Cannot Interfere Unless Question Is Wrong Or Formulation Of Question Is Not Understandable: Allahabad HC Rejects Plea Challenging UPSSC Exam Answer Key
The Allahabad High Court has observed that, in matters of public examination,unless it is shown that the question is wrong or the formulation of the question is such that the candidate could not have understood the question or answered it, it is not justified in interfering with the question itself.
The Appellant had challenged the tentative answer key to the questions in the examination conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission for the posts of Revenue Lekhpal.
The Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi observed “We are of the considered view that in the matter of public examination where large scale recruitment are undertaken some play in the joints would have to be conceded to the examining authority. It is possible that the question may not have been framed in the best possible manner or a better formulation may be advisable, but it cannot be a ground to hold the question itself to be wrong as long as the question can be understood by a candidate and can be answered. Unless it is shown that the question is wrong or the formulation of question is such that the candidate could not have understood the question or answered it, we would not be justified in interfering with the question itself.”
Advocate Seemant Singh appeared for the Appellant whereas CSC Siddharth Singhal appeared for the Respondents.
The Court discussed the two questions concerned in the appeal and observed, “The question posed is essentially with regard to Kanya Vidya Dhan Scheme which has been introduced by Government Order dated 22.8.2012. The emphasis laid on the question is with reference to original scheme which is already discussed above and the amount payable thereunder. Merely because in the modified scheme, launched later, high school pass out student is omitted and only passing of intermediate or equivalent examination is mentioned, it cannot be said that question no.93 has become wrong. The modified scheme limits the grant of benefit to 99,000 students and specified the criteria for choosing such limited candidates for the grant of benefit.”
For the other question regarding Providing Urban Amenities to Rural Areas (PURA), the Court said, “Upon analysis of the materials placed on record, we are, therefore, persuaded to the view that the correct answer to question no.78, in the manner the question is posed, would be PURA.”
Accordingly, the Court agreed with the Single Judge’s observations and, hence, dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Nitesh Kumar Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024: AHC:50401-DB)
Appearances:
Appellant: Advocates Ramesh Kumar Tiwari, Seemant Singh
Respondents: CSC Siddharth Singhal
