Supreme Court Allows Re-evaluation of Answer Sheets, But Protects Jobs: Vikas Pratap Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2013)

Date of the Judgment: July 9, 2013
Citation: 2013 INSC 487
Judges: H.L. Dattu, J., Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.
Can a selection board re-evaluate answer sheets after a merit list is published? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case regarding the recruitment of Subedars, Platoon Commanders, and Sub-Inspectors in Chhattisgarh. The Court allowed the re-evaluation to correct errors, but protected the jobs of those already appointed, placing them at the bottom of the revised merit list. This judgment was authored by Justice H.L. Dattu.

Case Background

On September 18, 2006, the Police Headquarters of Chhattisgarh advertised 380 posts for Subedars, Platoon Commanders, and Sub-Inspectors. The Preliminary Examination took place on December 24, 2006. Successful candidates then appeared for the Main Examination on February 4 and 5, 2007. This exam had two papers. After physical tests and interviews, a final merit list was released on April 8, 2008. The selected candidates, including the appellants, received appointment letters between August 21, 2008, and September 15, 2008.

However, the Inspector General of Police and the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (the Board) received complaints about errors in the Main Examination papers. An Expert Committee was formed to investigate. The committee found two types of errors: eight incorrect questions in Paper II and incorrect model answers for another eight questions in Paper II. The Board then decided to delete the first set of eight questions and correct the model answers for the other eight. They re-evaluated the answer scripts. This resulted in a new revised merit list published on June 27, 2009. Consequently, the appointments of twenty-six appellants were cancelled.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants, aggrieved by the cancellation of their appointments, filed writ petitions before a Single Judge of the High Court. They challenged the revised merit list, arguing that the re-evaluation was arbitrary. The Single Judge issued an interim order allowing the appellants to continue their training. The Judge then referred the matter to a Division Bench, framing a question of public importance.

The Division Bench upheld the re-evaluation process. It noted that the re-evaluation only involved objective-type questions. The High Court concluded that the re-evaluation was justified, balanced, and did not cause injustice. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions and upheld the cancellation of the appellants’ appointments. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined Clause 14 of the Examination Conduct Rules of the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board. Clause 14 deals with wrong or defective objective-type questions. It states that if questions are found to be defective by subject experts, they are rejected. Marks for these questions are then awarded to candidates in proportion to their marks obtained in the particular question paper. The clause specifies reasons for rejecting questions, such as incorrect structure, multiple correct answers, or errors in translation.

