Allahabad High Court
Akash Chandra vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 13 December, 2024
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:200091-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10584 of 2024 Petitioner :- Akash Chandra Respondent :- State of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi,Saurabh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh,Nisheeth Yadav With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10620 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sucheta Rai Respondent :- State of U.P. 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankur Azad,Saumitra Anand,Shashwat Anand,Syed Ahmed Faizan,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh,Nisheeth Yadav With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10980 of 2024 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Verma Respondent :- State of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh,Nisheeth Yadav With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10984 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ankit Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mandeep Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh,Nisheeth Yadav With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11928 of 2024 Petitioner :- Satya Sunishtha Pandey Respondent :- State of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Shukla,M.N. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11999 of 2024 Petitioner :- Shantanu Baliyan Respondent :- State of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh,Nisheeth Yadav With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12016 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sudiksha Kejriwal Respondent :- State of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amarnath Tripathi,Vishal Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh,Nisheeth Yadav With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12188 of 2024 Petitioner :- Manika Baliyan Respondent :- State of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anshu Singh,Hemendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh,Nisheeth Yadav With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12364 of 2024 Petitioner :- Vineet Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Sahai,Sarthak Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh,Nisheeth Yadav With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12531 of 2024 Petitioner :- Prachi Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Pandey,Shivendu Ojha,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12626 of 2024 Petitioner :- Abhishek Mishra Respondent :- State of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Sharma,Yogendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh,Nisheeth Yadav With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12736 of 2024 Petitioner :- Anamika Sagar Respondent :- State of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Raj Singh Tomar,Kavita Tomar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12950 of 2024 Petitioner :- Vaibhav Respondent :- State of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivam Prabhakar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh,Nisheeth Yadav With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13067 of 2024 Petitioner :- Kanupriya Chauhan Respondent :- Union of India And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd Haris Khan,Rafiqa Anees Khan,Shadab Husain Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,M.N. Singh,Nisheeth Yadav With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13431 of 2024 Petitioner :- Prashasti Srivastava Respondent :- State of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Krishna,Shivam Prabhakar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh,Nisheeth Yadav With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14873 of 2024 Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalji Yadav,Yashpal Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh,Nisheeth Yadav With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9701 of 2024 Petitioner :- Utkarsh Anand Respondent :- State of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Dwivedi,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh,Nisheeth Yadav With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9858 of 2024 Petitioner :- Tanay Shahi Respondent :- State of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kushmondeya Shahi,Tanuj Shahi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh,Nisheeth Yadav With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10557 of 2024 Petitioner :- Minakshi Respondent :- State of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gulab Chand Bharati,Prabhakar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh,Nisheeth Yadav Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Hon’ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
1. Heard Mr. S.F.A. Naqvi learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sri Shashwat Anand, Mr. Syed Ahmad Faizan, Mr. Ankur Azad, Ms. Fatma Anjum, Mr. Saumitra Anand, Mr. Tanuj Shahi and Mr. Adhiraj Bandari (through video conferencing) along with Mr. Shivam Prabhakar learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. G.K. Singh learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Nisheeth Yadav learned counsel for the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commission) and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. This batch of 19 petitions primarily questions the result of the competitive examination – UPPCS (J)-2022 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Examination’) conducted by the Commission pursuant to the Advertisement No. A-5/E-1/2022 dated 10.12.2022. All petitioners qualified the Preliminary Examination. They appeared at the Written Examination and almost all qualified for the Interview Test. However, they were unsuccessful at the result declared by the Commission. The first petition filed to question that result is Writ-A No. 9055 of 2024 (Shravan Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others). It is pending. Earlier, these petitions were tagged with that case. For reasons noted below, that case has been de-tagged, today. In short, it may be noted (for the purpose of disposal of the present batch of petitions), doubts arose as to the fairness and correctness of the evaluation made to the Answer Booklets of individual petitioners, in the Main/Written examination and the result prepared and declared by the Commission, in the context of established parameters of challenge.
3. It is agreed and there is no objection or reservation expressed by any learned counsel for any of the petitioners that these 19 petitions may be dealt with on the merits of the individual objections raised, with liberty to these petitioners to join the issue common to all i.e. with respect to prayers for conduct of criminal investigation and/or detailed independent enquiry into the conduct of the Examination by the Commission and the declaration of its result. That concession prayed for has also not been opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. Thus, granting that liberty as prayed, these 19 petitions are being decided by this order, first.
4. Upon exchange of affidavits, we have heard learned counsel for the parties, over two days. Yesterday, disputed Answer Booklets of individual petitioners were produced by the Commission, in Court, in sealed covers. Those were perused by us. Also, opportunity was given to learned counsel for the individual petitioners to go through the same – to point out mistakes alleged. That process took about four hours. Thereupon, matters have been heard further, today. The details of the writ petitions that have been thus heard are as below:
Sl No.
Writ Petition Number
Party Name
1.
Writ- A No. 10584 of 2024
Akash Chandra Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others (hereinafter referred to as ‘Akash’)
2.
Writ- A No. 10620 of 2024
Sucheta Rai Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others (hereinafter referred to as ‘Sucheta’)
3.
Writ- A No. 10980 of 2024
Vinod Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others (hereinafter referred to as ‘Vinod’)
4.
Writ- A No. 10984 of 2024
Ankit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ankit’)
5.
Writ- A No. 11928 of 2024
Satya Sunishtha Pandey Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others (hereinafter referred to as ‘Satya’)
6.
Writ- A No. 11999 of 2024
Shantanu Baliyan Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others (hereinafter referred to as ‘Shantanu’)
7.
Writ- A No. 12016 of 2024
Sudiksha Kejriwal Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others (hereinafter referred to as ‘Sudiksha’)
8.
Writ- A No. 12188 of 2024
Manika Baliyan Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others (hereinafter referred to as ‘Manika’)
9.
Writ- A No. 12364 of 2024
Vineet Yadav Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others (hereinafter referred to as ‘Vineet’)
10.
Writ- A No. 12531 of 2024
Prachi Singh Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others (hereinafter referred to as ‘Prachi’)
11.
Writ- A No. 12626 of 2024
Abhishek Mishra Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others (hereinafter referred to as ‘Abhishek’)
12.
Writ- A No. 12736 of 2024
Anamika Sagar Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others (hereinafter referred to as ‘Anamika’)
13.
Writ- A No. 12950 of 2024
Vaibhav Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others (hereinafter referred to as ‘Vaibhav’)
14.
Writ- A No. 13067 of 2024
Kanupriya Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others (hereinafter referred to as ‘Kanupriya’)
15.
Writ- A No. 13431 of 2024
Prashasti Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others (hereinafter referred to as ‘Prashasti’)
16.
Writ- A No. 14873 of 2024
Pawan Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others (hereinafter referred to as ‘Pawan’)
17.
Writ- A No. 9701 of 2024
Utkarsh Anand Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others (hereinafter referred to as ‘Utkarsh’)
18.
Writ- A No. 9858 of 2024
Tanay Shahi Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tanay’)
19.
Writ- A No. 10557 of 2024
Minakshi Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others (hereinafter referred to as ‘Minakshi’)
5. Briefly, the objections raised (to the evaluation made by the Commission) and as pressed at the oral hearing and our fact observations arising from perusal of the original Answer Booklets of individual petitioners and the Model Answer Key, may be noted first.
6. In Akash, general objection has been raised to less marks awarded to the answers furnished to various questions in Law Paper-I, Law Paper-II and Law Paper-III. We have perused the original Answer Booklets and find, the Examiner has placed tick marks in red ink, at various places over the answers written by that candidate. Thereafter, he has awarded marks, at the end. We find no error in that approach adopted by the Examiner. No violation of any law or practice has been alleged, in that regard.
7. In Sucheta, following objections have been raised:
(i) Petitioner has been wrongly awarded zero mark to her answers furnished to question number 8(g) of the paper General Knowledge.
