Supreme Court Orders Re-evaluation of School Lecturer Exam Results in Rajasthan: Rishal & Ors. vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (2018) INSC 379 (03 May 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 03 May 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 379
Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Ashok Bhushan, J.
Can a flawed answer key invalidate an entire examination process? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the Rajasthan Public Service Commission’s (RPSC) School Lecturer Exam 2015. The Court directed a re-evaluation of results for all candidates, except those already appointed, due to errors in the answer key. This decision underscores the importance of accuracy and fairness in public examinations. The judgment was authored by Justice Ashok Bhushan, with Justice A.K. Sikri concurring.

Case Background

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) conducted the School Lecturer Exam 2015, advertising 13,000 posts across various subjects in the Secondary Education Department of the Government of Rajasthan. The examination, held on 17th July 2016, comprised two papers: Paper I on General Awareness and General Studies, and Paper II on the respective subjects. Following the exam, the RPSC published answer keys on 12th August 2016, inviting objections. Numerous candidates raised concerns about the accuracy of the answer keys for both Paper I and Paper II. The RPSC declared the results on 22nd September 2016, leading to a wave of writ petitions challenging the validity of the answers based on the final answer key.

A Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, in a judgment dated 8th November 2016, directed the RPSC to upload a revised answer key along with an expert report. Consequently, on 18th November 2016, the RPSC published a final answer key, deleting 18 questions from Paper I. This action triggered a second round of litigation, with candidates filing fresh writ petitions raising further objections to the answer key. On 8th February 2017, a Single Judge dismissed these petitions, accepting the Expert Committee’s report on the various answers. Subsequently, the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, on 8th March 2017, and the Division Bench at Jaipur, on 13th April 2017, also dismissed the appeals, upholding the Single Judge’s decision. These judgments led to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The initial writ petitions were filed in the Rajasthan High Court challenging the answer keys of the School Lecturer Exam 2015. A Single Judge directed the RPSC to form an expert committee to review the objections raised by the candidates. The RPSC then uploaded a revised answer key, deleting 18 questions from Paper I. This led to a second round of writ petitions, which were dismissed by the Single Judge, who accepted the Expert Committee’s report. The Division Bench at Jodhpur and Jaipur also dismissed the appeals against the Single Judge’s order. The High Court’s decisions were primarily based on the acceptance of the Expert Committee’s findings and the need to finalize the selection process to fill the vacant positions. The appellants, dissatisfied with the High Court’s decisions, then approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the principles of judicial review in the context of expert opinions and the fairness of the examination process. The Court refers to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act, 2009), specifically concerning the minimum working hours for teachers. The court notes that the notification issued under the RTE Act, 2009 specifies that the minimum teaching hours for a week is “45 Teaching including Preparation Hours”. The court also considered the principles laid down in previous cases regarding the scope of judicial review over expert opinions in academic matters.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the Expert Committee’s report, even after revisions, contained errors. They contended that some answers were not corrected according to authoritative textbooks. For example, they pointed out that question No. 58 in Paper I had an incorrect answer.
• They submitted that the marks for the 18 deleted questions in Paper I were wrongly redistributed. They argued that these marks should have been allocated only to candidates who attempted those questions, or alternatively, all candidates should have received full marks for the deleted questions.
• The appellants also claimed that the RPSC had not disclosed the actual marks secured by the last selected candidate in the first selection round.

Respondent’s Arguments (Rajasthan Public Service Commission):

• The RPSC contended that the Expert Committee had addressed most of the grievances, and the revised results of non-selected candidates were already prepared. They argued that the Court should not allow the appellants to re-challenge the Expert Committee’s decision.
• The RPSC submitted that the Expert Committee had revised the key answers and submitted a report, which the Commission had accepted. They stated that only 48 out of the 311 Special Leave Petitioners were found to be eligible for selection after the revision.
• They defended the redistribution of marks for deleted questions, stating it was a uniform method applied to all candidates.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The appellants innovatively argued that the redistribution of marks for deleted questions was unfair and that marks should have been given only to those who attempted the questions, or alternatively, all candidates should have received full marks. This challenged the conventional method of handling deleted questions.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether the final key answers uploaded by the Commission after considering objections were correct.
2. Whether the treatment of objections by the Expert Committee was based on authoritative textbooks.
3. Whether the redistribution of marks for deleted questions was legally sound.
4. Whether the benefit of revised key answers should be extended to all candidates or only to those who approached the court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Cases:

• Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor and others vs. Samir Gupta and others, 1983 (4) SCC 309 (Supreme Court of India): This case established the principle that key answers should be assumed correct unless demonstrably wrong. The court emphasized that a key answer should not be held wrong by an inferential process of reasoning but must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong.
• Manish Ujwal and others vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University and others, 2005(13) SCC 744 (Supreme Court of India): This case reiterated the principle from Kanpur University, stating that students cannot suffer for the fault and negligence of the University. The court also highlighted the need for caution in preparing key answers.
• Guru Nank Dev University vs. Saumil Garg and others, 2005(13) SCC 749 (Supreme Court of India): The court directed the university to re-evaluate answers based on the key answers provided by CBSE. The court also disapproved of giving marks to all students irrespective of whether they attempted the questions.
• Rajesh Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and others, 2013 (4) SCC 690 (Supreme Court of India): This case dealt with erroneous evaluation using the wrong answer key and held that re-evaluation of answer scripts with reference to the correct key is a better option than directing a fresh examination.

