Supreme Court overturns High Court order for re-evaluation in Public Service Commission Exam: Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Hage Mamung (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 20 January 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 59

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can a High Court order the re-evaluation of answer sheets in a Public Service Commission exam, especially when the commission has already awarded pro-rata marks for questions with incorrect answer keys? This was the central question before the Supreme Court of India in a recent case. The Supreme Court, in this case, had to decide whether the Gauhati High Court was right in ordering the re-evaluation of answer sheets of two candidates, when the Public Service Commission had already awarded pro-rata marks to all candidates for questions with wrong answer keys. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar.

Case Background

The Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) issued an advertisement on 21 September 2016, for 22 posts of Agriculture Development Officer. Miss Hage Mamung (Respondent No. 1), along with other candidates including Respondent No. 4 and 5, applied for the positions. After clearing the written examination, they appeared for the viva-voce test. The APPSC released the final list of 22 selected candidates, but Miss Hage Mamung’s name was not on it.

Miss Hage Mamung filed an RTI application and received her answer sheet and marks. She scored 268.45 in the written exam, while Respondent No. 4 scored 268.75 and was ranked 21st in the selection list. It was discovered that the answer keys for questions 12 and 31 were incorrect. The APPSC decided to cancel these two questions and award pro-rata marks to all candidates for these questions.

Miss Hage Mamung filed a writ petition before the High Court, arguing that she had answered both questions 12 and 31 correctly, while Respondent No. 4 had only answered question 31 correctly. She contended that Respondent No. 4 should not have received marks for question 12 and that she should have been ranked 21st instead of Respondent No. 4. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed her petition. However, the Division Bench of the High Court overturned the Single Judge’s decision, ordering a re-evaluation of the answer sheets of Miss Hage Mamung and Respondent No. 4. The APPSC then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Arguments

Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission’s Arguments:

• The Public Service Commission argued that the High Court erred in ordering re-evaluation of the answer sheets since there is no provision for re-evaluation under the rules.
• They contended that after discovering the wrong answer keys for questions 12 and 31, they took a conscious decision to cancel these questions and award pro-rata marks to all candidates, which was in accordance with Clause 38(v) of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Conduct of Examination Guidelines, 2017.
• The Commission argued that awarding pro-rata marks to all candidates was a fair way to ensure that no candidate was penalized for the mistakes in the answer keys.
• They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh & Others (Civil Appeal No. 8037/2022, decided on 04.11.2022) to support their argument against re-evaluation.

Miss Hage Mamung’s Arguments:

• Miss Hage Mamung argued that the High Court was correct in ordering re-evaluation because the difference in marks between her and Respondent No. 4 was only 0.30.
• She contended that she had answered both questions 12 and 31 correctly, while Respondent No. 4 had only answered question 31 correctly. Therefore, she should have been awarded two marks, and Respondent No. 4 should have received only one mark.
• She argued that by awarding pro-rata marks, the Public Service Commission was putting a premium on wrong answers.
• She argued that Clause 38(v) of the Guidelines 2017 was not applicable in this case, since it applies to wrong questions and not wrong answer keys.
• She relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in High Court of Tripura through the Registrar General v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and others, (2019) 16 SCC 663, to argue that re-evaluation is permissible even in the absence of a specific provision.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in ordering re-evaluation of the papers of the original writ petitioner and original respondent No. 5, when the Public Service Commission had already taken a conscious decision to award pro-rata marks to all candidates for questions with incorrect answer keys.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the Court:

Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, holding that the Public Service Commission’s decision to award pro-rata marks was justified and that the High Court should not have ordered re-evaluation.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh & Others [Civil Appeal No. 8037/2022] to support the position that re-evaluation is generally not permissible.
• The Supreme Court distinguished the facts of the case from High Court of Tripura v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee [(2019) 16 SCC 663], stating that the facts of the present case were not similar.
• The Court used Clause 38(v) of the Guidelines 2017 as an analogy to justify the Public Service Commission’s decision to award pro-rata marks.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The Court emphasized the conscious decision of the Public Service Commission to award pro-rata marks to all candidates, which was deemed a fair and equitable approach to address the error in the answer keys.
• The Court highlighted the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer sheets, which supported the Public Service Commission’s position.
• The Court was not convinced by the argument that awarding pro-rata marks would put a premium on wrong answers, as the decision was taken to ensure that no candidate was penalized for the mistake in the answer keys.

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily based on legal considerations (70%), with a smaller portion (30%) based on the factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that High Courts should not order re-evaluation of answer sheets when a Public Service Commission has taken a conscious decision to award pro-rata marks for questions with incorrect answer keys, especially when there is no provision for re-evaluation.
• Public Service Commissions have the authority to decide on the method of awarding marks in cases of incorrect answer keys, and the courts should not interfere with such decisions unless they are arbitrary or illegal.
• The decision highlights the importance of following established rules and guidelines in conducting examinations and evaluating answer sheets.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions, other than setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring the decision of the Single Judge.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts should not order re-evaluation of answer sheets when a Public Service Commission has taken a conscious decision to award pro-rata marks for questions with incorrect answer keys, particularly when there is no provision for re-evaluation. This judgment reinforces the principle that courts should not interfere with the decisions of expert bodies like Public Service Commissions unless their decisions are arbitrary or illegal. There is no change in the previous position of law, rather, it reiterates the settled position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Miss Hage Mamung overturns the Gauhati High Court’s order for re-evaluation of answer sheets. The Supreme Court upheld the Public Service Commission’s decision to award pro-rata marks for questions with incorrect answer keys, emphasizing that courts should not interfere with such decisions unless they are arbitrary or illegal. This judgment reinforces the principle that expert bodies like Public Service Commissions have the authority to decide on the method of awarding marks, and their decisions should be respected as long as they are fair and in accordance with the rules.