Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a selection examination conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission for the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari in 2016. The examination included a question about the then Panchayati Raj Minister, Shri Kailash Yadav, who had passed away shortly before the examination date. The Commission initially decided to award marks to candidates who selected the deceased minister as the correct answer, acknowledging the unique circumstances. The respondent, who answered incorrectly, fell short of the cut-off marks and sought judicial intervention to have marks awarded for the question. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, but the Division Bench allowed the appeal, stating that all options were incorrect due to the minister's death. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, noted that the Commission's decision to award marks was not arbitrary and upheld the principle that the court's role is supervisory. The appeal was allowed, and the Division Bench's judgment was set aside, with no costs awarded.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Scope of Judicial Review - Supreme Court's supervisory role - The court emphasized that its role is supervisory and not appellate, and decisions of examining bodies should not be interfered with unless palpably perverse. The court found that the decision to award marks for an incorrect question was not arbitrary as the circumstances of the examination were unique (Paras 12-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the decision to award marks for an incorrect question in the selection examination was justified.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench's judgment, and upheld the Commission's decision to award marks for the incorrect question.
Law Points
- Judicial review
- Examination process
- Selection criteria
- Awarding marks
- Incorrect answers
Case Details
2021 LawText (SC) (12) 175
Civil Appeal No. 7720 of 2021
K. M. Joseph, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission & Anr.
Brijendra Pratap Singh & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Dispute regarding the selection process for the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari.
Remedy Sought
The respondent sought a writ of Mandamus to award marks for an incorrect question.
Filing Reason
The respondent fell short of the cut-off marks by one mark due to an incorrect answer.
Previous Decisions
The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, while the Division Bench allowed the appeal.
Issues
Whether the decision to award marks for an incorrect question was justified.
Whether the court should interfere with the Commission's decision.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant contended that deleting the question would cause serious prejudice and that the decision to award marks was not palpably perverse.
The respondent argued that he was entitled to the mark for the question as he was only one mark short of the cut-off.
Ratio Decidendi
The court emphasized the supervisory nature of judicial review and upheld the Commission's decision to award marks for an incorrect question due to unique circumstances surrounding the examination.
Judgment Excerpts
The Division Bench took the view that the ‘case at hand is not having any dispute that all the options of question no. 46 were incorrect on the date of the selection test which was due to the sad demise of the then minister.’
We are of the view that the principle of judicial review which is apposite in such case is indeed that of power of the Court being supervisory in nature and the jurisdiction not being that of an appellate body.
Procedural History
The appellant issued an advertisement in June 2015, conducted the examination on 21.02.2016, and declared results on 24.12.2016. The respondent filed a writ petition after falling short of the cut-off marks, which was dismissed by a Single Judge but allowed by a Division Bench.