(ii) Original marks ’22’ awarded to the petitioner by the Examiner against her answer to question no. 8 of the paper General Knowledge, have been interpolated and reduced to ’21’.
(iii) In Law Paper-III, original marks ’07’ awarded to the petitioner against her answer furnished to question 9(b) have been interpolated and reduced to ’05’.
(iv) General objection has been raised that marks have been awarded on quantity rather than quality in Law Paper-III.
7(a). We have perused the Answer Booklets of the petitioner. Question No. 8(g) of paper General Knowledge reads as below:
“8(g) यौन अपराधों से बच्चों का संरक्षण अधिनियम -2012 के अनुसार बच्चा कौन है ? Who is a Child as per The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ?”
7(b). The answer of the petitioner reads:
“Child as per Section 2d of the Act which has not obtained majority age as per Indian Majority Act”
7(c). That answer is clearly wrong as the petitioner has not specified the most critical aspect of the definition of ‘child’ under POCSO Act 2012, being 18 years. That is a critical part of the Model Answer. Thus, there is no error in the award of zero mark to her, against that answer furnished.
7(d). We also note, in the paper General Knowledge, to the answer furnished by the petitioner to question No. 5(a), (b), (c) and (d), marks 0, 1.5. 0.5 and 01 were awarded. Thus, total marks ’03’ were awarded. However, the Examiner appears to have first wrongly totalled the same and mentioned as ’02’ in red ink against that answer and in the Cage appended at the top of the Answer Booklet. That mistake has been corrected by the Expert, by recording the correct marks in blue ink as ’03’ both against that answer and in the Cage.
7(e). Then, against the answer furnished to Question Nos. 8(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i) and (j), the petitioner was awarded 2.5, 2, 2.5, 2.5, 2.5, 3,0, 01, 2.5 and 1.5 marks respectively. Those would total to ’20’ marks. At first, the Examiner appears to have incorrectly totalled those marks as ’21’ in red ink both against that answer and in the Cage appended at the top of the Answer Booklet. That mistake has also been similarly corrected by the Expert by making entry of ’20’ marks in the right column of the Answer Booklet, in blue ink (against that answer response) and in the Cage. Thus, one mark wrongly deducted against question No. 5 and one extra mark awarded against question No. 8 have been corrected, by the Expert. Resultantly, the petitioner was not found entitled to any extra marks, in the total, by the Expert.
7(f). As to correction made to the marks awarded to the petitioner against her answer to question No. 9(b) of Law Paper-III, it cannot be denied, such correction exists. Yet, the claim of interpolation is plainly misconceived. Though the correction made has not been counter signed by the Examiner, in the margin, against the answer response, the marks mentioned in the Cage have been correctly recorded as ’13’. Those have not been changed or corrected. Thus, it clearly appears that the petitioner was awarded ’08’ marks for her answer to question No. 9(a) and ’05’ marks (upon correction) for her answer to question No. 9(b). Those marks were correctly totalled and mentioned as ’13’ in the Cage, before submission of that Answer Booklet, by the Examiner. Thus, the error is technical and not real. It has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner.
8. In Vinod, the objection has been raised that the petitioner has not been awarded any marks for the ‘title’ written to the precis written by him against Question No. 2 of the paper English Language. Relevant part of Question No. 2 read as below:
“2. Make a precis of the following passage in your own words about one-third of its length and suggest a suitable title to it: 30”
8(a). We have perused that Answer Booklet of the petitioner. Inasmuch as maximum marks were not prescribed or provided separately, for each part of that question i.e. for precis writing and title respectively, the objection raised is ill founded. Merely because such segregation of maximum marks may have been provided for a similar question in another paper (Hindi Language), no challenge may arise to the marking pattern or to the marking offered in the paper English Language, for that reason.
9. In Ankit, objections have been raised:
(i) Against total marks ‘105’ awarded to the petitioner in the paper General Knowledge, by the Examiner, only ‘104’ marks have been accounted.
(ii) Second, it has been objected that in the papers English Language, Hindi Language and Law (Paper-I), (Paper-II) and (Paper-III), he has been awarded very low marks. The petitioner has prayed for re-evaluation. As to low marks awarded in the paper General Knowledge, we have perused that Answer Booklet of the petitioner and find that those questions and answers, read as below:
Question No. 10. (A)
निम्नलिखित पुस्तकों के लेखकों के नाम बताइए ।
Name the authors of the following books.
Answer
(i) भारतीय संविधान : राष्ट्र की आधारशिला ।
The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation.
राम बहादुर राय
(ii) द मैकमोहन लाइन: ए सेंचुरी ऑफ डिस्कॉर्ड।
The McMahon Line: A Century of Discord.
जे० जे० सिंह और मनमोहन सिंह
(iii) जस्टिस फॉर द जज एक आत्मकथा ।
Justice for the Judge: An Autobiography.
डी० वाई० चन्द्रचूण
(iv) वाइ आई ऐम ए हिंदू ।
Why I Am A Hindu.
शशि थरूर
(v) द टेस्ट ऑफ माई लाइफ ।
The Test of My Life.
XXXXX
Question No. 10 (B)
निम्नलिखित संकेताक्षरों का पूर्ण रूप लिखिए ।
Write the full form of following abbreviations.
Answers
(i) जी. एम. टी. G.M.T.
Greenwhich Meridien Time
(ग्रीनविच मेरीडियन टाइम)
(ii) एफ. ए. ओ. F.A.O.
Food and Agriculture Organisation
(फूड एंड एग्रीकल्चर आर्गेनाजेशन
(ii) एम. आर. आई. M.R.I.
Megnatic Resoning Imaging
(मैग्नेटिक रिजेनिंग इमेजिंग)
(iv) एल. ई. डी. L.E.D.
Lesser Eesirable for Delhi.
(v) टी. एन. टी. Τ.Ν.Τ.
Tri Nitro Tyline
(ट्राइ नाइट्रो टायलिन)
Question No. 10 (C)
निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों ने किस क्षेत्र में प्रसिद्धि प्राप्त की है ?
In which field have the following persons achieved fame?
Questions
Answers
(i) श्रीनिवास वर्धन । Srinivas Varadhan.
XXXXX
(ii) दीपक धर Deepak Dhar.
XXXXX
(iii) वाणी जयराम । Vani Jairam.
XXXXX
(iv) दामोदर मौउजो । Darnodar Mauzo.
दामोदर मोउजो- इनको ज्ञानपीठ पुरस्कार दिया गया।
(v) कमलेश डी. पटेल ।
Kamlesh D. Patel.
XXXXX
Question No. 10 (D) निम्नलिखित पुरस्कारों के प्राप्तकर्ता कौन थे ? Who were the recipients of the following awards?
Questions
Answers
(1) मेजर ध्यानचंद खेल रत्न पुरस्कार 2022 ।
Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award 2022.
मेजर ध्यानचंद खेल रत्न पुरस्कार 2022- अंचल शरत कमल
(ii) अर्जुन पुरस्कार 2022 (हॉकी) ।
Arjun Award 2022 (Hockey).
XXXXX
(iii) गांधी मंडेला पुरस्कार 2022 ।
Gandhi Mandela Award 2022.
XXXXX
(iv) अंग्रेजी भाषा में 2022 का साहित्य अकादमी पुरस्कार । Sahitya Akademi Award 2022 in English language.
अंग्रेजी भाषा में 2022 का साहित्य अकादमी पुरस्कार –
(v) साहित्य में नोबेल पुरस्कार 2022 ।
Nobel Prize in Literature 2022.
साहित्य नोबेल पुरस्कार- एमी एर्नोकम ( फ्रांस)
9(a). We observe, against Question Nos. 10(A) (i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the Examiner awarded ‘0’ mark to the petitioner, against those incorrect answer responses. He awarded ‘1’ mark to the petitioner for the correct answer submitted to Question No. 10(A)(iv). The petitioner did not attempt Question No. 10(A)(v). Thus, only ‘1’ mark was awarded by the Examiner. On the other hand, the Expert has awarded ‘1/2’ mark more to the petitioner to her half correct answer response to Question No. 10(A)(ii). No other or further specific challenge exists.
