Candidates cannot be made to suffer because of the mistake of Public Service Commission: Allahabad HC [Read Judgment]

Candidates cannot be made to suffer because of the mistake of Public Service Commission: Allahabad HC [Read Judgment]


The purity in the selection process has to be maintained. The mistake committed by the Commission has to be rectified and the candidates who appeared at the preliminary examination cannot be made to suffer because of the mistake of the Commission, the Court said.


In a relief to many candidates who appeared for the exam conducted by Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission to the post of Civil Judges (Junior Division) in the U.P. Judicial Service, the Allahabad High Court has asked the commission to re-evaluate the marks of all candidates, who had appeared at the preliminary examination on the basis of correct answer to one question.

Division Bench comprising of Justices Dilip Gupta and Amar Singh Chauhan allowed the Writ petition by one of the candidate who had challenged the answer key provided by the commission, by observing that, it would be very unfair to penalise students, if they had opted for an answer, which is demonstrated to be correct, but has not been found to be correct by the Commission.

Anurag Tripathi had got 300 marks in the Preliminary examination. Cut off to appear in main examination was 301. He challenged answer keys provided by the Commission. According to him three answers determined by commission is incorrect. On the basis of interim order, he was allowed to appear for Main examination and as of now the commission has conducted main examination and interview, but the appointments are yet to be made.

The Court, examined the answers under challenge and found that one answer determined by the commission to be incorrect. The courtsaid that relevant books produced before the Court by the petitioner in person clearly support the position that Badrinath is located in Kumaun Himalaya which lies between Satluj and Kali rivers and not in Central Himalaya.

The court directing re-evaluation of all the candidates on the basis of this finding, said “It would be wholly unjust to deprive such candidates who could not appear at the main examination for this reason. The purity in the selection process has to be maintained. The mistake committed by the Commission has to be rectified and the candidates who appeared at the preliminary examination cannot be made to suffer because of the mistake of the Commission. Such a course is being adopted as at present appointment orders have not been issued and only interviews are being conducted on the basis of the marks of candidates who had appeared at the main examination and the criteria determined by the Commission. In 15 such circumstances, it is considered appropriate to direct that relief should not be confined to the petitioner alone but to all the candidates who had appeared at the preliminary examination.”

The Court further directed “in case, candidates who have not been able to appear at the main examination but are found to be entitled to on the basis of a fresh revaluation done by the Commission, the Commission would have to take appropriate steps for conducting the main examination for such candidates and consequently hold interviews, if they are entitled to be called, in accordance with the marks awarded to them at the main examination and the procedure and guidelines set out for this purpose. The Commission need not hold the main examination or interviews for the candidates who have already appeared at the said examination and are found to be eligible to appear even after the declaration of the revised result of the preliminary examination but if any candidate has appeared and is not found to be eligible as he has not secured the requisite marksafter the revised result, his candidature can always be cancelled. The main examination, it is reiterated, should be held only for such candidates who now become eligible to appear at the main examination after revision of marks in the preliminary examination but could not appear earlier. “

Read the Judgment here.