Date of the Judgment: 20 January 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 43
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can a Public Service Commission award pro-rata marks to all candidates when answer keys are found to be wrong? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. The court upheld the commission’s decision to award pro-rata marks to all candidates, overturning a High Court order for re-evaluation. This judgment clarifies the powers of Public Service Commissions in handling errors in examination answer keys.
Case Background
The Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) issued an advertisement on 21 September 2016, to fill 22 posts of Agriculture Development Officer. Several candidates, including Miss Hage Mamung (Respondent No. 1), applied and appeared for the written examination and viva-voce test. After the results were published, Miss Hage Mamung’s name was not on the list of 22 shortlisted candidates.
Upon filing a Right to Information (RTI) application, Miss Hage Mamung received her answer sheet and statement of marks, revealing she had scored 268.45 marks in the written exam. It was found that another candidate, who was originally respondent No. 5 (and later respondent No. 4 in the appeal), scored 268.75 marks and was placed at serial No. 21 in the select list.
The APPSC discovered that the answer keys for question numbers 12 and 31 were incorrect. Consequently, the commission decided to cancel these two questions and award marks on a pro-rata basis to all candidates.
Miss Hage Mamung contended that she had correctly answered both questions 12 and 31, while respondent No. 4 had only answered question 31 correctly and question 12 incorrectly. She argued that respondent No. 4 should not have been awarded two marks for both questions and that she should have been placed in the merit list at serial No. 21 instead.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 21 September 2016 | Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) issued advertisement for 22 posts of Agriculture Development Officer. |
| – | Miss Hage Mamung and other candidates applied for the posts and appeared for the written examination and viva-voce test. |
| – | APPSC published the result, and Miss Hage Mamung’s name was not on the list. |
| – | Miss Hage Mamung filed an RTI application and received her answer sheet and statement of marks. |
| – | APPSC found that answer keys for question numbers 12 and 31 were incorrect. |
| – | APPSC decided to cancel question numbers 12 and 31 and award marks on a pro-rata basis to all candidates. |
| – | Miss Hage Mamung filed a writ petition before the High Court. |
| 10 May 2018 | The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. |
| 10 February 2022 | The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ appeal and ordered re-evaluation. |
| 20 January 2023 | The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order. |
Course of Proceedings
Initially, Miss Hage Mamung filed a writ petition before a Single Judge of the High Court, who dismissed it. The learned Single Judge did not find merit in her contention that she should have been given preference over respondent No. 4.
However, the Division Bench of the High Court, in a writ appeal, reversed the Single Judge’s decision. The Division Bench ordered a re-evaluation of the papers of Miss Hage Mamung and respondent No. 4, accepting her argument that respondent No. 4 should only have received one mark instead of two.
The Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court considered the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Conduct of Examination Guidelines, 2017 (Guidelines 2017). Clause 38(v) of these guidelines states that if a question in the examination paper is wrong and cannot be evaluated, the incorrect questions may be deleted, and the marks allocated to them may be distributed on a pro-rata basis.
The Court noted that while the guidelines specifically address wrong questions, the APPSC applied the same principle to wrong answer keys. The commission decided to cancel the questions with wrong answer keys and award pro-rata marks to all candidates.
The Court also considered the general principle that re-evaluation of answer sheets is not permissible unless specifically provided for in the rules.
Arguments
Arguments by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (Appellant):
- ✓ The Division Bench of the High Court erred in ordering re-evaluation of the papers, as there is no provision for re-evaluation.
- ✓ The decision to award pro-rata marks for the two questions with incorrect answer keys was consistent with Clause 38(v) of the Guidelines 2017.
- ✓ The commission had consciously decided to award marks on a pro-rata basis to all candidates to ensure no candidate was penalized for the mistakes in the answer keys.
- ✓ The decision to award pro-rata marks was a fair and equitable solution to the problem of incorrect answer keys.
Arguments by Miss Hage Mamung (Respondent No. 1):
- ✓ The Division Bench of the High Court was correct in ordering re-evaluation.
- ✓ She had correctly answered both question numbers 12 and 31, while respondent No. 4 had only answered question 31 correctly.
- ✓ Respondent No. 4 should have been awarded only one mark instead of two, and she should have been placed at serial No. 21 in the merit list.
- ✓ Awarding pro-rata marks to all candidates, regardless of whether they answered the questions correctly, would be putting a premium on wrong answers.
- ✓ Clause 38(v) of the Guidelines 2017 applies only when the questions are wrong, not when the answer keys are wrong.
- ✓ Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in High Court of Tripura through the Registrar General v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and others, [(2019) 16 SCC 663], re-evaluation of the papers is permissible even in the absence of any specific provision.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions of APPSC | Sub-Submissions of Miss Hage Mamung |
|---|---|---|
| Re-evaluation of Papers |
|
|
| Awarding of Marks |
|
|
| Applicability of Guidelines |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue before the court was:
- 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, given the decision of the Public Service Commission to award pro-rata marks for the questions with incorrect answer keys.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| 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, given the decision of the Public Service Commission to award pro-rata marks for the questions with incorrect answer keys. | No. The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in ordering re-evaluation. | The Court found that the Public Service Commission’s decision to award pro-rata marks was a fair and equitable solution to the problem of incorrect answer keys. The Court also noted that there was no provision for re-evaluation in the applicable guidelines. |
Authorities
Cases Relied Upon by the Court:
- Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh & Others (Civil Appeal No. 8037/2022, decided on 04.11.2022) – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited by the APPSC to support their argument that re-evaluation is not permissible in the absence of specific provisions.
- High Court of Tripura through the Registrar General v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and others, [(2019) 16 SCC 663] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited by Miss Hage Mamung to argue that re-evaluation is permissible even without specific provisions.
Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:
- Clause 38(v) of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Conduct of Examination Guidelines, 2017: This clause deals with the deletion of incorrect questions and pro-rata distribution of marks.
Authorities Table
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh & Others | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the appellant to support the argument that re-evaluation is not permissible without specific provisions. |
| High Court of Tripura through the Registrar General v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and others, [(2019) 16 SCC 663] | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the respondent to argue that re-evaluation is permissible even without specific provisions. |
| Clause 38(v) of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Conduct of Examination Guidelines, 2017 | – | The court applied the analogy of this clause to justify the pro-rata distribution of marks for incorrect answer keys. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| The Division Bench of the High Court erred in ordering re-evaluation of the papers, as there is no provision for re-evaluation. | Accepted. The Supreme Court agreed that there was no provision for re-evaluation and that the High Court erred in ordering it. |
| The decision to award pro-rata marks for the two questions with incorrect answer keys was consistent with Clause 38(v) of the Guidelines 2017. | Accepted. The Supreme Court found that the APPSC’s decision to apply the principle of Clause 38(v) to incorrect answer keys was reasonable. |
| The commission had consciously decided to award marks on a pro-rata basis to all candidates to ensure no candidate was penalized for the mistakes in the answer keys. | Accepted. The Court acknowledged that the pro-rata distribution was a conscious decision to ensure fairness. |
| The decision to award pro-rata marks was a fair and equitable solution to the problem of incorrect answer keys. | Accepted. The Supreme Court agreed that the solution was fair and equitable. |
| The Division Bench of the High Court was correct in ordering re-evaluation. | Rejected. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision. |
| She had correctly answered both question numbers 12 and 31, while respondent No. 4 had only answered question 31 correctly. | Not relevant. The Supreme Court did not find this relevant as the pro-rata marks were awarded to all candidates. |
| Respondent No. 4 should have been awarded only one mark instead of two, and she should have been placed at serial No. 21 in the merit list. | Rejected. The Supreme Court rejected this argument as the pro-rata marks were awarded to all candidates. |
| Awarding pro-rata marks to all candidates, regardless of whether they answered the questions correctly, would be putting a premium on wrong answers. | Rejected. The Supreme Court found this argument not valid given the circumstances. |
| Clause 38(v) of the Guidelines 2017 applies only when the questions are wrong, not when the answer keys are wrong. | Rejected. The Supreme Court applied the analogy of Clause 38(v) to the situation of wrong answer keys. |
| Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in High Court of Tripura through the Registrar General v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and others, [(2019) 16 SCC 663], re-evaluation of the papers is permissible even in the absence of any specific provision. | Distinguished. The Supreme Court distinguished this case from the present case and held that re-evaluation was not permissible in this case. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Supreme Court cited Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh & Others to support the principle that re-evaluation is not permissible without specific provisions.
- The Supreme Court distinguished High Court of Tripura through the Registrar General v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and others, stating that the facts of that case were different and that re-evaluation was not warranted in the present case.
- The Court applied the analogy of Clause 38(v) of the Guidelines 2017 to justify the pro-rata distribution of marks for incorrect answer keys.
The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench of the High Court committed a serious error by ordering re-evaluation of the papers of only two candidates. The Court emphasized that the Public Service Commission’s decision to award pro-rata marks to all candidates was a fair and equitable solution to the problem of incorrect answer keys. The Court also noted that there was no provision for re-evaluation in the applicable guidelines.
The Court stated, “Merely because, according to the original writ petitioner, she correctly answered both question Nos. 12 & 31 and original respondent No. 5 answered one question correctly and one question wrongly, the Division Bench of the High Court is not justified in ordering re-evaluation of the papers of only two candidates, namely, the original writ petitioner and original respondent No. 5, against a conscious decision taken by the Public Service Commission to award two marks to each candidate on pro-rata basis with respect to two questions of which the answer keys were found to be wrong.”
The Court further observed, “Applying the same analogy with respect to wrong answer keys and thereafter when a conscious decision was taken to allocate the marks on pro-rata basis with respect to two questions whose answer keys were found to be wrong and when all the candidates were awarded two marks (one mark each for the aforesaid two questions), it cannot be said that the Public Service Commission acted illegally and/or arbitrarily and/or committed any wrong.”
The Court concluded, “In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.”
There was no dissenting opinion.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- Fairness and Equity: The Court recognized that the APPSC’s decision to award pro-rata marks was a fair and equitable solution to the problem of incorrect answer keys. This approach ensured that no candidate was penalized due to the commission’s mistake.
- Absence of Re-evaluation Provisions: The Court emphasized that there was no provision for re-evaluation in the applicable guidelines. This lack of provision weighed heavily against the High Court’s decision to order re-evaluation.
- Conscious Decision of the Commission: The Court noted that the APPSC had made a conscious decision to award pro-rata marks to all candidates. This decision was seen as a deliberate attempt to rectify the error in the answer keys and maintain fairness.
- Analogy to Clause 38(v): The Court found that the APPSC’s application of the principle in Clause 38(v) of the Guidelines 2017 to the situation of incorrect answer keys was logical and reasonable.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fairness and Equity | 40% |
| Absence of Re-evaluation Provisions | 30% |
| Conscious Decision of the Commission | 20% |
| Analogy to Clause 38(v) | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Incorrect Answer Keys Identified
APPSC Cancels Questions 12 & 31
Decision to Award Pro-Rata Marks to All Candidates
High Court Orders Re-evaluation for Two Candidates
Supreme Court Overturns High Court Decision
Supreme Court Upholds Pro-Rata Marks
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Public Service Commissions have the authority to award pro-rata marks when answer keys are found to be incorrect.
- ✓ Re-evaluation of answer sheets is generally not permissible unless specifically provided for in the rules.
- ✓ Commissions must act fairly and equitably when dealing with errors in examinations.
- ✓ This judgment reinforces the importance of having clear rules and guidelines for conducting examinations.
- ✓ The decision may impact future cases where similar issues arise in competitive examinations.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions other than quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and restoring the judgment of the Single Judge.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that in the absence of specific provisions for re-evaluation, Public Service Commissions have the authority to award pro-rata marks to all candidates when answer keys are found to be incorrect. This decision clarifies the powers of Public Service Commissions in handling errors in examination answer keys and reinforces the principle that re-evaluation is not permissible unless specifically provided in the rules. There was no change in the previous positions of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal filed by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, setting aside the High Court’s order for re-evaluation. The Supreme Court upheld the commission’s decision to award pro-rata marks to all candidates for questions with incorrect answer keys, emphasizing that this was a fair and equitable solution. The judgment underscores the importance of following established guidelines and the limited scope for re-evaluation in the absence of explicit rules.