Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a dispute arising from the Graduate Level Combined Examination-2010 conducted by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (BSSC) for 1569 vacancies, later increased to 3285. After preliminary and main examinations, the BSSC published model answers and invited objections. An expert committee recommended changes to 13 questions, leading to revised results. Writ petitions were filed challenging the results, and the single judge directed deletion of four questions (82, 147, 148, 149). The Division Bench, in appeals, modified the order, holding that questions 69, 98, 107, and 111 required correction, and directed accommodation of newly selected candidates without disturbing those already appointed. Appeals were filed by BSSC and aggrieved candidates. The Supreme Court referred ten disputed questions to an expert committee, which submitted its report. The Court accepted the report and directed BSSC to revise results accordingly, while protecting already appointed candidates. The Court held that the increase in vacancies and candidates was valid, and that the High Court's directions for accommodation were equitable. The appeals were disposed of with directions to implement the expert committee's findings.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Selection Process - Judicial Review of Examination Results - Expert Committee - The Supreme Court referred disputed questions to an expert committee to determine correct answers, accepting its report and directing BSSC to revise results accordingly, while protecting already appointed candidates. (Paras 11-12)
B) Service Law - Correction of Answer Keys - Accommodation of Candidates - The Court held that candidates who become eligible due to revision should be accommodated against available vacancies without disturbing those already appointed, following principles of equity. (Paras 24-25)
C) Service Law - Increase in Vacancies - The increase in vacancies from 1569 to 3285 and candidates from 16,425 to 27,289 was held valid and in consonance with law. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court's directions to revise the answer key for four questions and accommodate newly selected candidates without disturbing existing appointments were correct, and whether other questions also required correction.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court accepted the report of the expert committee and directed the BSSC to revise the results in accordance with the correct answers determined by the committee. The Court further directed that candidates who become eligible as a result of the revision should be accommodated against available vacancies without disturbing those already appointed. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- Service law
- Selection process
- Expert committee
- Judicial review of examination results
- Correction of answer keys
- Accommodation of candidates without disturbing appointments
Case Details
Civil Appeal No(s). __________________of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 23202-23204 of 2015) and connected appeals
Bihar Staff Selection Commission & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals against a common judgment of the Patna High Court in intra-court appeals concerning the correctness of answers in a competitive examination and the resultant selection list.
Remedy Sought
The BSSC sought to set aside the High Court's directions for revision of results and accommodation of candidates; the aggrieved candidates sought deletion or correction of additional questions.
Filing Reason
Dispute over the correctness of answers in the Graduate Level Combined Examination-2010 conducted by BSSC, leading to multiple writ petitions and appeals.
Previous Decisions
The single judge of the Patna High Court directed deletion of four questions; the Division Bench modified the order, directing correction of four different questions and accommodation of newly selected candidates without disturbing existing appointments.
Issues
Whether the High Court correctly identified the questions requiring correction?
Whether the directions to accommodate newly selected candidates without disturbing existing appointments are valid?
Whether the increase in vacancies and number of candidates was lawful?
Submissions/Arguments
BSSC argued that the High Court's directions would create complications, including creation of supernumerary posts, and that appointments had already been made.
Aggrieved candidates argued that more questions (e.g., 61, 62, 67, 82, 98, 107, 111, 124, 125, 148, 149) were defective and should be deleted or corrected.
Some candidates argued that answers to questions 61, 82, 119, 124, 125, and 135 should be corrected.
Ratio Decidendi
In examination disputes, the court may refer disputed questions to an expert committee to determine correct answers. The court should ensure fairness by accommodating newly eligible candidates without disturbing those already appointed, especially when they are not at fault.
Judgment Excerpts
Special leave granted. The parties were heard, with consent of their counsel.
The single judge set aside the results of the main examination, with consequential directions to the BSSC to prepare fresh results...
The Division Bench partly allowed the appeals.
We hold that this would be highly iniquitous inasmuch as they are not guilty of any fraud, malpractice but are mere victims of mistake committed not by them.
Having considered the matter, we would accordingly order that such persons who now come into the merit list would have to be adjusted, if vacancies were there...
The Court had on 25.09.2019 passed the following order: '...the Bihar Public Service Commission should appoint an Expert Committee consisting of three members...'
Procedural History
The BSSC conducted the Graduate Level Combined Examination-2010. After preliminary and main examinations, results were challenged in writ petitions before the Patna High Court. The single judge directed deletion of four questions. Appeals were filed before the Division Bench, which modified the order. Appeals were then filed before the Supreme Court, which referred disputed questions to an expert committee and disposed of the appeals based on its report.
