Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a selection process for the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission. An advertisement was issued in June 2015, and the examination was held on 21 February 2016. Question No. 46 asked who the Panchayati Raj Minister of Uttar Pradesh was, with four options: A) Shivpal Yadav, B) Kailash Yadav, C) Balram Yadav, and D) Durga Prasad Yadav. The correct answer at the time the question was set was Option B (Kailash Yadav), but he passed away on 9 February 2016, 12 days before the examination. Consequently, on the exam date, none of the options were correct. The Commission published the answer key on 25 February 2016 and on 29 March 2016 decided to award one mark to candidates who chose Option B or did not answer the question, but not to those who chose other options. Results were declared on 24 December 2016, and the respondent, Brijendra Pratap Singh, an OBC candidate, secured 86 marks, one mark short of the cut-off of 87. He had chosen Option A, which was never correct. He filed a writ petition seeking a direction to award him one mark for question No. 46 and to prepare a fresh select list. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition, but the Division Bench allowed the appeal, directing the Commission to either delete the question or award marks to the respondent and, if he then met the cut-off, to take further action. The Supreme Court, in the present appeal by the Commission, held that the Commission's decision was not palpably perverse and was based on a rational distinction: those who chose Option B had selected the originally correct answer, and those who did not answer had not committed an error, whereas the respondent chose a clearly wrong option. The Court noted that the respondent had not challenged the Commission's decision in the writ petition and that much time had passed with appointments already made. Applying the principle of limited judicial review in examination matters, the Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's judgment and restored the Single Judge's dismissal, thereby upholding the Commission's decision.
Headnote
A) Judicial Review - Examination Bodies - Scope of Interference - The court's power is supervisory, not appellate; a decision of an examining body can be interfered with only if it is palpably perverse or arbitrary - The Commission's decision to award marks to candidates who chose the originally correct answer (Option B) or did not answer, but not to those who chose other incorrect options, was based on a rational distinction and not perverse (Paras 11-13). B) Service Law - Selection Process - Unforeseen Event - When all options to a question become incorrect due to an event after the question was set (death of the minister), the examining body's decision to award marks to those who chose the originally correct answer or did not answer is not arbitrary - The respondent, who chose a clearly wrong option, cannot claim parity (Paras 11-13). C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus - A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel an examining body to adopt a particular marking scheme unless the decision is illegal or perverse - The High Court's direction to delete the question or award marks to the respondent was set aside as it interfered with the Commission's discretionary decision without finding perversity (Paras 11-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the decision of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission to award one mark to candidates who chose option 'B' (the deceased minister) or did not answer question No. 46, but not to those who chose other incorrect options, is legally sustainable and whether the High Court could direct deletion of the question or award of marks to the respondent
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, and restored the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The Court held that the Commission's decision was not perverse and could not be interfered with in judicial review.
Law Points
- Judicial review of examination body's decisions is supervisory
- not appellate
- decision must be palpably perverse to be interfered with
- awarding marks to candidates who chose the originally correct answer or did not answer is not arbitrary when all options became incorrect due to unforeseen event
