Supreme Court Orders Re-evaluation of Bihar Staff Selection Exam Results: Bihar Staff Selection Commission vs. Arun Kumar (2020)

Date of the Judgment: May 6, 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 376
Judges: Rohinton Fali Nariman, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

Can a High Court interfere with the evaluation process of a public service recruitment exam? The Supreme Court of India, in this case, addressed this critical question regarding the extent of judicial review in such matters. The court examined a case where the Patna High Court had ordered the re-evaluation of an exam due to alleged errors, leading to a complex situation with multiple revisions of results and appointments. The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that judicial review in such matters should be limited and that expert opinions should be given due weight. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, with the opinion authored by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.

Case Background

On June 18, 2010, the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (BSSC) advertised 1569 Class III posts across various Bihar government departments. The selection process included a preliminary exam, the results of which were declared on April 12, 2012. This declaration was challenged in the Patna High Court, which directed a re-evaluation by experts, leading to a revised result on December 29, 2012, with 27,289 candidates qualifying. The number of vacancies had by then increased to 3285. The main written exam was held on October 27, 2013. Model answers were published on January 28, 2013, and objections were invited. An expert committee was formed by the BSSC which suggested changes to 13 questions, leading to further revisions and writ petitions before the Patna High Court. The core issue was the validity of the increased vacancies, the increased number of candidates, and the correctness of the final results based on the answers to various questions.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The single judge of the Patna High Court held that the increase in vacancies and candidates was valid. However, the single judge found that question numbers 82, 147, 148, and 149 were incorrect and directed the BSSC to re-evaluate answer sheets after deleting these questions. Appeals were filed against this decision, contending that other questions were also defective. The Division Bench partly allowed the appeals, modifying the answers for questions 69, 98, 107, and 111. The Division Bench also directed the adjustment of candidates who came into the merit list due to these changes, without disturbing previously appointed candidates.

Legal Framework

The judgment highlights that there were no specific rules or regulations that allowed for the re-evaluation of answer sheets in the BSSC examination process. The Supreme Court referred to previous decisions which underscored that judicial review in matters of evaluation of candidates, especially in public service recruitment, is limited. The court emphasized that in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation, judicial intervention should be rare and only in exceptional circumstances. The court also noted that the High Court’s exercise of re-evaluation was not justified under the existing rules.

Arguments

The BSSC argued that the selection process was complex, involving 3285 vacancies across 21 posts with different qualifications. They contended that the High Court’s directions to accommodate new candidates without disturbing existing appointments would lead to administrative chaos and a “tsunami of litigation.” They also argued that modifying the results would alter the inter-se seniority of appointed candidates. The aggrieved party appellants argued that the Division Bench should have considered all defective questions, not just four. They also argued that question nos. 61, 62, 67, 82, 98, 107, 111, 124, 125, 148 and 149 should be deleted altogether. The appellants in civil appeals arising out of SLP(C) 30109/2016, on the other hand, urged that answers to question nos. 61, 82, 119, 124, 125 and 135 have to be corrected, and the revised merit list should be published on the basis of such corrected result.

The BSSC highlighted the potential impact of the High Court’s directions, stating that:

• 249 candidates would have to be removed from service.
• 688 additional posts would be required to accommodate new candidates while maintaining the reservation roster.
• 3362 posts would be required if existing candidates were to be retained at their old posts.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a numbered list but addressed the following key questions:

