JPSC| Scope Of Judicial Review In Matters Concerning Re-Evaluation Of Answer Key Is Narrow: Jharkhand High Court

Refusing to interfere with the decision of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission on disputed answers of the 2021 Preliminary Test, the Jharkhand High Court observed that,

"Merely because the experts were not of the choice of the petitioner, the same cannot be a ground to doubt the decision of the subject expert committee."

In a matter seeking re-examination of the JPSC PT answer sheets, Justice Rajesh Shankar took the view that if the plea is entertained, it will result in an 'endless exercise' leading to unnecessary litigations at the instance of dissatisfied candidates. The Court further noted,

"Thus, to finalize the appointment process, it is necessary to give due weightage to the process adopted by the examining body and avoid unnecessary litigations at the instance of dissatisfied candidates. Even if it is assumed that the revised model answers as pointed by the petitioner are erroneous, then also for the reasons above, the claim for re-evaluation of answers by an independent expert committee cannot be allowed by this Court in the exercise of the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Background

A writ petition was filed for quashing and setting aside the provisional result published in November 2021 of the Preliminary Test of the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination, 2021 on the ground of discrepancies in the answer of certain questions.

The petition sought the constitution of an independent qualified expert committee of the concerned subjects so that the discrepancies can be placed for correction. Thereafter, publish results afresh.

Advocate Rajesh Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, argued that against the cut off of 260 marks for the unreserved category, the self-evaluation of the petitioner based on the carbon copy of the OMR sheet, he is short of 6 marks, i.e., three correct answers only. They also informed the Court that this is the last attempt of the petitioner to the said examination.

Advocate Mohan Kumar Dubey, appearing for JPSC, submitted that the committee placed it before an expert committee for consideration after receiving objections from the candidates. Subsequent corrections were made in the model answer key. It further submitted that full marks had been given to all candidates for the wrong answers.

The petitioner, belonging to the unreserved category has scored 254 marks, whereas the cut off is 260, and thus he is not declared successful in the PT examination.

JPSC also challenged the maintainability of the prayers made, arguing that the experts of the concerned subjects corrected model answers. Based on corrected model answers, the OMR sheets of the candidates were processed through OMR Scanning Machine and, after that, the result was prepared and published. After the publication of the PT result, the candidates were informed about submitting online application forms for the main examination. As the last date for submitting the online application form for the main examination is already over, they submitted.

Findings of the Court

After examining the ratio in a catena of judgments relied on by the petitioner and the respondent, the Court observed, 

"The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matters concerning re-evaluation of answers on the claim of candidates particularly in public recruitment quite is narrow."

It further held that the Court should be very slow in interfering with the expert's opinion in academic matters. Any opinion on the matter by the Court must maintain internal checks and balances between the examination conducting body and the candidates. It noted,

"The Court should not sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts as it may not have the expertise in the academic matters. No doubt, in exceptional cases, the Court may permit re-evaluation to correct material error if it is demonstrated very clearly without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization."

It emphasized exercising a self-imposed restrain in interfering with the opinion of experts since the candidates in entirety would suffer due to such an error. The Court should presume the correctness of the answer key, and in case of any dispute, the benefit of the doubt should go to the examination conducting authority, it added.

It noted that allowing the petitioner's request, there is a possibility that the decision of a new expert committee won't be favorable to other candidates, which would lead to an endless exercise. It thus concluded that if the Court starts interfering with the answers key / model answers, published by JPSC or the examination conducting body, no result can be finalized. Therefore, the interference by the Court in such a matter should be extremely rare.

Case Title: Shekhar Suman v. The State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 8

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order