LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the appeals of candidates who raised objections to the answer key of a competitive exam after the stipulated deadline but before the declaration of results.
CASE TYPE: Service Law – Recruitment Examination
Case Name: Sachit Kumar Singh & Ors. Etc. Etc. Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Etc. Etc.
Judgment Date: 28 April 2023
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 28 April 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 455
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can a High Court refuse to consider objections to an answer key of a competitive examination, if raised after the deadline, but before the declaration of results? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case concerning the recruitment of Sub-Inspectors of Police in Jharkhand. The court examined whether the High Court was justified in dismissing appeals from candidates who raised objections to the answer key after the stipulated period, but before the results were announced. This judgment has significant implications for the fairness and transparency of competitive examinations.
Case Background
The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (Commission) issued an advertisement (No. 09/2017) for the recruitment 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 examination required candidates to secure a minimum of 45% marks in both Paper-2 and Paper-3, and an aggregate of 50% to qualify. A 5% relaxation was given to SC/ST candidates. The examination was conducted using OMR sheets. Only 663 candidates met the minimum qualifying criteria. The original writ petitioners (appellants in this case) were among those who did not qualify, falling short by one or two marks.
The appellants raised objections to the answer keys, claiming that nine answers were incorrect. They submitted representations on 01.12.2017, 06.01.2018, and 08.01.2018. They then filed writ petitions in the High Court, requesting an expert opinion on the disputed answers. The High Court dismissed the petitions, stating that the objections were not filed within the stipulated time (01.12.2017 to 08.12.2017). The High Court also noted that any discrepancies in the answers would affect all candidates equally, thus causing no specific prejudice to the petitioners.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017 | Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (Commission) advertised 1544 Sub-Inspector posts (Advertisement No. 09/2017). |
| Undisclosed Date | 3219 candidates appeared for the examination. |
| 01.12.2017 | First representation made by the original writ petitioners raising objections to the answer keys. |
| 01.12.2017 to 08.12.2017 | Stipulated time period for submitting objections to the answer key, as per the Commission. |
| 06.01.2018 | Further representations submitted by original writ petitioners. |
| 08.01.2018 | Further representations submitted by original writ petitioners. |
| 09.01.2018 | Declaration of results. |
| Undisclosed Date | Writ petitions filed by the original writ petitioners in the High Court. |
| Undisclosed Date | High Court dismissed the writ petitions. |
| Undisclosed Date | Letters Patent Appeals filed before the Division Bench of the High Court. |
| Undisclosed Date | Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeals. |
| 28 April 2023 | Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The original writ petitioners, who had failed to obtain the minimum qualifying marks by a small margin, filed writ petitions before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. They raised objections to the answer keys, claiming that nine questions had incorrect answers. They sought an expert opinion on these questions. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions, primarily on the ground that the objections were not raised within the stipulated time frame as notified by the Commission (01.12.2017 to 08.12.2017).
Aggrieved by the decision of the Single Judge, the petitioners filed Letters Patent Appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s decision, reiterating that the objections were not raised within the prescribed period. The Division Bench also observed that even if there were discrepancies in the answer keys, they would affect all candidates equally, thus not causing specific prejudice to the petitioners. The Division Bench further noted that even if the marks were to be added for the disputed questions, the merit position of the petitioners would not change.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the rules and procedures set by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission for the competitive examination for the post of Sub Inspector of Police. The key aspect of the legal framework is the stipulated time period for raising objections to the answer keys, which was from 01.12.2017 to 08.12.2017. The candidates were required to obtain a minimum of 45% marks in both Paper-2 and Paper-3, and a total of 50% marks for qualification in the written examination. Five percent relaxation was allowed to the SC/ST candidates in the minimum qualification marks.
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments:
- The appellants argued that they had raised their first objection on 01.12.2017, which was within the time limit for submitting objections.
- They contended that the High Court erred in dismissing their case on the grounds that the objections were not raised within the stipulated time.
- The appellants submitted that the High Court also erred in observing that even if the marks were added for the incorrect answers, it would not cause prejudice to them because such marks would be added to all candidates. They argued that they were short of only one or two marks to achieve the minimum qualifying marks.
- They also pointed out that out of 1544 posts advertised, only 396 appointments were made, leaving many posts vacant.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- The respondents argued that the original writ petitioners failed to achieve the minimum qualifying marks and were therefore ineligible.
- They submitted that the original writ petitioners submitted their objections after the prescribed period for raising objections.
- They also contended that even if there were discrepancies in the answers, it would affect all candidates equally, and thus no prejudice would be caused to the original writ petitioners.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ Submission: Objections raised within time |
|
| Appellants’ Submission: Prejudice caused by not considering objections |
|
| Appellants’ Submission: Vacant posts |
|
| Respondents’ Submission: Ineligibility of Appellants |
|
| Respondents’ Submission: Objections raised after deadline |
|
| Respondents’ Submission: No prejudice caused |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a numbered list. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:
- Whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the appeals of candidates who raised objections to the answer key of a competitive exam after the stipulated deadline but before the declaration of results.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the appeals of candidates who raised objections to the answer key of a competitive exam after the stipulated deadline but before the declaration of results. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the appeals solely on the ground that the objections were not raised within the stipulated time. The court noted that the objections were raised before the declaration of the results and should have been considered on merits. The Supreme Court also held that the High Court erred in observing that no prejudice was caused to the appellants as they were short of only one or two marks, and if the marks were added, they could have qualified. |
Authorities
The judgment does not explicitly cite any specific case laws or legal provisions. The arguments and the judgment primarily revolve around the interpretation of the rules and procedures set by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission for the competitive examination.
| Authority | How Considered |
|---|---|
| Rules and procedures set by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission | Interpreted to determine the validity of the High Court’s decision regarding the time limit for raising objections. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and remanding the matter back to the Division Bench of the High Court for fresh consideration.
