Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a recruitment process conducted by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission for 22 posts of Agriculture Development Officer. The Commission issued an advertisement on 21.09.2016, and several candidates including the original writ petitioner (respondent No.1) and another candidate (respondent No.4) applied. After written examinations and viva-voce tests, the Commission published a select list of 22 candidates, but the original writ petitioner's name was not included. Through an RTI application, the petitioner discovered she had scored 268.45 marks while respondent No.4 had scored 268.75 marks and was placed at serial No. 21 in the select list. The Commission subsequently discovered that answer keys for question Nos. 12 and 31 were wrong and decided to cancel these questions, awarding pro-rata marks to all candidates for these questions. The original writ petitioner filed a writ petition before the Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court, contending that she had correctly answered both questions while respondent No.4 had correctly answered only one question, and if proper marking had been done, she would have secured more marks than respondent No.4 and should have been placed at serial No. 21. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, but the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal and ordered re-evaluation of the papers of both candidates. The Public Service Commission appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the High Court was justified in ordering re-evaluation when the Commission had taken a conscious decision to handle wrong answer keys through pro-rata marking. The Commission argued there was no provision for re-evaluation and relied on its Guidelines 2017, particularly clause 38(v), which provided for pro-rata distribution when questions themselves were wrong. The respondent argued that awarding pro-rata marks irrespective of correct answers put a premium on wrong answers and that re-evaluation was permissible even without specific provision. The Supreme Court analyzed the facts and found that the Commission's decision to cancel the two questions with wrong answer keys and award pro-rata marks to all candidates was a conscious administrative decision aimed at maintaining parity. The Court held this approach was analogous to clause 38(v) of the Guidelines and was neither illegal nor arbitrary. The Court emphasized that when all candidates were treated equally with pro-rata marks, the merit ranking remained unchanged. The High Court's order for selective re-evaluation of only two candidates was found to be erroneous. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's order for re-evaluation, and restored the Single Judge's decision dismissing the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Public Service Recruitment - Examination Guidelines Interpretation - Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Conduct of Examination Guidelines, 2017, Clause 38(v) - The Public Service Commission discovered wrong answer keys for two questions and decided to cancel those questions, awarding pro-rata marks to all candidates - The Supreme Court held this decision was not arbitrary as it maintained parity among all candidates and was analogous to the guideline provision for wrong questions - The High Court's order for selective re-evaluation of only two candidates was set aside (Paras 5-6). B) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Scope of Intervention in Administrative Decisions - Not mentioned - The Public Service Commission made a conscious decision to handle wrong answer keys by cancelling questions and awarding pro-rata marks to all candidates - The Supreme Court held this administrative decision was neither illegal nor arbitrary, and judicial intervention was unwarranted - The High Court's order directing re-evaluation was quashed (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in ordering re-evaluation of answer sheets of two candidates when the Public Service Commission had taken a conscious decision to cancel two questions with wrong answer keys and award pro-rata marks to all candidates
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court ordering re-evaluation of the papers of respondent No.1 and respondent No.4, and restored the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. No costs.
Law Points
- Judicial review of administrative decisions in public service recruitment
- interpretation of examination guidelines
- scope of re-evaluation without specific provision
- application of pro-rata marking for erroneous answer keys
