Case Note & Summary
The Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) published an advertisement on 23.06.2022 for recruitment to the post of Sub-Registrar/Stamp Inspector (Grade I). The original applicant, Yogesh Sopanrao Dawale, an EWS category candidate, appeared in the main examination. The controversy centered on Question No.40 in Set C, which asked which statement was false. The MPSC's answer key indicated only Option 3 as correct, but the court found that both Option 1 (Fundamental Duties are in Part IV) and Option 3 (another duty added by 82nd Amendment) were false statements. The applicant had marked Option 1 as correct but was awarded negative marks. The Tribunal directed exclusion of the question and re-evaluation of marks for EWS candidates. The MPSC and some appointed candidates challenged this. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, noting that the error was apparent and that the solution of excluding the question was appropriate. The court dismissed both writ petitions, confirming the Tribunal's direction to re-evaluate marks of EWS category candidates excluding Question No.40.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Duties - Part IV-A - Article 51A - 42nd Amendment - 82nd Amendment - The question asked which statement is false; options included that Fundamental Duties are in Part IV (false, they are in Part IV-A) and that another duty was added by 82nd Amendment (false, it was 86th Amendment). The court held that both options 1 and 3 were false, making the question ambiguous. (Paras 4-9)
B) Service Law - Recruitment - Examination - Error in Answer Key - Exclusion of Question - The court upheld the Tribunal's direction to exclude the suspect question and re-evaluate marks of EWS category candidates, following the principle in Ran Vijay Singh that such impasse can be resolved by excluding the offending question. (Paras 10-17)
C) Administrative Law - Tribunal - Powers - The Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction in directing re-evaluation limited to EWS category, as the applicant was the only candidate who approached the Tribunal and belonged to that category. (Paras 15-17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal was justified in directing exclusion of Question No.40 from the MPSC examination and re-evaluation of marks of EWS category candidates, given that the question had two correct answers.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 21.03.2024 in Original Application No.1042/2023 is upheld. The MPSC is directed to re-evaluate the marks of EWS category candidates excluding Question No.40.
Law Points
- Exclusion of ambiguous question
- re-evaluation of marks
- error in answer key
- fundamental duties under Part IV-A
- 42nd Amendment
- 82nd Amendment
- Representation of People Act
- 1951
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (09) 2706
Writ Petition No. 4173 of 2024 and Writ Petition No. 4191 of 2024
Ravindra V. Ghuge, Y. G. Khobragade
Shri Mukul S. Kulkarni, Shri V.M. Kagne, Shri Ajay S. Deshpande, Shri V.D. Salunke, Shri Mayur V. Salunke, Shri R.J. Nirmal
Maharashtra Public Service Commission (in WP 4173/2024); Babar Suraj Sahebrao and Another (in WP 4191/2024)
State of Maharashtra and Others (in WP 4173/2024); State of Maharashtra and Others (in WP 4191/2024)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal directing exclusion of an ambiguous question and re-evaluation of marks for EWS category candidates in a recruitment examination conducted by MPSC.
Remedy Sought
The MPSC sought to set aside the Tribunal's order; the appointed candidates sought to protect their appointments.
Filing Reason
The MPSC and appointed candidates challenged the Tribunal's direction to exclude Question No.40 and re-evaluate marks of EWS candidates.
Previous Decisions
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.1042/2023 directed exclusion of Question No.40 and re-evaluation of marks of EWS category candidates.
Issues
Whether Question No.40 had two correct answers, making it ambiguous.
Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing exclusion of the question and re-evaluation of marks for EWS category candidates.
Submissions/Arguments
MPSC argued that only Option 3 was the correct answer.
Original applicant argued that both Options 1 and 3 were false, and the error caused prejudice.
Appointed candidates argued that they had already joined and should not be disturbed.
Ratio Decidendi
When a question in an examination has two correct answers, it is ambiguous and should be excluded from evaluation. The marks of candidates should be re-counted excluding that question, following the principle in Ran Vijay Singh.
Judgment Excerpts
Part IV of the Constitution of India pertains to Articles 36 to 51. Part IV-A carries the title 'Fundamental Duties'. Article 51A was introduced with the introduction of Part IV-A, vide the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution of India w.e.f. 03/01/1977.
As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (cited supra) way out for such an impasse is to exclude the suspect or offending question.
Procedural History
Original Application No.1042/2023 was filed before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, challenging the answer key for Question No.40. The Tribunal passed an order on 21.03.2024 directing exclusion of the question and re-evaluation of marks for EWS candidates. The MPSC filed Writ Petition No.4173/2024 and the appointed candidates filed Writ Petition No.4191/2024 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The High Court reserved judgment on 09.09.2024 and pronounced on 12.09.2024, dismissing both petitions.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Part IV, Part IV-A, Article 51A
- Representation of People Act, 1951:
