Supreme Court Upholds Commission’s Decision on Disputed Question in UP Gram Panchayat Adhikari Exam

Date of the Judgment: 14 December 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 738

Judges: K.M. Joseph, J. and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.

Can an examining body award marks for a question where all the options became incorrect due to an unforeseen event? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission’s (UPSSSC) decision regarding a disputed question in the Gram Panchayat Adhikari examination. The core issue revolved around whether the Commission’s decision to award marks to candidates who either chose the originally correct answer or did not attempt the question was legally sound, especially when compared to candidates who chose a definitively incorrect answer. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, with Justice K.M. Joseph authoring the opinion.

Case Background

In June 2015, the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission (UPSSSC) issued an advertisement for the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari. The examination was scheduled for February 21, 2016. Unfortunately, the Minister for Panchayati Raj, Shri Kailash Yadav, passed away on February 9, 2016, just twelve days before the exam.

Question No. 46 in the exam asked: “Presently who is the Panchayati Raj Minister in Uttar Pradesh?” The options were:

• A. Sh. Shivpal Yadav
• B. Sh. Kailash Yadav
• C. Sh. Balram Yadav
• D. Sh. Durga Prasad Yadav

The answer key, published on February 25, 2016, indicated that option B, Shri Kailash Yadav, was the correct answer. However, due to his death, none of the options were correct on the day of the examination.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The respondent, Brijendra Pratap Singh, an OBC candidate, answered question No. 46 with option A and secured 86 marks. The cut-off for his category was 87. He filed a writ petition seeking a direction to award him marks for question 46 and to consider him for selection. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. However, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed his appeal, directing the UPSSSC to either delete question 46 or award marks to the respondent and consider him for selection if he met the merit criteria.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the principles of judicial review in the context of decisions made by examining bodies. There are no specific sections of any statute or rules discussed in this judgment. The court relies on the principle that the judiciary should not act as an appellate body over expert bodies like the UPSSSC, and judicial intervention should be limited to cases of palpable perversity or arbitrariness in decision-making. The Court also considers the principle of fairness and equity in the context of awarding marks for incorrect questions in an examination.

Arguments

Appellant’s (UPSSSC) Arguments:

• The appellant argued that deleting question no. 46 would cause significant disruption since the selection process was completed in 2016, with many appointments already made.
• The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kanpur University Through Vice-Chancellor v. Samir Gupta (1983) 4 SCC 309, contending that the Commission’s decision should not be overturned unless it is palpably perverse.
• The appellant justified awarding marks to candidates who chose option ‘B’ (Shri Kailash Yadav) because he was the correct answer at the time the question was framed, and the situation changed due to his untimely death.
• The appellant argued that candidates who did not attempt the question were also awarded marks because none of the options were correct on the day of the examination.
• The appellant contended that the respondent’s case was different because he chose option ‘A’, which was never a correct answer.

Respondent’s (Brijendra Pratap Singh) Arguments:

• The respondent contended that he missed the cut-off by just one mark and that the High Court’s direction to award him marks for question no. 46 was justified.
• The respondent relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Guru Nanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg and Others (2005) 13 SCC 749, which held that it is unjust to award marks to students who did not attempt incorrect questions.
• The respondent pointed out that in another case (Writ Petition No. 10779 of 2018), the UPSSSC had decided to award one mark to all candidates for the disputed question, indicating a lack of consistency in their approach.

Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a numbered format. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

• Whether the High Court was justified in directing the UPSSSC to either delete question no. 46 or award marks to the respondent, considering the circumstances and the decision taken by the Commission.

The sub-issue that the Court dealt with was whether the decision of the appellant commission to award marks to candidates who chose option B or did not attempt the question was arbitrary or perverse.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the Supreme Court:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Kanpur University Through Vice-Chancellor v. Samir Gupta (1983) 4 SCC 309: The Court followed this authority, emphasizing that the judiciary should not act as an appellate body over expert bodies like the UPSSSC and that the Commission’s decision should not be overturned unless it is palpably perverse.
• Guru Nanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg and Others (2005) 13 SCC 749: The Court distinguished this authority, stating that the facts were different as in the present case, none of the options were correct on the date of the examination.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The Court emphasized that judicial review should be supervisory and not appellate. The Court was of the view that the decision of the commission was not palpably arbitrary or perverse.
• The Court noted that the UPSSSC’s decision to award marks to candidates who chose option ‘B’ or did not attempt the question was based on a logical rationale. Option B was the correct answer when the question was framed, and none of the options were correct on the day of the examination.
• The Court also took into account the disruption that would be caused by deleting question no. 46, given that the selection process had been completed and appointments had been made.
• The Court distinguished the respondent’s case, noting that he had chosen an answer that was definitively incorrect at all times.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was a mix of factual considerations (the circumstances of the question and the disruption caused by deleting it) and legal principles (the scope of judicial review and the need for fairness). However, the legal considerations weighed more heavily in the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered whether the UPSSSC’s decision was reasonable given the circumstances. It concluded that the Commission’s decision was logical and not arbitrary, and therefore, the High Court’s intervention was not warranted.

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that all candidates should be awarded marks, but rejected it because the respondent had chosen a definitively wrong answer. The Court emphasized that the respondent’s case was different from those who had chosen option B or did not attempt the question.

The Court’s decision was based on the principle that judicial review should not substitute the decision of an expert body unless it is palpably perverse. The Court found that the UPSSSC’s decision was not arbitrary or perverse, and therefore, the High Court’s intervention was not warranted.

The Court stated that the decision of the Commission was based on the fact that “as on the date when the examiner settled the question with which we are concerned, this is not a case for a question which was without the correct option. It was not a vague question at that time.”

The Court further stated that “Those who did not answer any of the options, were given marks on the appellant’s premise that none of the answers were right. The respondent, on the other hand, represented a section of those candidates who went ahead and gave an answer which was not correct by any yardstick, at any point of time.”

The Court concluded that “the Commission drew a distinction between the categories which would not therefore, in short, be characterised as palpably arbitrary.”

Key Takeaways

• Judicial review of decisions by expert bodies like examining commissions is limited to cases of palpable perversity or arbitrariness.
• Examining bodies can make reasonable decisions to address unforeseen circumstances, such as the death of a key figure, that affect the correctness of questions.
• A distinction can be made between candidates who chose a definitively wrong answer and those who chose an answer that was correct when the question was framed or did not attempt the question when none of the options were correct on the day of the examination.
• Courts should be cautious about intervening in completed selection processes, especially when appointments have already been made.

Directions

There were no specific directions given by the Supreme Court in this case, other than setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the courts should not interfere with the decisions of expert bodies like examining commissions unless the decision is palpably arbitrary or perverse. The judgment also clarifies that examining bodies can make reasonable decisions to address unforeseen circumstances that affect the correctness of questions. This case reinforces the principle that judicial review is supervisory and not appellate in nature.

There was no change in the previous position of law, but the case clarifies the application of existing principles to specific circumstances.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission, setting aside the judgment of the High Court. The Court upheld the Commission’s decision to award marks to candidates who chose option ‘B’ or did not attempt the question, finding that the decision was not arbitrary or perverse. The Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in such matters and the need to avoid disruption in completed selection processes.