and corrected the same by employing the method of re-evaluation in respect of the eight questions, answers to which were incorrect and by deletion of the eight incorrect questions and allotment of their marks on pro rata basis. The respondent Board thus identified the irregularities which had crept in the evaluation procedure and corrected the same by employing the method of re-evaluation in respect of the eight questions, answers to which were incorrect and by deletion of the eight incorrect questions and allotment of their marks on pro rata basis. The said decision cannot be characterised as arbitrary. Undue prejudice indeed would have been caused had there been re-evaluation of subjective answers, which is not the case herein. 10. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case the decision of re-evaluation by the respondent Board was a valid decision which could not be said to have caused any prejudice, whatsoever, either to the appellants or to the candidates selected in the revised merit list and therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the High Court to the aforesaid extent. 11. In fairness to learned counsel, we must notice the reliance on paragraph-36 of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ganesh Prasad Yadav and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, 1995 (2) PLJR 170 to canvass the point that even if there were mistake it was concerning all candidates and there was no unfair treatment to the non-selected candidates in particular. Submission was that there should be no interference in such a situation. For ready reference paragraph-36 is quoted hereunder:- 36. No doubt, there are mistakes in the alternative answers or responses to the four questions, but on that basis it cannot be said that the Commission adopted any unfair means or acted in an unfair manner, on the other hand, the aforesaid mistakes appear to have been committed by the experts to whom the work of setting of questions and their suggestive answers was entrusted. It cannot be said that there was unfair treatment to the non-selects in particular. All the candidates including the successful candidates have answered the same set of questions and in that view of the matter either all the candidates have suffered equally or took advantages of wrong suggestive answers. In that view of the matter, in spite of the aforesaid errors, in my view, it would not be proper to quash the preliminary test for the aforesaid defects. 12. In that view of the matter, in spite of the aforesaid errors, in my view, it would not be proper to quash the preliminary test for the aforesaid defects. 12. In our view, in view of several subsequent judgments of the Apex Court, as noticed above, the observations of the Court in paragraph-36, with due respect cannot be regarded as the correct law. Interference is imperative in such a situation. 13. In the present case, from the writ proceedings, we find that the challenge to the results was made promptly. The wrong results could not only lead to depriving the rightful candidates of their right to get selected but even if selected they could lose their seniority or their chance of favourable position at the time of counseling to get the service of their choice. Thus, to urge that the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered once the results were published cannot be accepted and the contention has to be rejected outright. Further, if the model answers in an objective type examination are found to be wrong or the questions found to be ambiguous or wrong then instead of setting aside the entire examination process the results can easily be re-cast on the basis of correct answers or such other remedial process instead of making all the candidates re-appear. Thus, the submission that the entire examination should be set aside also merits no consideration. One must note that in the present case, there is no allegation that the examination process was vitiated because of any fraud, mala-fide or malpractice. 14. Thus, the first Letters Patent Appeal bearing LPA No. 1200 of 2013 merits no consideration and is dismissed, accordingly, subject to the application of the decision in relation to the remaining three appeals. 15. At the very outset, we may also notice one other fact that these examinations were conducted on 27.1.2013 and the results were published on 19.2.2013 after the Commission itself sought objections in respect of model answer which objections were considered first by an expert committee and then by the Commission. These results were then challenged, and on 20.8.2013, judgment by the learned Single Judge was delivered and the final revised results were published by the Commission on 24.8.2013. These results were then challenged, and on 20.8.2013, judgment by the learned Single Judge was delivered and the final revised results were published by the Commission on 24.8.2013. Upon Letters Patent Appeal being filed, Division Bench did not stay the selection process but observed that it would be subject to the result of the Letters Patent Appeals. Accordingly, the selection and appointment process was completed and the persons appointed upon their selection based on the revised results have already been working. This aspect will have to be considered as and when occasion arises in respect of relief that is to be granted, if any, to the appellants. 16. This is what the Apex Court has noted in two recent judgments, namely, Rajesh Kumar (supra) wherein in paragraph-21 their Lordships have noted thus:- 21. It goes without saying that the appellants were innocent parties who have not, in any manner, contributed to the preparation of the erroneous key or the distorted result. There is no mention of any fraud or malpractice against the appellants who have served the State for nearly seven years now. In the circumstances, while inter se merit position may be relevant for the appellants, the ouster of the latter need not be an inevitable and inexorable consequence of such a re-evaluation. The re-evaluation process may additionally benefit those who have lost the hope of an appointment on the basis of a wrong key applied for evaluating the answer scripts. Further in paragraph-22.4 their Lordships noted thus:- 22.4. Such of the appellants as do not make the grade after re-evaluation shall not be ousted from service, but shall figure at the bottom of the list of selected candidates based on the first selection in terms of Advertisement No. 1406 of 2006 and the second selection held pursuant to Advertisement No. 1906 of 2006. 