9(b). The Examiner ticked the answer responses submitted by the petitioner to Question Nos. 10(B)(i), (ii), (iii) and (v) as correct. Yet, marks awarded to the petitioner for that Question No. 10(B) were not noted in the margin against that answer response. Against that, the Expert has awarded marks to the answers furnished by the petitioner.
9(c). The petitioner having described GMT as “Greenwich Meridian Time” and not “Greenwich Mean Time”, the Expert found that answer to be wrong. Also, the Expert found that answer of the petitioner to Question No. 10(B)(iii) “Megnetic Resoning Imaging”. The correct answer being “Magnetic Resonance Imaging”, he awarded ‘1/2’ mark to the petitioner. Also, the expert awarded ‘1’ mark each to the petitioner against his correct answer response to Question No. 10(B)(ii) and (v).
9(d). As to the Question No. (10)(C), the Expert found that answer furnished by the petitioner to Question No. 10(C)(iv) was wrong as he had not specified the ‘field’ in which Damodar Mauzo may have achieved fame. Accordingly, against ‘1’ mark awarded by the Examiner, that answer being wholly wrong, ‘0’ mark was awarded by the Expert.
9(e). Last, with respect to answer response to Question No. 10(D), against all answer responses found wrong by the Examiner, the Expert awarded ‘1’ mark to the petitioner against his correct answer response to Question No. 10(D)(i).
9(f). Thus, against 6 marks (in all) have been awarded by the Examiner against Question No. 10 (A), (B), (C) and (D). The Expert corrected the same to 5. Accordingly, total marks awarded 105 by the Examiner, in the Cage were corrected to ‘104’ upon corresponding correction to marks awarded against Question No. 10.
9(g). As to the other objection raised of general/non-standard marking offered in the paper English Language, Hindi Language, Law-I, Law-II and Law-III, we have perused those Answer Booklets and find detailed marking/evaluation has been done with red marks indicating due evaluation. Errors have been circled in red ink, by the Examiner. No interpolation or error exists in the final marks awarded.
9(h). In the Answer Booklet of the paper Hindi Language, against original marks ’15’ awarded by the Examiner and written in the Cage as well, the same has been corrected and revised and increased to ’16’. Consequently, the total has also been corrected to ’52’. All corrections have been counter-signed by the Examiner. No other noticeable feature exists, in the Answer Booklet of the petitioner for the other Papers.
9(i). As to further objection about low marks awarded to the answers furnished by the petitioner in papers English Language, Hindi Language, Law (Paper-I), (Paper-II) and (Paper-III), we have perused those Answer Booklets of the petitioner. It is noted, all Answer Booklets and all answers furnished by the petitioner have been duly evaluated by the Examiner. Marks have been awarded properly. There is no cutting or over-writing or change of marks awarded by the Examiner. There is absolutely no basis to sustain the objection.
10. In Satya, the objection raised is to ‘7’ marks originally awarded by the Examiner in Law Paper-III to Question No. 6(ix), have been reduced to ‘3’. Perusal of that Answer Booklet of the petitioner reveals that the petitioner has been awarded ‘9’ marks against that answer and no correction or interpolation whatsoever has been made either to the marks awarded to the petitioner or the marks mentioned in the Cage. She having achieved ‘5’ marks for her answer to Question No. 9(b), total marks awarded against that question have been mentioned at ’14’, in the Cage. We find absolutely no error. The objection is wholly misconceived.
11(a). In Shantanu, it has been objected that in paper Hindi Language, against Question No. 1 for essay writing, marks originally awarded by the Examiner have been scored out and interpolated and reduced to ’24’. We have perused that Answer Booklet of the petitioner and find, originally different marks may have been awarded to the petitioner by the Examiner. However, the same were scored out and ’24’ were recorded in red ink. Those have been signed by the Examiner. At the same time, there is no change or overwriting or interpolation of the marks mentioned in the Cage. As in Law (Paper III) of Sucheta (supra), noted above, no error is noted.
11(b). Similarly, another objection has been raised with respect to evaluation of answer responses of that petitioner to Question nos. 6(iii)-Law Paper-I. Here, probably ‘6’ marks were originally written by the Examiner. Those were scored out and signed. Thereafter ‘4’ marks have been awarded. Then, there is no mistake of totalling of such marks since the petitioner has been awarded 5.5, 5.5 and 4 marks for three parts of that question. The same have been correctly totalled and written as ’15’, both in the right margin of the Answer Booklet, against the answer written and in the Cage, without any correction made. As in the case of Hindi Paper, so also here, the objection is not sustained.
11(c). Yet, another objection has been raised by the petitioner to ‘0’ mark awarded against his answer response to Question No. 3(A) of the paper General Knowledge and Question No. 3(b)(iv) of Law Paper-II. We have perused those Answer Booklets of the petitioner and the Model Answer. Considering the requirements of the Model Answer, it cannot be said that the marks awarded are erroneous on the face or wrong. In absence of any challenge to the Model Answer, that objection may not be sustained or examined any further. In any case, the petitioner achieved 479 marks in all, against cut-off 551 marks for the social category OBC, for selection.
11(d). Then, as in Akash, no error is noted in Law Papers-I, II and III.
12(a). In Sudiksha, objection has been raised that the petitioner has been awarded ‘2’ marks less than may have been earned by her based on her answer response to Question Nos. 8(a) and 8(g) of the paper General Knowledge. We have perused that Answer Booklet. Against the answer response furnished by the petitioner, she has been awarded 1.5 marks against Question No. 8(a) and ‘2’ marks against Question No. 8(g). According to the petitioner, she was entitled to more marks than awarded. First, there is no law available to override the assessment made by the Examiner. Yet, even if that objection were sustained, the petitioner may not be entitled to more than 2.5 marks. The petitioner having achieved 556 marks in all, she may only achieve 558.5 marks. It would remain well short of the last cut-off marks 590 awarded to the last selected candidate under the General Category, to which the petitioner belongs. Even if benefit of EWS category were to be given to the petitioner, she would remain well below the cut-off for that sub-category, being 562 marks. Since the petitioner may never make the desired cut-off required, no action is required to be taken on the judicial side, on the objection raised, in the individual case of the petitioner.
12(b). Another objection has been raised that the Answer Booklets of the petitioner have not been properly examined and no or low marks have been awarded. We have examined those Answer Booklets of the petitioner. It is noted, all Answer Booklets and all answers furnished by the petitioner have been duly evaluated by the Examiner. Marks have been awarded properly. No cutting or over-writing or change of marks has been made by the Examiner. The objection is thus unfounded and not liable to be sustained.
13(a). In Manika, objection has been raised with respect to English Paper that the original marks to the petitioner by the Examiner to her answer responses to Question No. 1 & 3 have been interpolated and reduced. We have perused that Original Answer Booklet of the petitioner and find, it is true that the marks originally awarded to the petitioner against Question no. 1 were deleted and corrected to ’26’, both against the answer furnished by the petitioner and in the Cage. Similarly, original marks ’15’ awarded to the petitioner against Question no. 3 were scored out and corrected to ’16’, both against the answer furnished by the petitioner and in the Cage. Accordingly, total marks awarded to the petitioner were also scored out and corrected in the Cage, both in the numbers and words. Insofar as all corrections made have been duly signed by the Examiner, apparently with the same pen and with the same ink, the allegation of interpolation is ill-founded. As in some of the other cases, all corrections appear to have been made by the Examiner, before submitting the Answer Booklet.
13(b). Another objection has been raised with respect to Answer Booklet of Law Paper No. III. Here, it has been submitted, wholly general marking has been done and no evaluation has been made. We have perused that Answer Booklet of the petitioner. It has been evaluated and red tick marks have been placed and errors, etc. have been circled by the Examiner. Thereafter, marks have been awarded by the Examiner. No material exists in support of the allegations made. Objections are misconceived and ill founded.
