When the key answers are correct of the candidates who appeared in the examination, they are entitled for revision of their result, since, fault does not lie with the candidates but lies with the examination body, the bench said.
The Supreme Court directed the Rajasthan Public Service Commission to revise results of all the candidates who participated in the School Lecturer Exam—2015 based on the report of the expert committee constituted in pursuance of its order and not only that of the appellants before it.
In the first round of litigation, the Rajasthan High Court, accepting plea of some candidates who participated in the School Lecturer Exam—2015 conducted by Rajasthan Public Service Commission, directed it to upload the revised answer key along with report of experts on the website. A second round of litigations was started by filing various writ petitions by the candidates raising various objections to the answer key. These writ petitions were dismissed by the high court.
Still dissatisfied, some of the candidates approached the apex court which again directed to constitute another expert committee to reexamine the grievances of the candidates. The commission accepted the report of the expert committee and proceeded to revised the result of 311 appellants. The Supreme Court also accepted the report.
The bench of Justice AK Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan said as key answers were corrected, merit of all the candidates except those who have already been selected needs to be predetermined, and observed: “When the key answers are correct of the candidates who appeared in the examination, they are entitled for revision of their result, since, fault does not lie with the candidates but lies with the examination body. It shall not be equitable to not extend the benefit to those candidates who have not come to the Court being satisfied with the steps taken by the Commission and its earlier Expert Committee which was given the task of revising the key answers.’, the bench of Justice AK Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan said while disposing appeals filed by 311 candidates.”
The bench also rejected the submission that marks of deleted questions ought not to have been redistributed in other questions. It said: “The questions having been deleted from the answers, the question paper has to be treated as containing the question less the deleted questions. Redistribution of marks with regard to deleted questions cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. The Commission has adopted a uniform method to deal with all the candidates looking to the number of the candidates. We are of the view that all the candidates have been benefited by the redistributed of marks in accordance with the number of correct answers which have been given by them. We, thus, do not find any fault with redistribution of marks of the deleted marks.”