17. Again, in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh (supra) this is what their Lordships held in paragraphs-27, 28 and 29, which is quoted hereunder:- 27. Admittedly, in the instant case the error committed by the respondent Board in the matter of evaluation of the answer scripts could not be attributed to the appellants as they have neither been found to have committed any fraud or misrepresentation in being appointed qua the first merit list nor has the preparation of the erroneous model answer key or the specious result contributed to them. Had the contrary been the case, it would have justified their ouster upon reevaluation and deprived them of any sympathy from this Court irrespective of their length of service. 28. In our considered view, the appellants have successfully undergone training and are efficiently serving the respondent State for more than three years and undoubtedly their termination would not only impinge upon the economic security of the appellants and their dependents but also adversely affect their careers. This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair to the appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. However, their continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list. 29. Accordingly, we direct the respondent State to appoint the appellants in the revise merit list placing them at the bottom of the said list. The candidates who have crossed the minimum statutory age for appointment shall be accommodated with suitable age relaxation. 18. From the judgment of the learned Single Judge, it appears there were four types of grievance. First, in respect of certain questions answer to which were challenged and the Court found that the model answer was wrong. Learned Single Judge accordingly suggested the right answer for the purposes of reevaluation of result. Second, where the questions were found to be ambiguous or unclear. The learned Single Judge again rightfully ordered that they be deleted. Third, where questions were capable of more than one answer. The learned Single Judge agreeing with the Commission allowed both the answers as being marked as correct. As we would show that this may not be the appropriate approach in this regard. Fourth, where there was difference in the English version and the Hindi version of the same questions. The answer would not be the same. The learned Single Judge has rightly order of deletion of such questions. 19. Before us, parties put in issue ten questions. They are question nos. 61, 69, 82, 98, 107, 111, 124, 125, 148 & 149. 20. First, we would deal with question nos. 148 & 149. What was contended that the questions as per the English version and as per the Hindi version were at variance. The English version would have a different answer than that of the Hindi version. They are question nos. 61, 69, 82, 98, 107, 111, 124, 125, 148 & 149. 20. First, we would deal with question nos. 148 & 149. What was contended that the questions as per the English version and as per the Hindi version were at variance. The English version would have a different answer than that of the Hindi version. Originally, the expert committee did not recommend its deletion but when this was pointed out to the Commission by the learned Single Judge, the Commission agreed to delete the two questions from consideration. The submission on behalf of some of the appellants is that so far as question No. 148 is concerned, there were two correct options i.e. one in Hindi and the other in English, therefore, both the options must be accepted. But, when we come to question No. 149, we find that the question itself in Hindi version and English version were different. It was contended that as per instructions in the booklet the English version should prevail where there was difference in English and Hindi versions and this rule should be applied. It was, thus, contended that in respect of both these two questions, the learned Single Judge erred in ordering its deletion. We see no merit in the contention. Firstly, the answer to a question cannot be different in English and Hindi version, if the questions are same. Thus, if the questions differ in the two versions then the inevitable result would be that the question would have two answers. In our view, if an examinee reads the English version and the Hindi version and finds variance, he would be confused not because of lack of his knowledge but because of mistake in the question, such a question cannot form part of fair procedure for selection. It is not expected of an examinee to take risk in such situation especially when there is negative marking. 21. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Single Judge rightly opined the deletion of both these questions i.e. 148 and 149. 22. Now we may come to question nos. 61, 69, 82, 98, 107, 111, 124, 125. Question No. 61 – The primary Product of Photosynthesis is (A) Citric Acid (B) Glucose (C) Starch (D) Maltose. 21. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Single Judge rightly opined the deletion of both these questions i.e. 148 and 149. 22. Now we may come to question nos. 61, 69, 82, 98, 107, 111, 124, 125. Question No. 61 – The primary Product of Photosynthesis is (A) Citric Acid (B) Glucose (C) Starch (D) Maltose. The expert committee as noted in the judgment under appeal suggested option (B) Glucose to be the correct answer and accordingly marking was done. The learned Single Judge relying on the standard text book published by the NCRT and the opinion of the expert held that option (B) Glucose was correct. On behalf of the appellants it is contended that this is not the correct answer. Photosynthesis results in Starch and then starch gets converted into Glucose. They have gathered material from the Internet and some other text. In our opinion starch would be an intermediary product resulting in the primary product Glucose. Considering the level of the examinee who may or may not be a science student, it would not be proper to take a different view then that of the