Legal Provisions:

• Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act, 2009): The court referred to the notification issued under this act, which specifies that the minimum teaching hours for a week are “45 Teaching including Preparation Hours”.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the principles laid down in Kanpur University vs. Samir Gupta [1983 (4) SCC 309]* that key answers should be assumed correct unless demonstrably wrong and that the court should not interfere with the expert opinion unless it is clearly wrong.
• The Court also relied on Manish Ujwal vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University [2005(13) SCC 744]* to emphasize that students should not suffer due to the fault of the University.
• The Court followed Guru Nank Dev University vs. Saumil Garg [2005(13) SCC 749]* in directing the re-evaluation of answers based on correct key answers.
• The Court also referred to Rajesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar [2013 (4) SCC 690]* to support the view that re-evaluation is a better option than conducting a fresh examination.
• The Court referred to the notification issued under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 to clarify the correct answer for question no. 58.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to ensure fairness and accuracy in the examination process. The Court emphasized that the fault lay with the examination body for providing incorrect key answers, and the candidates should not suffer as a result. The Court’s sentiment was to provide justice to all the candidates who appeared in the examination, not just those who approached the court. The Court also aimed to balance the need to correct the errors with the need to avoid disrupting the appointments already made. The Court’s reasoning was influenced by the principles of judicial review, the importance of expert opinions, and the need to uphold the integrity of the examination process.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as limiting the re-evaluation to only the petitioners. However, it rejected this interpretation, stating that it would be inequitable to not extend the benefit to those who did not approach the court. The Court emphasized that the fault lies with the examination body, not the candidates, and thus all candidates should benefit from the corrected key answers.

The Court’s decision was to direct the RPSC to re-evaluate the results of all candidates, except those already selected, based on the revised key answers provided by the Expert Committee. This decision was aimed at ensuring that all candidates are treated fairly and that the selection process is based on accurate evaluation.

The reasons for the decision are as follows:

• The initial answer keys had errors, which affected the merit of the candidates.
• The Expert Committee’s report, though largely correct, had some discrepancies that needed to be addressed.
• The redistribution of marks for deleted questions was a uniform and acceptable method.
• All candidates, except those already selected, should benefit from the revised key answers because the fault lies with the examination body.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The key answers prepared by the paper-setter or the examining body is presumed to have been prepared after due deliberations. To err is human.”

“The publication of key answers is a step to achieve transparency and to give an opportunity to candidates to assess the correctness of their answers.”

“When the key answers are correct of the candidates who appeared in the examination, they are entitled for revision of their result, since, fault does not lie with the candidates but lies with the examination body.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench consisted of two judges, both of whom agreed on the final order.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning involved a detailed analysis of the facts, the Expert Committee’s reports, and the legal principles governing judicial review of expert opinions. The Court applied these principles to the specific context of the School Lecturer Exam 2015 and concluded that a re-evaluation of the results was necessary to ensure fairness and accuracy. The Court also emphasized that the benefit of the revised key answers should be extended to all candidates, not just those who approached the court.

The decision has potential implications for future cases involving public examinations, particularly in cases where there are errors in the answer keys. The judgment underscores the importance of accuracy and fairness in the examination process and the need for examination bodies to be meticulous in their evaluation process. It also highlights the role of the judiciary in ensuring that the examination process is fair and transparent.

The Supreme Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reaffirmed the existing principles related to judicial review of expert opinions and the need for fairness in public examinations. The Court’s reasoning was based on established legal precedents and principles, and it applied these principles to the specific facts of the case. The Court emphasized that the benefit of the revised key answers should be extended to all candidates, not just those who approached the court.

Key Takeaways

• The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) must revise the results of all candidates, except those already selected, based on the revised key answers provided by the Expert Committee.
• The RPSC must publish the cut-off marks of the last selected candidates in each category.
• Candidates who achieve equal or more marks than the cut-off in their respective categories will be offered appointments against the 1045 vacant posts.
• The entire re-evaluation process must be completed within three months from the date of the judgment (May 03, 2018).
• This judgment emphasizes the importance of accurate and fair evaluation processes in public examinations.
• It highlights the responsibility of examination bodies to ensure that answer keys are correct and that any errors are rectified promptly.

The future impact of this judgment is that it sets a precedent for how examination bodies should handle errors in answer keys and how the courts will review such matters. It also ensures that all candidates are treated fairly and that the selection process is based on accurate evaluation.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission:

1. Revise the result of all candidates, including all the appellants, based on the report of the Expert Committee constituted in pursuance of the Court’s order dated 16.01.2018, and publish the revised result.
2. Do not revise the result of candidates whose names were included in the Select List earlier published.
3. Publish the cut-off marks of the last selected candidates in the respective categories who were included in the Select List.
4. Offer appointments to candidates who achieve equal or more marks in their respective categories against the 1045 vacancies.
5. Complete the entire exercise of revising the result and making recommendations for appointments within three months from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when there are errors in the answer keys of a public examination, the examination body is responsible for rectifying those errors and ensuring that all candidates, except those already selected, benefit from the corrected key answers. The court emphasized that the fault lies with the examination body and not with the candidates. This judgment does not change any previous positions of law but reinforces the existing principles of fairness and accuracy in public examinations and the scope of judicial review in such matters.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rishal & Ors. vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission directed the RPSC to re-evaluate the results of the School Lecturer Exam 2015 based on a revised answer key. The Court emphasized the importance of fairness and accuracy in the examination process and held that all candidates, except those already selected, should benefit from the corrected key answers. This decision highlights the responsibility of examination bodies to ensure the integrity of the evaluation process and provides a precedent for future cases involving similar issues.