14(a). In Vineet, objection has been raised with respect to General Knowledge Paper, that against the correct answer response to Question No. 9(d) and (e), ‘0’ marks have been wrongly awarded to the petitioner. We have perused the original Answer Booklet of the petitioner and find that the Question No. 9(d) and (e) and their answers read as below:
Question no.9. हाल ही में भारत में निम्नलिखित स्थान समाचारों में क्यों रहें हैं?
Why the following places of India were in news recently?
Questions
Answers
(d) कुनो राष्ट्रीय उद्यान
Kuno National Park
e) Kuno National Park-It is located in Madhya Pradesh and Cheetahs from Namibia were transported to Kuno Park.
(e) रियासी जिला।
Reasi district
f) Reasi District- It is located is the State of Jammu & Kashmir and was regarded as aspirational district.
Clearly, the petitioner had given wrong question number reference to the answer furnished (that may otherwise be correct). Thus, he has rightly been awarded ‘0’ marks against those answer responses. Here, we may note, even if 4 more marks were to be awarded to the petitioner, it may make no difference as the petitioner has been awarded total 546 marks whereas the cut-off for the O.B.C. category to which the petitioner, belongs is 551.
14(b). Another objection has been raised that the original marks awarded to the Question no.1 in the Hindi Language Paper have been interpolated and reduced. We have perused the original Answer Booklet of the petitioner and find, though originally, higher marks ’28’ were awarded to the petitioner, by the Examiner against petitioner’s answer response to Question No. 1, same was scored out and reduced to ’20’. At the same time, there are errors noted by the Examiner, in that answer written by the petitioner. Those have been marked in red ink. The corrections made, both to the marks awarded against answer response and in the Cage have been counter signed by the Examiner. Thus, those corrections appear to have been made before submission of the Answer Booklet. Objections are ill founded.
15(a). In Prachi, objections have been raised that the petitioner has been awarded unduly low ‘1’ mark against her answer response to Question No. 2 in paper Hindi Language. We have perused the Answer Booklet of the petitioner and find ‘5’ and not ‘1’ mark has been awarded to the petitioner, against that answer response. The same is neatly recorded in the left margin against the answer furnished by the petitioner and in the Cage appended at the top of the Answer Booklet. Those marks have been awarded by the Examiner. There is no correction thereto. Therefore, the objection is baseless.
15(b). Another objection has been raised that unduly low mark ‘1’ has been awarded to the petitioner for her answer response furnished to Question No. 1(a) and Question No. 8 of the paper General Knowledge. We have perused that Answer Booklet of the petitioner. She has been awarded ‘3’ out of maximum ‘5’ marks and not ‘1’ mark. Then against her answer response to Question Nos. 8 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i) and (j), against maximum marks ‘3’ for each part of that question, petitioner has been awarded, ‘2’, ‘2’, ‘3’, ‘0’, ‘1’, ‘3’, ‘0’, ‘1’, ‘2” and ‘3’ marks respectively. In all, petitioner has been awarded ’17’ marks against that question. Barring one correction made against answer response to Question No. 8(e) where original marks ‘2’ awarded to the petitioner have been scored out and corrected to ‘1’ against counter signature of the Examiner, no other correction has been made either in the margin in the Answer Booklet or in the Cage. Plainly, the objection raised is baseless. Considering the Model Answer, the evaluation is based on objective material.
16(a). In Abhishek, objection has been raised that against ‘127’ marks awarded to the petitioner in Law (Paper-II), only ‘126’ have been recorded and taken into consideration in the Cage appended to that Answer Booklet. We have perused the original Answer Booklet and find that though the Examiner had awarded ’12’, ‘5’ and ‘5’ marks to the answer responses of the petitioner to Question No. 4(a), (b) and (c), he made a totalling mistake and mentioned those total marks as ’21’ both in the margin and in the Cage. The Expert has corrected the same to ’22’ both in the margin and in the Cage. The objection raised is misconceived.
16(b). Another objection has been raised that the answer of the petitioner to Question No. 1(c) in Law Paper-I has not been properly evaluated. Similar objection has been raised with respect to the answer response to Question No. 5(b). We have perused the Answer Booklet of the petitioner. It is noted, original ‘7’ marks were awarded to the petitioner for his answer response to Question No. 1(b). However, that was corrected and increased to ‘8’ by the Examiner in the margin against the answer furnished by the petitioner. Thereafter, the total has been correctly recorded as ’22’ in the margin and in the Cage. Clearly, that correction has been made by the Examiner before submitting the Answer Booklet.
16(c). Against her answer response to Question No. 5(b), the Examiner appears to have evaluated the answer at length. Numerous tick and cut marks and circles have been placed by the Examiner at different parts of the answer, in red ink. Certain words and phrases have also been underlined by the Examiner. Thereafter, ‘6’ marks have been awarded by the Examiner. Those have not been corrected or changed. The total marks for the answer furnished by the petitioner have been correctly totalled, both in the margin and in the Cage and recorded as ’16’. The objection raised is misconceived and cannot be sustained.
17. In Anamika, it has been objected, the petitioner has been awarded very less marks than deserved in the papers General Knowledge, Hindi Language, Law Paper No.1, Law Paper No.2 and Law Paper No.3. We have perused the Answer Booklets of the petitioner. All answers written by the petitioner have been evaluated by the Examiner. Marks awarded have been written in red ink, at numerous places. They prima facie clearly indicate to the Court that due evaluation had been made. Thereafter, marks had been awarded against each answer written by the petitioner. Those have been correctly totalled, both against the individual answers as also in the Cage. There is no overwriting or interpolation. The objection is baseless and wholly misconceived.
18(a). In Vaibhav, objection is, the petitioner has not been awarded any marks against question no.9 and Question No. 6 in the Law Paper No.1 (substantive law). We have perused that Answer-Booklet. The fact assertion made by the petitioner is correct. The answer to Question No. 9 has not been evaluated. The words “Extra/Excessive Attempt” have been written by the Examiner, in red ink in the top margin of the Answer Booklet (above the answer written by the petitioner, at the beginning) whereas he has been awarded ‘0’ marks for the answer response furnished to Question No. 6. This objection we will deal with later.
18(b). Then, another objection has been raised that petitioner has been awarded ‘1’ mark less to his answer response to question no.9(d) of the Paper General Knowledge. For ready reference, question no.9 and the answer response of the petitioner reads as below:
“Question no.9. हाल ही में भारत में निम्नलिखित स्थान समाचारों में क्यों रहें हैं?
Why the following places of India were in news recently?
Answer: (d) कुनो राष्ट्रीय उद्यान
Kuno National Park”
Insofar as the petitioner in his response stated – Cheetah were ‘reintroduced’ at Kuno National Park, his answer may have been correct. However, the Model Answer required the number of Cheetah introduced 12, to be part of the correct answer. Accordingly, only ‘1’ mark out of maximum ‘2’has been deducted.
19(a). In Kanupriya, according to the petitioner, no marks have been awarded to her against four correct answers submitted by her in the paper General Knowledge. We have perused that Answer Booklet and find the fact assertion may be correct to the extent the petitioner has been awarded ‘0’ mark against answers furnished to Question Nos. 3(c), 4(a), 4(b), 6(d), 8(d) and 8(h). Marks have been awarded in the margin. The marks that may have been initially awarded by the Examiner against Question Nos. 3(c) and 4(a), have been scored out and recorded as ‘0’ and countersigned. Only ‘0’ mark has been awarded to the petitioner against Question Nos. 4(b), 6(d), 8(d) and 8(h). The answers furnished are at complete variance to the Model Answer. At the same time, ‘6’ marks were awarded to the petitioner for her answer to Question No. 1 of the paper General Knowledge. Thus, total ’65’ marks were awarded by the Examiner. Against that, she has been awarded ‘7’ marks against Question No. 1 and total ’66’ marks, by the Expert. As with similar objection raised by other petitioners, considered above, this objection is ill founded.