The Court noted that Clause 14 only addresses errors in the questions themselves, not errors in the model answers. The Court also considered the general power of the Board to ensure fair and accurate results in competitive examinations. The Court cited Chairman, J & K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and others, (2000) 3 SCC 59 and Sahiti and Ors. v. The Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and Ors., (2009) 1 SCC 599, to support the view that the Board can re-evaluate answer sheets to correct irregularities.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the Board’s decision to re-evaluate the answer scripts was arbitrary. They contended that there was no statutory provision for such re-evaluation.
• They submitted that Clause 14 of the Rules was broad enough to include errors in model answers. Therefore, the Board should have followed Clause 14 instead of re-evaluating the answer scripts.
• They argued that their appointments were based on a properly conducted examination and that they were not at fault in any manner.
• The appellants further argued that they had completed training and served for more than three years, and their ouster would cause undue hardship. Some of them had become overaged, losing the opportunity to appear in subsequent exams.
• They relied on Rajesh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2013(3) SCALE 393, where the Court had protected candidates appointed based on erroneous evaluations.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the re-evaluation was necessary to rectify errors in the evaluation process.
• They stated that the re-evaluation affected three types of objective questions: incorrect questions, questions with incorrect model answers, and questions in Paper I for which no model answers were provided initially.
• The respondents clarified that the first set of eight incorrect questions was deleted, and marks were awarded pro-rata as per Clause 14. The second set was re-evaluated using corrected model answers, and the third set was evaluated using model answers prepared by the Expert Committee.
• The respondents contended that the re-evaluation did not cause prejudice to the appellants. Rather, it corrected irregularities in the initial evaluation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the decision of the respondent-Board in directing re-evaluation of the answer scripts has caused any prejudice to the appellants appointed qua the first merit list, dated 08.04.2008.
2. Whether after having undergone training and assumed charge at their place of posting the 26 appellants be ousted from service on the basis of cancellation of their appointment qua the revised merit list.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court used Chairman, J & K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and others, (2000) 3 SCC 59* and Sahiti and Ors. v. The Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and Ors., (2009) 1 SCC 599* to support the Board’s power to re-evaluate answer sheets to correct errors.
• The Court distinguished Rajesh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2013(3) SCALE 393*, stating that while it showed a sympathetic view, the current case was different.
• The Court cited District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and another v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655*, P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and others, (1994) 1 SCC 1*, and Union of India and others v. M. Bhaskaran, 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 100* to emphasize that no legal right vests in a candidate who obtained employment by fraud or misrepresentation.
• The Court relied on Vinodan T. and Ors. v. University of Calicut and Ors .,(2002) 4 SCC 726* and State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and Ors. (2006) 1 SCC 667* to show that a sympathetic view is taken when the appointee is not at fault.
• The Court used Girjesh Shrivastava and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 707* to highlight the economic impact of ousting appointees.
• The Court cited Union of India (UOI) and Anr. v. Narendra Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 750* to show how the age and service of an employee was considered.
• The Court relied on Gujarat State Deputy Executive Engineers’ Association v. State of Gujarat and Ors., 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591*, Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and Ors. v. Akhil Kumar and Ors., (2001) 2 SCR 18*, M.S. Mudhol (Dr.) and Anr. v. S.D. Halegkar and Ors., (1993) II LLJ 1159 SC* and Tridip Kumar Dingal and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., (2009) 1 SCC 768* to support the view that long service should be considered.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of legal principles and equitable considerations. The Court recognized the Board’s authority to correct errors in the evaluation process to maintain fairness and accuracy. However, it also acknowledged the hardship that would be caused to the appellants if they were ousted from service after completing training and serving for several years. The Court emphasized that the appellants were not at fault in the erroneous evaluation process. This led the Court to balance the need for a fair selection process with the need to protect the interests of innocent appointees.

Logical Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning was that while the re-evaluation was necessary to correct errors, the appellants were not at fault and had served for a considerable time. Therefore, they should not be penalized by being ousted from service. The Court balanced the need for a fair selection process with the need to protect the interests of innocent appointees.

The Court stated, “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 Court also observed, “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 dependants but also adversely affect their careers.”

Further, the Court clarified, “Accordingly, we direct the respondent-State to appoint the appellants in the revised 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.”

Key Takeaways

• Selection boards can re-evaluate answer sheets to correct errors, even after a merit list has been published.
• Clause 14 of the Examination Conduct Rules only applies to defective questions, not to errors in model answers.
• Courts will take a sympathetic view towards appointees who are not at fault in an erroneous evaluation process.
• Appointees who have completed training and served for a considerable time should not be ousted if the error was not their fault.
• Such appointees can be placed at the bottom of the revised merit list to balance the interests of all parties.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State of Chhattisgarh to appoint the appellants at the bottom of the revised merit list. The Court also directed that candidates who had crossed the minimum statutory age for appointment be accommodated with suitable age relaxation. The Court clarified that this would be a fresh appointment and that the appellants would not be entitled to any back wages, seniority, or other benefits based on their earlier appointment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while selection boards have the power to re-evaluate answer sheets to correct errors, the courts will protect the interests of innocent appointees who have served for a considerable period. This judgment clarifies the scope of Clause 14 of the Examination Conduct Rules and establishes a balance between the need for a fair selection process and the need to protect the economic security of appointees. This case also shows that the court can take a sympathetic view when the appointee is not at fault.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the re-evaluation of answer sheets to correct errors in the selection process for Subedars, Platoon Commanders, and Sub-Inspectors in Chhattisgarh. However, the Court protected the jobs of the appellants, who were innocent appointees, by directing that they be placed at the bottom of the revised merit list. This judgment balances the need for a fair selection process with the need to protect the interests of those who have served for a considerable time without any fault of their own.