expert committee. We, accordingly hold that the learned Single Judge did not err in taking option (B) Glucose as the correct answer. The challenge here must thus fail. Question No. 69 – Which technique has been possible only after development of recombinant DNA Technology:- (A) DNA Fingerprinting (B) Monoclonal antibody production (C) Fermentation (D) Vaccination. The expert committee on review suggested option (D) Vaccination as the correct answer. Initially the correct answer as per model answer-sheet was option (A) DNA Fingerprinting. From the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, we find that the learned Judge has noted that apparently the petitioners had no objection to change the option as suggested by the expert. As noted above, change of option was from option (A) DNA Fingerprinting to (D) Vaccination. The learned counsels for the appellants submit that the original answer i.e. option (A) DNA Fingerprinting correct, inasmuch as, Vaccination was a process preexisting and predating DNA technology. D.N.A. technology came in the later part of the 20th century, whereas, Vaccination was available in the first half of the 20th century. The learned counsels for the appellants submit that the original answer i.e. option (A) DNA Fingerprinting correct, inasmuch as, Vaccination was a process preexisting and predating DNA technology. D.N.A. technology came in the later part of the 20th century, whereas, Vaccination was available in the first half of the 20th century. Having considered the matter and having considered the facts as aforesaid, in our view the original answer option (A) DNA Fingerprinting ought to be treated as the correct answer. We are surprised as to why and how the expert committee overlooked this basic fact. In our view the question is specific as to which technique has been possible only after development of recombinant DNA technology. We hold accordingly. It is this expression only after probably the expert committee did not take proper note of. We hold accordingly. Question No. 82 – The largest beach in India is in (A) Kerala (B) Goa (C) Tamil Nadu (D) West Bengal. We are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the learned Single judge with regards order for deletion of the question the answer to which can be ambiguous. The question really meant longest and not largest. It is not in dispute that the longest beach in India is Marina beach of Madras (Chennai) in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Commission originally had selected option (C) Tamil Nadu. The correct answer upon expert advice is that it could be understood as both i.e. (B) Goa and (C) Tamil Nadu and it treated both as correct answers. Even on this score as held by the Apex Court in the case of Kanpur University (Supra) AIR 1983 SC 1230 there cannot be a question with two correct answers. If that be so, this question was to be deleted and rightly so ordered by the learned Single Judge. We hold accordingly. Question No. 98 – 2 x (3+4) is equal to:- (A) (3 x 4) + 2 (B) (2 x 4) + 3 (C) (3 x 2) + 4 (D) (2 x 3) + (2 x 4). It appears that the question setter has suggested option (D) as the correct answer. When the matter was referred to the Expert Committee, the Expert Committee gave two correct answers: being option (A) and option (D). The answers then were evaluated on that basis as both were correct answers. It appears that the question setter has suggested option (D) as the correct answer. When the matter was referred to the Expert Committee, the Expert Committee gave two correct answers: being option (A) and option (D). The answers then were evaluated on that basis as both were correct answers. As noted earlier this has been deprecated by the Apex Court in the case of Kanpur University (Supra). Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the learned Single Judge has accepted the evaluation on the basis of two correct answers. We have considered the matter and in our view, the question setter was correct and there is only one correct answer. The mistake committed by the Expert Committee is obvious. The resultant answer of option (A) is 14 and so of option (D). The question to be answered was not the result of calculation but the step in progression. It is a matter of co-incidence that the answer tallies in option (A) and option (D). We may illustrate this by algebraic configuration. The question would be A (B + C). If this is expanded, the next stage would be A x B + A x C. Let us compare the options given. This matches only with option (D). The Expert Committee misdirected itself when it went further. Taking the numeral as given in the question, option (A) being (3 x 4) + 2 = 12 + 2 = 14 and similarly option (D) being (2 x 3) + (2 x 4) = 6+8 = 14. The question was not which leads to the correct result but which is the correct step. If we use the algebraic configuration and change these numbers to be A=3, B=4, C=5 instead of 2, 3 and 4 and test option A, it would be 4 x 5 + 3 i.e. 23. But if we come to option (D), it would be 3 x 4 + 3 x 5 that would be 12 + 15 i.e. 27. The experts were thus, wrong and the question setter was correct. The correct answer was only (D). We hold accordingly. Question No. 107 – Which term comes next in the series YEB, WFD, UHG, SKL? (A) QGL (B) TOL (C) QNL (D) QOL. The learned Single Judge has found that both the question setter and the Expert Committee suggested option (D) to be the correct answer. The correct answer was only (D). We hold accordingly. Question No. 107 – Which term comes next in the series YEB, WFD, UHG, SKL? (A) QGL (B) TOL (C) QNL (D) QOL. The learned Single Judge has found that both the question setter and the Expert Committee suggested option (D) to be the correct answer. The petitioners who are appellants herein had contested the same and have logically deduced the answer to show that by no stretch of imagination none of the four options give the correct answer. The reason is simple. The last alphabet in the four sequential combinations are B, D, G and L. Therefore, the correct answer would have to be some other alphabet other than L, but all the four options given, show (L) as the last Alphabet. Thus, all the four answers were wrong. The logic is explained as the distance between the two Alphabets used in the last is 1, 2, 4, the next