'Re-evaluation Is Not Permissible In Cases Where Authorities Have Ensured Clarity', Patna High Court

A Division Bench of the Patna High Court comprising Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Nani Tagia while setting aside a judgment of a Single Judge directing re-evaluation held that in cases related to re-evaluation, the court may permit such re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases where a material error is committed. The Bench observed that in cases where proper care has been taken the authorities to ensure fair treatment and justice and the same is proven in the Court, re-evaluation may not be directed. Background The Appeal arose from the issuance of directions by a Single Judge in a Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner (Respondent in the Appeal) wherein the Bihar Public Service Commission was instructed to constitute a fresh Committee of five subject experts of Indian Institute of Technology (I.I.T), Patna and N.I.T., Patna. These subject experts were supposed to look into Set 'B' of the question papers and finalise the definite answers to four questions in the set. Accordingly, the final answers were to be conveyed to the Commission which would consider the case of the Petitioner in the Writ Petition and accordingly call her for interview if she qualified as per the revised marks. The Single Judge also held that in case of discerning opinions amongst the members, the opinion of the majority would count. Aggrieved by such directions, the Bihar Public Service Commission approached the High Court. Contentions of the Parties: The Counsel for the Appellants contended that there was no provision for re-evaluation in the rules or in the notification and that even as per the Judgment of the Supreme Court that the Single Judge relied on, the re-evaluation could not have been permitted. It was submitted that the candidates had objected to three provisional answer keys. Finally, the fourth answer key was announced as the final answer key and after it was published, the Respondent (Petitioner in the Writ Petition) raised objections in terms of the last and final answer key as well since she had not qualified even as per this answer key. To justify the contentions made, the Counsel relied on the judgment in Ashish Ranjan vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Respondent submitted that while finalising the answer key, repetitive corrections were made which indicated the lack of clarity in terms of correct answers on part of the subject experts. Contending that even the subject experts were not sure about the answers, the Counsel relied on the decision in Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2013) 3 SCC 690 wherein it was held that if the answer key was an erroneous one, it could lead in vitiating the entire results. Referring to another decision in Manish Ujwal v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, (2005) 13 SCC 744 and Guru Nanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg, (2005) 13 SCC749, the Counsel emphasized that the concern regarding the career of candidates was of paramount significance and the interest of candidates was to be taken into consideration. It was submitted that while evaluating the answers of the candidates, the paper-setters as well as the experts had to consider the seriousness of the issues regarding the career of the candidates. The Counsel also referred to more judgements including Rishal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (2018) 8 SCC 81 and Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018)2 SCC 357 to add to his contentions. Findings of the Court: The Court restricted the scope of its interference to the OMR test and the evaluation carried out by the Commission. It was observed that after objections were raised in connection to the first provisional answer key, a Committee of Experts was constituted which changed the options of eight questions and deleted two questions. Another provisional answer key was published leading in more objections. The Court noted that, to deal with the objections raised, the candidates raising these objections were also given a chance to speak to the experts over phone calls so that they could express their views elaborately. This was followed by deletion of four questions and changing the options of four other questions. On another provisional answer key being published, the Respondent filed objections again leading in constitution of another Committee that re-evaluated all the 80 questions and published one more provisional answer key which was again objected to by the Respondent. Finally, the Petitioner also raised objections to the final answer key. The Court referred to the judgments in the case of Ran Vijay Singh wherein it was held, 'The court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by ...

'Re-evaluation Is Not Permissible In Cases Where Authorities Have Ensured Clarity', Patna High Court

Syed Nazarat Fatima

Tags