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ submission that objections were raised within time. | The Court agreed that the first objection was raised on 01.12.2017, which was within the time limit. |
| Appellants’ submission that prejudice was caused by not considering objections. | The Court agreed that the High Court erred in observing that no prejudice was caused. The Court noted that the appellants were short of only one or two marks and could have qualified if the marks were added. |
| Respondents’ submission that objections were raised after the deadline. | The Court acknowledged that the objections were raised after the stipulated deadline but noted that they were raised before the declaration of the results, therefore, should have been considered. |
| Respondents’ submission that no prejudice was caused. | The Court disagreed, stating that the appellants were short of only one or two marks, and if the marks were added, they would have qualified. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court did not specifically cite any authorities. It primarily interpreted the rules and procedures set by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the objections to the answer keys were raised before the declaration of the results, even though they were submitted after the stipulated deadline. The court emphasized that the High Court should have considered the objections on their merits, especially since the appellants were short of only one or two marks to achieve the minimum qualifying marks. The court also noted that the High Court’s observation that no prejudice was caused to the appellants was incorrect.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Importance of considering objections raised before result declaration | 40% |
| Error in High Court’s observation regarding prejudice | 30% |
| Need for expert opinion on disputed answers | 20% |
| Appellants’ proximity to qualifying marks | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Fact:Law Ratio Analysis: The court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case (60%), such as the timing of the objections and the appellants’ proximity to qualifying marks, than by purely legal considerations (40%).
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was that the High Court should not have dismissed the appeals on a technicality, especially when the objections were raised before the declaration of results. The court also pointed out that the High Court failed to recognize the prejudice caused to the appellants who were short of only one or two marks.
The Court did not discuss alternative interpretations or philosophical principles. The decision is based on the specific facts of the case and the need for fairness in the evaluation process.
The Court’s decision is that the matter is to be remanded to the Division Bench of the High Court for fresh consideration of the appeals on merits. The High Court is allowed to call for an expert’s opinion on the disputed questions.
The Court stated:
“Therefore, the High Court ought to have considered the objections on merits and/or called for the expert’s opinion on nine questions of which as per the original writ petitioners, answers were incorrect.”
“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.”
“As the High Court has refused to consider the objections on merits on the ground that the objections were not raised within the stipulated period prescribed for submitting the objections and thereby, has refused to get the expert’s opinion, the matter is to be remanded to the Division Bench of the High Court for fresh consideration of the appeals on merits”
There was no majority or minority opinion in this case.
The Court’s reasoning is based on the principle of fairness and the need to ensure that candidates are not unfairly disadvantaged due to technicalities, especially when the objections were raised before the declaration of the results.
The potential implications for future cases are that High Courts should consider objections to answer keys even if they are raised after the stipulated deadline, provided they are raised before the declaration of the results. This would ensure a fairer evaluation process for candidates.
No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced in this case.
Key Takeaways
- High Courts should consider objections to answer keys even if they are raised after the stipulated deadline, provided they are raised before the declaration of results.
- Technicalities should not be the sole reason for rejecting candidates, especially when they are close to achieving the minimum qualifying marks.
- Expert opinions should be obtained in cases where there are genuine disputes regarding the correctness of answer keys.
The judgment will likely lead to a more thorough and fair evaluation process in competitive examinations, ensuring that candidates are not unfairly disadvantaged due to technicalities. It also emphasizes the need for expert opinions to resolve disputes about the correctness of answer keys.
Directions
The Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the Division Bench of the High Court for fresh consideration of the appeals on merits. The High Court was given the option to call for an expert’s opinion on the disputed questions. The High Court was directed to dispose of the appeals within three months from the date of the order.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that objections to answer keys raised after the stipulated deadline but before the declaration of results should be considered on merits. This judgment clarifies that technicalities should not be the sole reason for rejecting candidates, especially when they are close to achieving the minimum qualifying marks. This case does not change any previous position of law but rather clarifies the existing principles of fairness in evaluation processes.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sachit Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand emphasizes the need for fairness and transparency in competitive examinations. The Court held that objections to answer keys raised before the declaration of results should be considered on merits, even if they were submitted after the stipulated deadline. The matter was remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration, with the option to call for an expert opinion on the disputed questions. This judgment underscores the importance of ensuring that candidates are not unfairly disadvantaged due to technicalities.
Category
Parent Category: Service Law
Child Category: Recruitment Examination
Parent Category: Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission
Child Category: Examination Rules
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Sachit Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand case?
A: The main issue was whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the appeals of candidates who raised objections to the answer key of a competitive exam after the stipulated deadline but before the declaration of results.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the appeals solely on the ground that the objections were not raised within the stipulated time. The court noted that the objections were raised before the declaration of the results and should have been considered on merits.
Q: What does this judgment mean for candidates taking competitive exams?
A: This judgment means that High Courts should consider objections to answer keys even if they are raised after the stipulated deadline, provided they are raised before the declaration of results. This ensures a fairer evaluation process.
Q: What should I do if I have objections to an answer key in a competitive exam?
A: You should raise your objections as soon as possible, preferably within the stipulated time. However, even if you miss the deadline, if you raise your objections before the declaration of the results, they should be considered on merits.
Q: What is the significance of the Supreme Court remitting the case back to the High Court?
A: The Supreme Court remitted the case back to the High Court to ensure that the objections raised by the candidates are properly considered and that the evaluation process is fair and transparent.