• Whether the High Court was justified in re-evaluating the answer sheets and modifying the results.
• Whether the expert committee’s recommendations should be accepted.
• Whether the directions of the High Court to accommodate new candidates without disturbing the existing appointments were valid.
• Whether the increase in vacancies and the number of candidates was valid.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Ors (1984) 4 SCC 27: This case was cited to emphasize that courts should be reluctant to substitute their views on academic matters with those of experts.
• Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 714: This case was used to highlight that in the absence of rules for re-evaluation, candidates do not have a right to claim re-evaluation.
• Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda (2004) 13 SCC 383: This case reiterated that re-evaluation is not permissible if the rules do not provide for it.
• Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr (2010) 6 SCC 759: This case was cited to support the view that judicial review in academic matters should be limited.
• Gangadhara Palo v. Revenue Divisional Officer & Anr. (2011) 4 SCC 602: This case was cited to support the view that judicial review in academic matters should be limited.
• Central Board of Secondary Education Through Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination & Ors. v. Khushboo Shrivastava & Ors (2014) 14 SCC 523: This case was used to reiterate that re-evaluation is not permissible if the rules do not provide for it.
• Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (2018) 2 SCC 357: This case was extensively quoted to emphasize the limited scope of judicial review in examination matters and the need to avoid interference in the absence of clear errors.
• Pranav Verma v. Registrar General of High Court of Punjab & Haryana (2019 SCC OnLine SC 1610): This case was used as a precedent where the court accepted the recommendations of a single-member committee and directed the revision of results.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Ors (1984) 4 SCC 27*: The court used this case to emphasize that it should be reluctant to substitute its own views on academic matters with those of experts.
• Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 714*: The court relied on this case to highlight that in the absence of rules for re-evaluation, candidates do not have a right to claim re-evaluation.
• Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda (2004) 13 SCC 383*: This case was used to reiterate that re-evaluation is not permissible if the rules do not provide for it.
• Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr (2010) 6 SCC 759*: The court cited this case to support the view that judicial review in academic matters should be limited.
• Gangadhara Palo v. Revenue Divisional Officer & Anr. (2011) 4 SCC 602*: The court cited this case to support the view that judicial review in academic matters should be limited.
• Central Board of Secondary Education Through Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination & Ors. v. Khushboo Shrivastava & Ors (2014) 14 SCC 523*: This case was used to reiterate that re-evaluation is not permissible if the rules do not provide for it.
• Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (2018) 2 SCC 357*: This case was extensively quoted to emphasize the limited scope of judicial review in examination matters and the need to avoid interference in the absence of clear errors.
• Pranav Verma v. Registrar General of High Court of Punjab & Haryana (2019 SCC OnLine SC 1610)*: The court used this case as a precedent where it accepted the recommendations of a single-member committee and directed the revision of results.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain the integrity of the examination process and to limit judicial interference in academic matters. The court emphasized the following points:

• The absence of rules for re-evaluation: The court noted that the High Court’s intervention was not supported by any rules or regulations allowing for re-evaluation of answer sheets.
• The importance of expert opinion: The court gave significant weight to the expert committee’s report, highlighting the need to rely on expert opinions in academic matters.
• The need for finality: The court stressed the importance of bringing finality to the selection process and avoiding prolonged uncertainty.
• The potential for administrative chaos: The court recognized that the High Court’s directions had created administrative chaos and a “tsunami of litigation.”
• The limited scope of judicial review: The court reiterated that judicial review in examination matters should be limited and exercised only in exceptional circumstances.

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and precedents, with a lesser emphasis on the specific factual aspects of the case. The court’s concern was to uphold the established legal framework for judicial review in examination matters and to ensure that such reviews are conducted within the boundaries of law and procedure.

The Supreme Court considered the alternative interpretations of the High Court’s judgments, particularly regarding the re-evaluation of answer sheets and the accommodation of new candidates without disturbing existing appointments. The court rejected these interpretations, emphasizing that the High Court’s actions were not supported by any rules or regulations and had led to administrative chaos. The court emphasized that the High Court should have referred the matter to an expert panel instead of undertaking the re-evaluation itself. The court’s final decision was based on the need to adhere to established legal principles, ensure the integrity of the examination process, and provide finality to the selection process.

The court’s decision was to set aside the judgments of both the single judge and the Division Bench of the Patna High Court. The court directed the BSSC to re-evaluate and publish the results afresh, based on the recommendations of the expert committee appointed by the Supreme Court. The court also directed that appointments made previously based on the single judge’s directions should not be disturbed. The state of Bihar was directed to accommodate excess candidates in future vacancies.