would be 8 being multiple of 2 and thus, the correct answer would be Q.O.U. which is not an option. None of the counsels could show otherwise. Thus, we do not agree with the conclusion of either the question setter or the Expert Committee nor that of the learned Single Judge. We hold that the question had to be deleted for there being no correct answer. We hold accordingly. Question No. 111 – If dust is called air, air is called fire, fire is called water, water is called colour is called rain and rain is called dust, then where do fish live? (A) Fire (B) Water (C) Colour (D) Dust. The question setter had given the correct answer as Colour being option (C). When the matter came up before the Expert Committee, they suggested deletion of the question presumably on the ground that it was confusing. The learned Single Judge has accepted the Expert Committee's recommendation and maintained deletion of the question which is questioned in these appeals. The appellants contend that this was a question dealing with logic and deduction. It comes under the heading Coding-Decoding. It is purposefully phrased in such a manner leading to a closed circle. It is purposefully designed to confuse logical deduction but the logic is simple. Water is substituted and coded as Colour. The appellants contend that this was a question dealing with logic and deduction. It comes under the heading Coding-Decoding. It is purposefully phrased in such a manner leading to a closed circle. It is purposefully designed to confuse logical deduction but the logic is simple. Water is substituted and coded as Colour. Fish can thus be only living in water and therefore the answer would be Colour as suggested by the question setter. All further logical steps are only designed to purposefully confuse. We are, therefore, of the view that the question setter had rightly given the answer. We are unable to agree with the learned Single Judge in this regard. The correct answer is option (C). We hold accordingly. Question No. 124 – Given the statements No fruit is tree. All flowers are trees, which one of the following is correct? (A) No fruit is flower (B) Some trees are flowers (C) All flowers are fruits (D) None of these. The question setter and the Expert Committee agree with the option (A) to be the correct answer. All learned lawyers agree that option (A) is correct but some said that option (B) would also be possibly correct. There being serious doubt whether (B) would also be correct or not, in our opinion, we should not disturb the question setter and the Expert Committee and the learned Single Judge's view in this matter. We may note that there is a instruction given that the selection has to be of the most appropriate answer. That resolves the controversy. We, thus, do not interfere with this answer being (A). Question No. 125 – Given the statements: All windows are doors and no door is wall. (A) No window is wall (B) No wall is door (C) Some windows are walls (D) None of these. The question setter and the Expert Committee agree with the option (A) to be the correct answer. All learned lawyers agree that option (A) is correct but some said that option (B) would also be possibly correct. There being serious doubt whether (B) would also be correct or not, in our opinion, we should not disturb the question setter and the Expert Committee and the learned Single Judge's view in this matter. We may note that there is a instruction given that the selection has to be of the most appropriate answer. That resolves the controversy. There being serious doubt whether (B) would also be correct or not, in our opinion, we should not disturb the question setter and the Expert Committee and the learned Single Judge's view in this matter. We may note that there is a instruction given that the selection has to be of the most appropriate answer. That resolves the controversy. We, thus, do not interfere with this answer being (A). 23. Thus, the only change we find is with regard to question No. 69 where the correct answer is option (A). In respect of question No. 98, the correct answer is option (D). The correct answer to question No. 107 is not available and has to be deleted. In respect of question No. 111, we hold that it should not be deleted and the correct answer is option (C). 24. Thus, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge only to the extent of these four questions in the manner indicated hereinabove. 25. Thus, the inevitable result would be, in order to ensure fairness of procedure of selection, the results which were revised and published pursuant to orders of the learned Single Judge would call for a further revision in respect of the four questions as noted in the preceding paragraphs but it would not follow that as per the fresh revised results of persons who had already been selected and appointed and have been working but who do not make the mark this time would be disqualified and dismissed. We hold that this would be highly iniquitous inasmuch as they are not guilty of any fraud, malpractice but are mere victims of mistake committed not by them. We have already noted judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra) and Vikash Pratap Singh (supra) in these regards but again that does not end the matter. By change of answers of these four questions, as noted above, there may be some persons, who are now found to have made to the final merit list but, were not selected earlier leaving them out would be injustice. There would not be many such persons. 26. By change of answers of these four questions, as noted above, there may be some persons, who are now found to have made to the final merit list but, were not selected earlier leaving them out would be injustice. There would not be many such persons. 26. Having considered the matter, we would accordingly order that such persons who now come into the merit list would have to be adjusted, if vacancies were there were or there are vacancies available in cadre, for which examination were held. Their inter se seniority in the cadre to which they are allotted would be determined by inter se merit position, irrespective of their date of appointment. We order accordingly. 27. With these observations and directions, these Letter Patent Appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.