The Patna High Court allowed an appeal filed by the Bihar Public Service Commission and clarified that the re-evaluation of answer papers of one candidate is not permissible and re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet is not a matter of right.

The appeal before the Patna High Court was filed by the Bihar Public Service Commission against the directions of the Single Judge in the writ petition to constitute a fresh Committee of five subject experts who would be tasked to find the definite answers to four questions in Set ‘B’ of the question papers of the examination pertaining to the recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor (Physics) in various Engineering Colleges.

The Division bench comprising Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran & Justice Nani Tagia said, “...the Court can permit re-evaluation and scrutiny, even if it is not permitted by rules or regulations, only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation and only in the rare or exceptional case of a material error having been committed.”

A.G. P.K.Shahi represented the Appellant Commission while Advocate Kumar Kaushik represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The issue agitated in the present case was regarding the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Professor (Physics) in the various Engineering Colleges of the Government of Bihar. The evaluation process takes in the objective test, which carries 40 marks; Academic Record and Research Performance carrying 20 marks and Weightage for Assistant Professors engaged on contract, carrying a maximum of 25 marks and 15 marks in the interview. The candidates were required to obtain a minimum qualifying mark for the objective test, which alone enabled them to be called for the interview. The petitioner did not obtain the minimum qualifying marks. The High Court was concerned only with the OMR test and the evaluation carried out by the Commission.

The petitioner filed an objection which was scrutinised by a Committee of Five Experts along with the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-Commission. The Committee of Experts changed the options of 8 questions and deleted two questions. The petitioner filed her objection to the provisional answer key also. The candidates who filed objections were called for a personal hearing at the Commission Office, where they were allowed to express their views. Finally, the Commission published a revised final answer key against which also, the petitioner filed a representation and thereafter approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) wherein the Apex Court cautioned that a complete hands-off attitude denying any interference, should be avoided. “We do not, for a moment, deviate from the binding declaration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that merit should not be a casualty and the fault of the question setters or the examiners should not result in the candidates being deprived of a fair opportunity”, the Bench held.

The High Court took note of the fact that the Commission, in the present case, had thrice published a provisional answer key and invited objections from the candidates, which was examined by the experts. “We cannot, but observe that the Commission had constituted a Committee of Experts four times, for the purpose of examining the provisional answer key published with reference to the objections submitted”, it said.

The Bench further explained that in a selection process of this magnitude, it has to be considered whether the Commission acted fairly. It was noted that by four attempts to examine the objections filed, the Commission ensured that no candidate was put to peril because of a wrong answer by the examiner or by the Expert Committee. It was not the petitioner alone who submitted objections and the other objectors also would have raised equally valid points concerning the questions in the OMR test and the answers in the answer key.

“Re-evaluation of answer papers of one candidate; is not permissible. Re-evaluation of answer paper is not a provision available in the advertisement or enabled by a Statutory rule or regulation. Thus, as held in Ran Vijay Singh (supra), re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet is not a matter of right”, the Bench further held. Noting that the impugned judgment erred in having directed a re-evaluation, that too of the four questions pointed out by the petitioner by a different set of experts, the Bench allowed the appeal and permitted the Commission to go ahead with the selection and appointment.

Cause Title: The Bihar Public Service Commission v. Dr. Eena Bahan & Ors. (Case No.: Letters Patent Appeal No.704 of 2024)

Appearance:

Appellants: A.G. P.K.Shahi, Advocate Vikash Kumar

Respondents: Advocate Kumar Kaushik, Government Pleader

Click here to read/download Order