19(b). Also, it is the claim of the petitioner that she was awarded ‘128’ marks by the Examiner in Law Paper-II. Later, her marks were reduced to ‘122’. The Commission has explained the said occurrence. Since the petitioner’s Answer Booklet was picked for moderation, the marks awarded by the Moderator have been recorded in ‘Green’. Those have been totalled to ‘122’. Since variation was less than five percent, the marks originally awarded by the Examiner have been retained. Thus, the petitioner has been awarded ‘128’ marks in that paper. Thus, the objection is misconceived.
19(c). Third, objection is, no marks have been awarded to the petitioner against question paper no.10 of Law Paper-III. We have perused that Answer Booklet. It appears, originally no marks came to be awarded to the petitioner against that question, by the Examiner. Accordingly, the Examiner awarded ’93’ marks in that paper. However, the Expert has re-examined that Answer Booklet of the petitioner and awarded ‘8’ marks to her against Question no.10. Thus, total marks awarded to the petitioner have been revised and increased to ‘101’. Thus, the objection is misconceived.
19(d). In any case, the petitioner has been awarded 471 marks (in all) in the Written Examination. Yet, the final cut-off for the ‘General Category candidate for selection remained at 590 marks. Interview test being of 100 marks, the difference of marks is 118. The objections raised are only academic and not of real relevance. No opportunity of Interview Test may ever allow the petitioner to fall within the zone of selection.
20(a). In Prashasti, objection is that petitioner has wrongly been awarded ‘0’ mark against her answer to Question No.4(A) of the paper General Knowledge. We have perused that Answer Booklet. We have also compared the Model Answer, produced by the Commission. The answer furnished by the petitioner does not bear any relevance to the Model Answer. No material or challenge exists to reach at a conclusion that the petitioner has been unfairly dealt with. Thus, the objection is misconceived.
20(b). Second, it has been objected, the petitioner has been awarded low marks against Question No.1(B) of Law Paper I. We have perused that Answer Booklet. Though the petitioner has written pages, it cannot be said that her Answer Booklet has not been evaluated. Being a descriptive answer, there exists no reason to doubt the correctness of the evaluation made.
20(c). Yet, it remains a fact that petitioner obtained the cut-off marks 590 for the General category. However, she has not been offered appointment for reason of younger in age. To that there can be no grievance.
21(a). In Pawan, objection is, original marks awarded to the petitioner in paper General Knowledge have been changed/interpolated at many places. We have perused that Answer Booklet of the petitioner. It is noted that the original writing of marks to the petitioner against his answer responses to Question No. 3(c), 4(a) and 8(c) being ‘3’, ‘2’ and ‘2’ were changed by the Examiner. Those were reduced to ‘2.5’ and ‘1’ against answer response to question No. 3(c) and 4(a) by scoring out the original marks and recording the revised marks in the margin appearing against the answer responses. Those have been duly counter signed by the Examiner. At the same time to his answer response to Question No. 8(c), original marks ‘2’ awarded to the petitioner have been altered and increased to ‘3’. All alterations thus made have been counter signed by the Examiner. At the same time, there is no totalling mistake committed by the Examiner. Those have been correctly recorded in the margin against the answer responses and in the Cage, without any alteration or correction. The allegation of marks arbitrarily reduced etc., is unfounded. Also, the Answer Booklet of the petitioner reveals that the Examiner had committed a totalling mistake in the Cage and recorded total marks awarded to the petitioner as ’75’. The Expert corrected the same to ’82’ in blue ink, in the Cage.
21(b). It is observed that the Answer Booklet of the petitioner was also picked for moderation. In that, mark ‘1’ awarded to the petitioner by the Examiner against his answer response to Question No. 8(c) was reduced to ‘1/2’ by the Moderator, taking note of the error in that answer response. The error has been circled. Accordingly, the total marks awarded to the petitioner against Question No. 8 has been recorded as ‘19.5’, by the Moderator.
21(c). At the same time, the Moderator has awarded the petitioner ‘1/2’ more mark to the answer response to Question No. 7(b). Accordingly, against ‘5’ marks awarded by the Examiner; the Moderator has awarded ‘5.5’ marks to the petitioner against that question. No other change of marks arose upon moderation. Consequently, even after moderation, total marks awarded to the petitioner remained at ’82’. In any case, no change could ever be caused by that moderation.
22(a). In Utkarsh, objection has been raised, against answer response to Question No. 2(b) of Law Paper-I, the petitioner has been awarded less marks. We have perused the Answer Booklet of the petitioner and find that no error exists as the answer furnished by the petitioner is imaginative. For ready reference the Question No. 2(b) and the answer response reads as below:
“(b) अव्यवहारिक ऋृण क्या है ? कब ऋृण अव्यवहारिक बन जाता है ? ऐसे ऋृणों के विषय में विधि का वर्णन कीजिए।
What is Avyavaharik debt ? When debt becomes Avyavaharik ? Discuss the law regarding such debts.
Ans : Avyavaharik Debt is any debt which becomes an obligation on any person due to any dbt being taken by the ancestors of any person.
Debt Becomes Avyavaharik when the death of Person who has taken the debt takes place.
Law regarding Avyavaharik Debt
After coming of different Personal laws the Avyavaharik Debt is not given a large value and Priority is also deceased.
However, there are certain changes which have occurred after 2005 Amendment Act.
No liability of a person will be there who gets separated from family by way of partition.”
We have perused Model Answer. Clearly, the answer furnished is imaginative. Still ‘1’ mark has been awarded against that answer response. It may be leniency shown but not error. The mark thus awarded has been included in the total. There is no mistake.
22(b). Then, another objection has been raised by the petitioner to marks awarded to Question No. 3(b)(iv) of Law Paper-II. We have perused the question and the Answer Booklet. For ready reference Question No. 3(b)(iv) and the answer response reads as below:
“iv) पर्दानशीन महिलाओं का पर्दा रखने का अधिकार।
Right of a Pardanasheen lady to observe.
Ans : In a recent judgement pronounced by Hon’ble Apex Court, it has been clearly held that Right of a Pardanasheen lady to observe is a suit of civil nature, as it incurs civil rights of Pardanashin women and any argument to bring such ladies under religious obligation and this suit under religious matters vain and frivolous, therefore it can be said that Right of Pardanasheen lady to observe is a suit of civil nature and civil suit regarding it cabe filed regarding it under civil suit.”
Again, the answer is imaginative and not referable to the Model Answer. Accordingly, ‘0’ mark has been correctly awarded. There is no error.
23. In Tanay, objection has been raised that the petitioner’s answer response to Question No. 4(b) of Law (Paper-II) has been wrongly awarded ‘0’ mark. The petitioner may never have been awarded ‘0’ mark for reason of different conclusion drawn. We have perused the Model Answer Key. Clearly, the answer furnished by the petitioner varies from the Model Answer, particularly, in the conclusion. The petitioner would refer to expert material, namely the book “Code of Civil Procedure and Limitation Act” written by Dr. Basanti Lal Babel, published by the Central Law Agency. At the same time, it cannot be denied that the answer furnished is at variance with the Model Answer. As to the applicable law, we may consider the issue a little later.
24(a). In Minakshi, objection has been raised that the petitioner has been wrongly awarded ‘0’ mark against Question Nos. 9(b) and 10(C)(i) of the paper, General Knowledge. Objection has also been raised to the marks awarded to her for the answer response to Question Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the paper General Knowledge. We have perused the Model Answer and find that the evaluation done by the Examiner does not suffer from any infirmity. There is no error.
24(b). As to further objection about low marks awarded to the answers furnished by the petitioner, it is noted, all Answer Booklets and all answers furnished by the petitioner have been duly evaluated by the Examiner. Marks have been awarded properly. There is no cutting or over-writing or change of marks awarded by the Examiner. There is absolutely no basis to sustain the objection.
