Case Note & Summary
The Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) conducted a recruitment process for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. The respondents, who were candidates, appeared for the examination. The MPSC published a provisional answer key and invited objections. After considering objections, the MPSC published a final answer key. However, the respondents alleged that the final answer key contained errors in certain questions in the Civil Engineering paper, leading to reduction of their marks. They approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) by filing Original Applications. The MAT, after considering the matter, appointed an expert committee to examine the disputed questions. The expert committee opined that the answers given by the candidates were correct and the MPSC's answer key was wrong. Based on this, the MAT directed the MPSC to re-evaluate the respondents' answer sheets and recommend their names for appointment. The MPSC challenged the MAT's order by filing writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the MAT had correctly exercised its jurisdiction. The Court observed that the MPSC had acted arbitrarily by not referring the disputed questions to an expert committee before finalizing the answer key. The Court also noted that the MPSC had not given the candidates an opportunity of being heard before reducing their marks. The High Court upheld the MAT's direction to re-evaluate the answer sheets and recommend the candidates for appointment. The Court further held that the MAT's order was based on the expert committee's report, which was not challenged by the MPSC. The petitions were dismissed with costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Fair Hearing - Answer Key Dispute - The MPSC reduced marks of candidates based on an answer key that was later found to be incorrect by an expert committee. The MAT directed MPSC to re-evaluate and recommend candidates. The High Court upheld the MAT's order, holding that the MPSC's action was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice as candidates were not heard before reducing marks. (Paras 4-20) B) Service Law - Recruitment - Answer Key - Expert Committee - The MPSC's failure to refer disputed answers to an expert committee before finalizing the answer key was a procedural irregularity. The MAT's reliance on the expert committee's report to correct the answer key was justified. (Paras 12-18) C) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Judicial Review - The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is not ousted merely because an alternative remedy exists. The MAT's order was within its jurisdiction and did not warrant interference. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) was justified in directing the MPSC to recommend the names of the original applicants for appointment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, after finding that the MPSC had wrongly reduced their marks in the Civil Engineering paper due to an incorrect answer key.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed both writ petitions with costs, upholding the MAT's orders directing the MPSC to re-evaluate the answer sheets of the respondents and recommend their names for appointment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- fair hearing
- answer key correctness
- expert committee
- judicial review of administrative decisions
- principle of legitimate expectation
