Supreme Court orders re-evaluation of answer keys in Sub Inspector Exam: Sachit Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. (28 April 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 28 April 2023
Citation: Not Available
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can a delay in raising objections to answer keys in a competitive exam, if done before the declaration of results, be a ground to deny a candidate the opportunity to have their objections reviewed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission’s Sub-Inspector exam. The court considered whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the appeals of candidates who were short of qualifying marks and had raised objections to certain answer keys after the stipulated deadline but before the results were announced.

Case Background

The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (Commission) issued an advertisement (No. 09/2017) for the appointment of Sub Inspectors of Police through a limited competitive examination. A total of 1544 posts were advertised, and 3350 applications were received. 3219 candidates appeared for the examination. The candidates were required to obtain a minimum of 45% marks in both Paper-2 and Paper-3, and a total of 50% marks in the written examination. A 5% relaxation was provided to SC/ST candidates.

Only 663 candidates met the minimum qualifying marks in the written examination. The remaining candidates, including the appellants, were deemed ineligible. 399 candidates were declared successful, and after physical and medical examinations, 396 candidates were appointed.

The original writ petitioners, who were short of one or two marks, raised objections against the answer keys, claiming that nine answers were incorrect. They filed writ petitions in the High Court seeking a review of the answer keys and expert opinion.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the objections were not raised within the stipulated time (01.12.2017 to 08.12.2017) and that even if the answer keys were incorrect, it would be the same for all candidates, causing no prejudice.

The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision, reiterating that the objections were not raised within the prescribed period. The Division Bench also noted that any discrepancy in the answer keys would apply to all candidates, and thus, the merit position of the appellants would not change.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the rules and regulations governing the competitive examination for the post of Sub Inspector of Police conducted by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. The key aspect is the requirement for candidates to obtain a minimum of 45% marks in both Paper-2 and Paper-3, and a total of 50% marks in the written examination to qualify. The Commission had also specified a period for raising objections to the answer keys.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants:

• The appellants argued that they had submitted their first representation on 01.12.2017, which was within the stipulated time for raising objections.
• They contended that the High Court erred in holding that no prejudice was caused to them, as they were short of only one or two marks for achieving the minimum qualifying marks. If the marks for the incorrect answers were awarded, they would have qualified.
• The appellants also pointed out that out of 1544 advertised posts, only 396 appointments were made, leaving many posts vacant.

Arguments by the Respondents:

• The Commission and the State argued that the appellants failed to achieve the minimum qualifying marks and submitted their objections after the prescribed period.
• They contended that any discrepancy in the answer keys would affect all candidates equally and therefore, no prejudice was caused to the appellants.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a numbered list but the following issues were considered:

• Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the writ petitions on the ground that the objections were not raised within the stipulated time.
• Whether the High Court was correct in observing that no prejudice was caused to the original writ petitioners even if the marks would have been added for the incorrect answers.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any previous cases or legal provisions. The Court’s reasoning is based on the specific facts of the case and the principles of fairness and justice.

Judgment

The Court did not rely on any specific authorities in this case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The fact that the original writ petitioners had raised objections to the answer keys, with the first objection being within the stipulated time and subsequent objections before the declaration of results.
• The fact that the original writ petitioners were short of only one or two marks to achieve the minimum qualifying marks.
• The principle of fairness and justice, emphasizing that the candidates should have the opportunity to have their objections reviewed, especially when their eligibility depended on the correctness of the answer keys.

The Supreme Court considered the High Court’s decision to be too technical, emphasizing the need for a fair evaluation of the objections, especially when the candidates were only marginally short of the qualifying marks. The court highlighted that the objections were raised before the declaration of results, indicating a genuine concern about the correctness of the answer keys.

The Court noted that the High Court had erred in observing that no prejudice would be caused to the original writ petitioners. The Court emphasized that if the marks for the incorrect answers were awarded, the original writ petitioners would have achieved the minimum qualifying marks and their cases would have been considered on merits.

The Supreme Court did not discuss any alternative interpretations.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The High Court took a too technical view by dismissing the writ petitions on the ground that the objections were not raised within the stipulated time.
• The High Court failed to consider that the objections were raised before the declaration of results.
• The High Court erred in observing that no prejudice was caused to the original writ petitioners.
• The Court emphasized the need for a fair evaluation of the objections in the interest of justice.

“At this stage, it is required to be noted that even if, the objections were raised on 06.01.2018 and 08.01.2018, the same were prior to the date of the declaration of result i.e., on 09.01.2018.”

“Even, the High Court has materially erred in observing that no prejudice shall be caused to the original writ petitioners even if the marks would have been added with respect to such questions as the marks would be added in case of other successful candidates also.”

“Therefore, the High Court is not right in observing that no prejudice shall be caused to the original writ petitioners.”

There were no minority opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Candidates have the right to have their objections to answer keys reviewed if raised before the declaration of results, even if after the stipulated time for raising objections.
• Exam conducting bodies should ensure a fair and transparent process for evaluating objections to answer keys.
• Courts should consider the impact of incorrect answer keys on the eligibility of candidates, especially when they are marginally short of qualifying marks.
• This judgment emphasizes the importance of fairness and justice in competitive examinations.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Division Bench of the High Court to:

• Reconsider the appeals on merits.
• Consider obtaining an expert’s opinion on the questions for which the answers were alleged to be incorrect.
• Decide and dispose of the Letters Patent Appeals preferably within a period of three months from the date of the order.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that objections to answer keys raised before the declaration of results cannot be rejected solely on the ground that they were filed after the stipulated deadline. The Court emphasized that the High Court should have considered the objections on merits and obtained an expert opinion, especially when the candidates were short of only one or two marks. This judgment reinforces the principle of fairness and justice in competitive examinations and protects the rights of candidates to have their objections reviewed.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and remanding the matter back to the Division Bench for fresh consideration. The Court emphasized that the High Court should have considered the objections on merits and obtained an expert’s opinion, especially since the objections were raised before the declaration of results. This judgment highlights the importance of fairness and justice in competitive examinations, ensuring that candidates have the opportunity to have their grievances addressed.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law
Child Category: Examination
Child Category: Answer Key Objections
Child Category: Re-evaluation
Parent Category: Service Law
Child Category: Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission
Parent Category: Service Law
Child Category: Writ Petitions

FAQ

Q: What was the case about?
A: The case was about the rejection of writ petitions filed by candidates who raised objections to the answer keys of the Jharkhand Sub-Inspector exam after the stipulated deadline but before the declaration of results.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and ordered a re-evaluation of the answer keys, stating that the objections should have been considered on merits.

Q: What does this mean for candidates?
A: It means that candidates have the right to have their objections reviewed if raised before the declaration of results, even if after the stipulated deadline for raising objections.

Q: What should exam conducting bodies do?
A: Exam conducting bodies should ensure a fair and transparent process for evaluating objections to answer keys and should not reject objections solely on the basis of being filed after the deadline if they are filed before the declaration of results.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment reinforces the principle of fairness and justice in competitive examinations, protecting the rights of candidates to have their objections reviewed and ensuring that their eligibility is not unfairly determined.