25. In the above fact background, Sri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned Senior Advocate has placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Pranav Verma & Ors. Vs. Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh & Anr., (2020) 15 SCC 377. He would submit that the result of the Examination be set aside or placed on hold and a detailed enquiry be first conducted by a distinguished expert to be appointed by the Court, to examine the credibility of the Examination conducted by the Commission and the processes adopted by it.
26. The errors, (noted above), have been relied to assert that on the face of it the process adopted by the Commission does not inspire confidence. Thus, it has been submitted, innumerable errors may have been committed by the Commission. The entire evaluation process adopted by the Commission does not inspire any confidence. The Examination is sensitive. It involves selection of judicial officers. Unless meticulous care is taken and fairness and absolute transparency observed, the result published by the Commission may not be made final.
27. He has referred to the affidavits filed by the Commission in the lead case Shravan Pandey (supra), wherein the Commission has fairly admitted that the check list of Master Fake Codes assigned to two sets of 25 Answer Booklets each, for the paper English Language, was interchanged. Once the Commission admitted such mistake, no evidence of credible process adopted, may ever exist.
28. Third, he has referred to and relied on the guidelines issued by the Commission to Examiners (annexed to the Compliance Affidavit) filed in Shravan Pandey (supra). Thus, reference has been made to the following guidelines 9-Kha(x) which reads as below:
“आंकलन संबंधी सभी प्रकार की त्रुटियों एवं असंगतियों का निवारण संबंधित विषय के परीक्षक को आहूत करके कराया जायेगा। सन्निरीक्षाकर्ता ऐसे त्रुटिपूर्ण अथवा असंगति युक्त उत्तर पुस्तिका/अंक तालिका में यथा प्रबल सन्निरीक्षा टीप देंगे तथा दोनों अभिलेखों पर अपने स्पष्ट एवं पठनीय हस्ताक्षर भी करेंगे। यह सुनिश्चित किया जाय कि सन्निरीक्षा में निकाली गई कोई त्रुटि परीक्षक द्वारा निवारित होने तथा तद्नुसार अंकतालिका पर संशोधन होने से रह न जाये।”
29. Sri Adhiraj Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for Vaibhav has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2024 SCC Online SC 2 and decision of the Calcutta High Court in Reshmi Bhagat Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2024 SCC Online Cal 3040. He has also relied on the publication “Action Plan for Introduction of Cheetah in India” published by the Wildlife Institute of India, wherein it has been stated as below:
“The points those need to be considered for formulating objectives and actions to achieve the cheetah reintroduction goals in Kuno NP include.”
30. He has also relied on Ajay Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2016) SCC Online (Del) 6553.
31. Shri Tanuj Shahi has adopted the submissions noted above. In addition, he has, in his usual persuasive ways, elaborated, ‘0’ mark may never be awarded to a descriptive question, when some part of the answer is not wrong for supporting reasoning given. Other learned counsel for the petitioners have adopted the submissions thus advanced by Mr. Naqvi and Sri Adhiraj.
32. On the other hand, Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appeared for the Commission has heavily relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh & Anr. Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad & Anr., (2007) 3 SCC 720. He would submit, the process described in paragraph no. 23 of the report has been scrupulously followed by the Commission. For ready reference, paragraph no. 23 of the said decision reads as below:
“Re: Question (iii)
23. When a large number of candidates appear for an examination, it is necessary to have uniformity and consistency in valuation of the answer-scripts. Where the number of candidates taking the examination are limited and only one examiner (preferably the paper-setter himself) evaluates the answer-scripts, it is to be assumed that there will be uniformity in the valuation. But where a large number of candidates take the examination, it will not be possible to get all the answer-scripts evaluated by the same examiner. It, therefore, becomes necessary to distribute the answer-scripts among several examiners for valuation with the paper-setter (or other senior person) acting as the Head Examiner. When more than one examiners evaluate the answer-scripts relating to a subject, the subjectivity of the respective examiner will creep into the marks awarded by him to the answer-scripts allotted to him for valuation. Each examiner will apply his own yardstick to assess the answer-scripts. Inevitably therefore, even when experienced examiners receive equal batches of answer-scripts, there is difference in average marks and the range of marks awarded, thereby affecting the merit of individual candidates. This apart, there is “hawk-dove” effect. Some examiners are liberal in valuation and tend to award more marks. Some examiners are strict and tend to give less marks. Some may be moderate and balanced in awarding marks. Even among those who are liberal or those who are strict, there may be variance in the degree of strictness or liberality. This means that if the same answer-script is given to different examiners, there is all likelihood of different marks being assigned. If a very well-written answer-script goes to a strict examiner and a mediocre answer-script goes to a liberal examiner, the mediocre answer-script may be awarded more marks than the excellent answer-script. In other words, there is “reduced valuation” by a strict examiner and “enhanced valuation” by a liberal examiner. This is known as “examiner variability” or “hawk-dove effect”. Therefore, there is a need to evolve a procedure to ensure uniformity inter se the examiners so that the effect of “examiner subjectivity” or “examiner variability” is minimised. The procedure adopted to reduce examiner subjectivity or variability is known as moderation. The classic method of moderation is as follows:
(i) The paper-setter of the subject normally acts as the Head Examiner for the subject. He is selected from amongst senior academicians/scholars/senior civil servants/judges. Where the case is of a large number of candidates, more than one examiner is appointed and each of them is allotted around 300 answer-scripts for valuation.
(ii) To achieve uniformity in valuation, where more than one examiner is involved, a meeting of the Head Examiner with all the examiners is held soon after the examination. They discuss thoroughly the question paper, the possible answers and the weightage to be given to various aspects of the answers. They also carry out a sample valuation in the light of their discussions. The sample valuation of scripts by each of them is reviewed by the Head Examiner and variations in assigning marks are further discussed. After such discussions, a consensus is arrived at in regard to the norms of valuation to be adopted. On that basis, the examiners are required to complete the valuation of answer-scripts. But this by itself, does not bring about uniformity of assessment inter se the examiners. In spite of the norms agreed, many examiners tend to deviate from the expected or agreed norms, as their caution is overtaken by their propensity for strictness or liberality or erraticism or carelessness during the course of valuation. Therefore, certain further corrective steps become necessary.
(iii) After the valuation is completed by the examiners, the Head Examiner conducts a random sample survey of the corrected answer-scripts to verify whether the norms evolved in the meetings of examiner have actually been followed by the examiners. The process of random sampling usually consists of scrutiny of some top level answer-scripts and some answer books selected at random from the batches of answer-scripts valued by each examiner. The top level answer books of each examiner are revalued by the Head Examiner who carries out such corrections or alterations in the award of marks as he, in his judgment, considers best, to achieve uniformity. (For this purpose, if necessary certain statistics like distribution of candidates in various marks ranges, the average percentage of marks, the highest and lowest award of marks, etc. may also be prepared in respect of the valuation of each examiner.)
(iv) After ascertaining or assessing the standards adopted by each examiner, the Head Examiner may confirm the award of marks without any change if the examiner has followed the agreed norms, or suggests upward or downward moderation, the quantum of moderation varying according to the degree of liberality or strictness in marking. In regard to the top level answer books revalued by the Head Examiner, his award of marks is accepted as final. As regards the other answer books below the top level, to achieve maximum measure of uniformity inter se the examiners, the awards are moderated as per the recommendations made by the Head Examiner.
(v) If in the opinion of the Head Examiner there has been erratic or careless marking by any examiner, for which it is not feasible to have any standard moderation, the answer-scripts valued by such examiner are revalued either by the Head Examiner or any other examiner who is found to have followed the agreed norms.