The court provided the following reasons for its decision:

• The High Court’s re-evaluation was not supported by any rules or regulations.
• The High Court should have referred the matter to an expert panel.
• The expert committee’s report should be given due weight.
• The High Court’s directions had created administrative chaos.
• The need to bring finality to the selection process.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it;”
• “The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate-it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;”
• “Given the clear declaration of law in the judgments of this court, we are of the opinion that the unilateral exercise of re-valuation undertaken by the High Court (both by the single judge and the Division Bench) has not solved, but rather contributed to the chaos.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, with the opinion authored by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.

The judgment has significant implications for future cases involving the evaluation of candidates in public service recruitment exams. It reinforces the principle that judicial review in such matters should be limited and that expert opinions should be given due weight. It also emphasizes the importance of adhering to established rules and regulations and the need to avoid creating administrative chaos through judicial intervention.

The judgment did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reinforced the existing principles relating to judicial review in academic matters. The court’s decision was based on the existing legal framework and precedents. The court rejected the High Court’s interpretation of its powers in these matters, emphasizing the need for restraint and adherence to established rules.

Key Takeaways

• The BSSC is directed to re-evaluate and publish the results afresh based on the expert committee’s report.
• Appointments made previously based on the single judge’s directions will not be disturbed.
• The state of Bihar will accommodate excess candidates in future vacancies arising till 31.12.2019.
• Judicial review in matters of evaluation of candidates in public service recruitment exams should be limited.
• Expert opinions should be given due weight in academic matters.
• High Courts should avoid interfering in academic matters and should refer such matters to expert panels.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The BSSC is to evaluate and publish the results afresh, in light of the recommendations and report of the experts constituted by the court.
• The BSSC and the Government of Bihar are to ensure that appointments made previously pursuant to the directions of the single judge are not disturbed.
• In case the number of selected candidates on the basis of the revised result exceeds the vacancies available as on the last date indicated for consideration, the state of Bihar would accommodate the excess numbers in the relevant cadres against future vacancies arising till 31.12.2019.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that judicial review in matters concerning the evaluation of candidates in public service recruitment exams is limited and should be exercised cautiously. The court emphasized that expert opinions should be given due weight and that High Courts should not interfere in academic matters without a clear legal basis. The judgment reinforces the existing legal position on the limited scope of judicial review in academic matters and does not introduce any new legal principles. There was no change in the previous position of law but the court reiterated the existing position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court’s judgment, directing the Bihar Staff Selection Commission to re-evaluate the results of the Graduate Level Combined Examination-2010 based on the recommendations of an expert committee appointed by the Supreme Court. The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in academic matters and the need to rely on expert opinions. The court also directed that appointments made previously should not be disturbed, and excess candidates should be accommodated in future vacancies.

Category:

Parent Category: Service Law
Child Categories: Recruitment Examination, Judicial Review, Expert Opinion, Bihar Staff Selection Commission

Parent Category: Constitution of India
Child Categories: Article 226, Article 142

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Bihar Staff Selection Commission case?
A: The main issue was whether the High Court was justified in ordering a re-evaluation of the examination results and interfering with the selection process.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and directed the BSSC to re-evaluate the results based on the recommendations of an expert committee appointed by the Supreme Court.

Q: Will candidates who were previously appointed lose theirjobs?
A: No, the Supreme Court directed that appointments made previously based on the single judge’s directions should not be disturbed.

Q: What will happen to candidates who qualify after the re-evaluation but don’t have a vacancy?
A: The state of Bihar will accommodate these excess candidates in future vacancies arising till 31.12.2019.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: The judgment reinforces the principle that judicial review in matters of evaluation of candidates in public service recruitment exams should be limited and that expert opinions should be given due weight.

Q: Can High Courts order a re-evaluation of answer sheets in public service exams?
A: The Supreme Court held that High Courts should not order re-evaluation of answer sheets unless there are specific rules or regulations allowing for it.