High Courts Can’t Assume Role Of Super-Examiner Or Subject Expert To Reconsider Answer Keys: Supreme Court
The Court said that the High Court ought not to have assumed this responsibility while exercising its power, and such an exercise should be left to the domain experts.
The Supreme Court has observed that in matters of re-evaluation, re-appreciation, or re-consideration of the answer key, the High Court cannot assume the role of super-examiner/subject expert, and such an exercise should ordinarily be left to the domain experts.
The Court was hearing a plea filed by Jharkhand Public Service Commission challenging the order passed by the Jharkhand High Court regarding the answer key published for the Preliminary Entrance Test for the recruitment of Civil Judge (Junior Division).
The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria observed, “It may be true that the subject examination pertains to recruitment to judicial services and as such the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court, keeping in view their vast experience on Bar and Bench, are expected to have a better understanding and appreciation of the questions that were put to the candidates in the examination. However, even if it is accepted as an undisputed fact, the question remains whether the power of judicial review in the matter of re-evaluation, re-appreciation, or re-consideration of the answer key would apply uniformly, irrespective of the nature of the examination. In this regard, it seems to us that the High Court cannot assume the role of super-examiner/subject expert, and such an exercise should ordinarily be left to the domain experts.”
Senior Advocate Sunil Kumar appeared for the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Ravi Shankar Jandhyala appeared for the Respondents.
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court of Jharkhand rightly interfered in the particulars of the answer key published for the Preliminary Entrance Test for the recruitment of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The aforesaid preliminary examination was held pursuant to the advertisement No.22/2023.
The High Court, through the impugned judgment, thus, after duly enumerating its analysis, concluded that the three answers given by the Appellant – Public Service Commission were incorrect. Consequently, the High Court directed that one mark be given to the candidates who answered option (A) in question no.8 in booklet ‘A’ and delete question nos. 74 and 96 in booklet ‘A’ from consideration.
The Court observed, “The stance taken on behalf of the Public Service Commission clearly indicates that the answer key was duly vetted by the High Court on the administrative side. If that is the case, it is necessary for the High Court, while exercising its judicial authority, to have referred the matter to the respective Committee of the High Court, as well as to the Public Service Commission, for the formation of an additional Committee comprising subject experts, including eminent law professors as domain field experts, with one of the members being a Professor of English, to provide assistance and guidance. This would enable such experts to reassess the answer key concerning questions nos. 8, 74, and 96.”
The High Court, vide the impugned judgment, had held that in the absence of an express provision in the statute, rules or regulations governing the examination, re-evaluation of the answer sheets is impermissible.
“The High Court ought not to have assumed this responsibility while exercising its power of judicial review. However, the High Court has rightly restated the settled legal position that there cannot be a re-evaluation of an answer sheet unless the rules, regulations or policy expressly provide so...For the reasons afore-stated, we allow these appeals in part and set aside paragraph nos.33, 36, 39, 40 & 41”, the Court concluded.
Accordingly, the Court referred the matters to the Committee constituted by the High Court on the administrative side to re-examine the answer key in respect of the disputed questions and send its opinion to the Public Service Commission for necessary follow-up action.
Cause Title: Jharkhand Public Service Commission & Anr. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. [Diary No. 50269 of 2024]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Sunil Kumar, Advocate on Record Himanshu Shekhar, Advocates Parth Shekhar, Shubham Singh, Youkteshwari Prasad, Vijay Singh, Mukesh Kumar, Nikhil Kumar, Mata Prasad Pathak, Rajmani Mohanty, Kirtikar Sukul, Manoj Kumar Bansiwal, Binod Kumar Singh, Nikhil Singh, Arvind Kumar, Ashutosh Kumar Mishra and Mukesh Kumar Verma.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, Advocate on Record Sravan Kumar Karanam, Advocate on Record Anurag Ojha, Advocate on Record Bharat Thakorlal Manubarwala, Advocates Kumar Abhishek, P. Venkatraju, Nagesh Sharma, Santosh Kumar Yadav, Aditya Bharat Manubarwala, Tanishka Grover, Harsh Tyagi, Charvi Virmani, and Sreejoni Baruah.