(vi) Where the number of candidates is very large and the examiners are numerous, it may be difficult for one Head Examiner to assess the work of all the examiners. In such a situation, one more level of examiners is introduced. For every ten or twenty examiners, there will be a Head Examiner who checks the random samples as above. The work of the Head Examiners, in turn, is checked by a Chief Examiner to ensure proper results.
The above procedure of “moderation” would bring in considerable uniformity and consistency. It should be noted that absolute uniformity or consistency in valuation is impossible to achieve where there are several examiners and the effort is only to achieve maximum uniformity.”
33. Next, he has placed on reliance on paragraph no. 11 of the Counter Affidavit filed in Vineet Yadav (supra), wherein it has been stated as below :
“To achieve uniformity in valuation, where more than one examiner is involved, a meeting of the Head Examiner with all the examiners is held soon after the examination. They discuss thoroughly the question paper, the possible answers and the weightage to be given to various aspects of the answers. They also carry out a sample valuation in the light of their discussions. The sample valuation of scripts by each of them is reviewed by the Head Examiner and variations if any in assigning marks are further discussed. After such discussions, a consensus is arrived at in regard to the norms of valuation to be adopted by all examiners. On that basis, the examiners are required to complete the valuation of answer scripts.”
34. Learned Senior Counsel for the Commission would submit; the Model Answer has been universally applied to all candidates and marks have been awarded on that basis. Therefore, individual rights must be determined in that light. Any exception made to that rule universally applied, would bring inconsistency and duality in the method of evaluation, that must remain singular.
35. To the extent, there is no basis to conclude that the Model Answer applied is patently unreliable or unsustainable or palpably wrong, no room for interference exists, at this late stage. That interference may upset the entire selection list on the strength of marking to be allowed to all the candidates on parameters that would be wholly different to those universally applied by the Commission while evaluating Answer Booklets of all candidates. He has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. G. Hemalathaa and Another (Civil Appeal No. 6669 of 2019, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others (1984) 4 SCC 27, Central Board of Secondary Education Through Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination and Others Vs. Khushboo Shrivastava and Others (2014)14 SCC 523 and U.P.P.S.C. Through its Chairman and Another Vs. Rahul Singh and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5838 of 2018, in support of his contention.
36. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, four types of individual objections have been raised. First, individual candidates have claimed, higher marks should have been awarded to them against answers furnished at the UPPCS (J)-2022, Written Examination, in various papers. In individual facts, such issue has been raised in different complexions. One nature of challenge is; the answer furnished was correct and the same has been erroneously marked wrong. Typically, ‘0’ mark may have been awarded in such cases against higher marks claimed. Second, challenge has been raised that marks originally awarded were scored out or corrected, typically reduced, by the Examiner. In that, another variety of challenge exists where such revised marks may not have been counter signed by the Examiner. Third, totalling mistakes and change of original marks awarded, has been alleged. In that, marks awarded by the Examiner or Expert and further evaluation at Moderation has been perceived and described as change made to the marks awarded. Fourth, it has been alleged, certain answers have not been evaluated or have been wrongly evaluated by the Examiner etc. In that context, some of the petitioners claim, if ‘1’ or more mark was awarded, they would meet the cut-off in their respective social category and be eligible for selection and appointment.
37. As noted above, we have perused the disputed Answer Booklets of each individual petitioner (where required with reference to the Model Answer Booklet), to ascertain if any malpractice or other patent error was committed by the Commission as may put in doubt the credibility or fairness or completeness of the evaluation offered by the Commission. It may also be noted, according to the written instructions presented by Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the Commission, 3019 candidates appeared at the written examination of UPPCS(J)-2022. They wrote 06 papers each. The Answer Booklets of the paper English Language were examined by 13 Examiners with one Chief Examiner. Answer Booklets of the paper Hindi Language were examined by 16 Examiners with one Chief Examiner, Answer Booklets of the paper General Knowledge were examined by 18 Examiners with two Chief Examiners. Answer Booklets of the papers Law-I, Law-II and Law-III were examined by 15, 14 and 16 Examiners each with one Chief Examiner each. Those instructions have been marked as ‘X’ and retained on record. They also contain the evaluation procedure followed by the UPPSC.
38. The hardest cases are of Vaibhav and Tanay. Yet, insofar as Vaibhav is concerned, the law relied by Sri Adhiraj Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for Vaibhav, has no application. In those cases, merit position had been earned. In that fact found in favour of those candidates by the selecting body, the denial of selection and appointment for reason of fact not in the control of that candidate, specifically qua discrepancy recorded in the date of birth document, was annulled. Those cases would stand on a completely different footing. Here, marks could not be awarded to the petitioner for reason of extra question attempted against specific instructions. In State of T.N and Ors. Vs G. Hemalathaa and Anr. (supra), it has been observed as below:
“…
7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent. The Instructions issued by the Commission are mandatory, having the force of law and they have to be strictly complied with. Strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the Instructions is of paramount importance. The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot modify/relax the Instructions issued by the Commission.
…”
39. Thus, a common yardstick was prescribed and enforced by the Commission, to examine all Answer Booklets, of all 3019 candidates. Facts are not shown to be otherwise. Thus, no inherent prejudice has been caused to the petitioner upon that yardstick applied to his case.
40. The petitioner may justifiably feel dejected at present. He had sufficient time, and he had put in his effort to answer Question No. 9. Therefore, he may in his esteem, feel entitled to award of marks against efforts made. Yet, as noted above, there is no error on part of the Commission in not evaluating the extra-answer written by the petitioner. We do not know, how many other similarly meritorious candidates may have missed out on selection, similarly.
41. One mark more and the petitioner may have still made the cut-off, subject to him being eldest in age, at those marks. At the same time, it cannot be denied, non-specification of number of Cheetah introduced and the place of their origin, in the answer to Question No. 10, rendered the petitioner’s answer incomplete, as per the Model Answer. Thus, deduction of that ‘1’ mark is not per se arbitrary.
42. As for Tanay (supra), as noted above, there is no material to conclude that dual standards had been adopted by the Commission it in evaluating the answers to Question Nos. 4(b) of Law (Paper-II). Once the Model Answer Key existed and emphasis had been laid by the Commission (as the expert body) to evaluate the correctness or otherwise of the answers and award marks, based on that material – to ensure consistency and to neutralise subjectivity that may otherwise led to inconsistency upon individual discretion exercised by individual Examiners, and in absence of any margin created by the Commission, in that regard, we are not inclined to disable that basic evaluation tool (Model Answer Key) and introduce another tool, through judicial order.
43. Even though the question in issue pertains to legal knowledge, yet sitting as a Court, we cannot assume the role of a subject expert or the Commission to rule on the legal correctness of the Model Answer adopted by the Commission – by way of a standard yardstick or parameter, to evaluate the correctness of the subjective answer responses of all candidates. So long as there is no material to suspect that the said standard yardstick is absurd or patently wrong or that it was not uniformly applied, we refrain from adopting a pro-active approach, to offer interference in an individual case, as may have ramifications on the final selection and appointment of hundreds of officers from three thousand plus candidates. Also, if the standard yardstick remains the same for other candidates, we may not look to adopt another one for this petitioner, as may introduce a double standard in the evaluation process adopted by the Commission.
44. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Education & Anr Vs Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Ors (supra) it was observed as below:
“…
29.Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defeasive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case.
…”
45. Again, in CBSE & Ors Vs Khushboo Shrivastava and Ors (supra) it has been observed as below:
“…
11. In our considered opinion, neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court could have substituted his/its own views for that of the examiners and awarded two additional marks to Respondent 1 for the two answers in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution as these are purely academic matters. This Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27] has observed: (SCC pp. 56-57, para 29) ……….”
46. Again, in UPPSC Vs Rahul Singh & Anr (supra) that principle was applied as below:
” …
14. In the present case we find that all the 3 questions needed a long process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed that the stand of the Commission is also supported by certain text books. When there are conflicting views, then the court must bow down to the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts.
…”
47. Therefore, we are not inclined to intervene. Merely because another view may be possible to be taken viz-a-viz a descriptive answer, it may never be sufficient to dislodge the standard/parameter adopted by the Commission, to judge the correctness of such answers. Accordingly, the objection is not sustained.
48. In absence of any patent illegality shown in the evaluation made by the Commission, the Court may not look to get these petitioners the desired result by showing sympathy, for true merit does not solicit sympathy. It earns deserved results. It is bad to miss out from so close. Yet, selection at a public examination is not the absolute test of true merit of candidates and their ability. It remains a subjective test. Its result is dependent on many factors. Its effect on human life, remains transient. For those who chose to pursue merit, irrespective of petty failures such as this, sometimes, it is good to miss out from that close. In any case, in view of the explicit instructions existing, Vaibhav attempted Question No. 9, after attempting 6 questions sequentially, his seventh answer could not have been evaluated and he could not have been awarded marks against that answer. Also, Tanay has not been treated arbitrarily, though he may justifiably feel unlucky, but only in the present.
49. As to the other errors and mistakes committed by Examiners while evaluating different Answer Booklets of various petitioners, in the first place it is noted that in no case any mistake continues to exist. All errors that existed (earlier), for reason of mistake committed by the Examiners, were corrected, either by such Examiners themselves or by the Experts. Not one case exists where the correction made by the Examiner and/or Expert may be doubted. For reason of our observations noted (above), to the individual objections raised by individual petitioners, we are equally unimpressed by the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that there exist large scale malpractices and apparent blunders committed by the Commission, in evaluating the Answer Booklets of the candidates.
50. To the extent marks have been corrected by the Examiners and at times those corrections may not have been counter signed, as noted above, not a single case exists of such correction not signed/counter signed or wrongly recorded or totalled in the Cage appended to the individual Answer Booklets or of those total marks being different from those awarded to individual candidates either against the answers furnished by the candidates or in the result declared by the Commission. Only after filling up the Cage that the Examiners may ever submit the Answer Booklets. The finality of evaluation may arise only after that submission. Since all Answer Booklets are duly signed by the Examiners in the Cage Form (of individual Answer Booklets), it must be acknowledged, all corrections were made by the Examiners, in the Answer Booklets, prior to their submission. No evidence or material has been brought on record by any petitioner as may remotely suggest to the Court that any correction was made after submission of an Answer Booklet. Therefore, no inference may ever be drawn of any malpractice less so large-scale malpractice committed by the Commission in evaluating the Answer Booklets of individual petitioners. All Examiners have evaluated the Answer Booklets and made correction in red ink. Mostly, upon corrections made, original marks awarded have been reduced. Yet, in a few cases, original marks have also been increased. We conclude, there is no material that corrections were not made by the Examiners, before submitting the Answer Booklets.
51. As a method of evaluation, the Commission may not have subscribed to best possible practices both with respect to the Examiners and the Experts who may correct the marks awarded after the first evaluation. Such correction indicates changes made. At the same time, once correction is made and revised/corrected marks are recorded on the Answer Booklet by that Examiner, the same must be recognized as marks duly awarded. Thus, ideally, Examiners should not make corrections to the marks, once awarded. At the same time, such corrections may be necessary or required, as may be the case. So long as such corrections are kept to the bare minimum and are always countersigned and/or such corrections are duly incorporated in the marks recorded in the Cage, the same may continue to be recognized as the only marks awarded to a candidate upon proper evaluation.
52. Keeping in mind the policies of Commission with respect to evaluation to be made as pointed out by Shri Naqvi (noted above) and also referred to by Shri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the Commission, occurrences of correction of marks made by the Examiners, cannot be ruled out under the existing procedures and practices of the Commission.
53. As to corrections made by Experts, all corrections are in blue ink. None has been overwritten etc. No tabulation/totalling error exists. The Expert correction has mostly caused increase/award of marks. Rarely, it has led to marks awarded by the Examiner (in red ink), being reduced. Wherever, marks awarded by the Examiner have been varied by the Expert, the latter has made an indicative mark (of evaluation), to point at the cause for the same.
54. Very few cases of moderation exist. Those marks have been made in green ink. Though in some cases, marks different from those awarded by the Examiner and the Expert were awarded at moderation, yet, in all cases that variation of marks did not exceed the 5% limit. Therefore, despite such moderation made, the original marks as awarded by the Examiner and as corrected by the Expert, have been accepted as final.
55. In view of the above, we are of the considered view – by way of right, none of the petitioners is entitled to award of marks higher than already awarded, by the Commission. Therefore, none of the petitioners has been illegally or wrongfully deprived of selection.
56. The only visible error committed by the Commission pertained to inter- changing of Check List of Master Fake Codes placed on two bundles of 25 Answer Booklets each, pertaining to the paper English Language. In that, one bundle of Answer Booklets of 25 candidates got inter-changed with another bundle of 25 Answer Booklets. That error was noted in Shravan Pandey (supra), at the initial stage itself. The Commission adopted corrective measures. It found not one candidate (wrongly invited to Interview Test), was selected. At the same time all candidates wrongly not called for Interview Test (initially), were called for that test, later i.e. after the declaration of the main result. A revised result was declared thereafter. Two more candidates have thus been recommended for appointment. Those two have yet not approached the Court.
57. In Shravan Pandey (supra) (which case is also listed before us, today), the Chairman of the Commission had earlier filed a specific affidavit stating that no further or other error of like nature was found with respect to any other Answer Booklet of any of the six papers written by 3019 individual candidates. That statement must be correct, as besides Shravan Pandey (supra), no other writ petition came to be filed by any other candidate, raising like ground, even though the Commission permitted all (3019) candidates to examine their original Answer Booklets (vide public notice dated 14.06.2024).
58. Thus, even as to the errors noted above, against opportunity granted to 3019 candidates to examine their original Answer Booklets, only 20 candidates have filed writ petitions before the Court. Two more have however later filed petitions, for reason of later recommendations made by the Commission to recall their appointment (in view of the rectification proposed to be made by the Commission) and to appoint two other candidates. Thus, below 0.73% candidates have brought any grievance to the Court. All others (99.27%) are satisfied with the examination process and the declaration of the result by the Commission. That, after opportunity to examine all their Answer Booklets, being availed.
59. Though, we may not accept the process of evaluation followed by the Commission as the best possible and we may desire critical improvements to be made thereto and though we also do not approve the approach of the Commission in taking unilateral decisions by calling candidates (non-shortlisted) for interview, after declaration of the final result; revising the result thereafter; making recommendation in favour of two other candidates and withdrawing recommendation already made in favour of two other candidates, yet, those may not offer any reason to doubt the credibility of the evaluation of Answer Booklets of individual petitioners or their results. As noted above, those aspects may be considered in Shravan Pandey (supra).
60. In view of facts noted above, none of the corrections made to the original marks awarded to the individual petitioners (whether made by the Examiners or the Expert) evidence any foul play, or malpractice or such occurrence of like nature as may cast a doubt on the credibility of the result of any of the petitioners. The Court must take a holistic view, of what transpired.
61. In the parting, if we could, we would command the petitioners who are young citizens to not lose hope. Though, they may not have been dealt in the best possible way by the Commission, yet they have not suffered malpractice and have not been unfairly or arbitrarily deprived of their selection. None, except two has been consciously or unfairly benefited by the Commission. In any case that issue is engaging the attention of the Court in two other petitions. Even those have not benefited at the cost of the petitioners.
62. Continued pursuit of merit may bring higher rewards to the petitioners in the years to come, such that they may aim at and achieve the first few merit positions and not compete for the last few, as at present. For the last few posts there may almost always arise clamour and doubt and in any case dissatisfaction and disappointment, at what more could be done, both by self and third parties, such as the Commission.
63. Since, these writ petitions lack merit, they are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 13.12.2024
Faraz/Prakhar/SA/Abhilash
(Donadi Ramesh, J.) (S. D. Singh, J.)