Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a decision by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission regarding the selection of candidates for the post of Agriculture Development Officer. An advertisement was issued on 21.09.2016 for 22 posts, and several candidates, including the original writ petitioner, applied and cleared the written examination. However, the original writ petitioner did not make it to the shortlist, prompting her to file an RTI application which revealed discrepancies in the marking of two questions. The original writ petitioner contended that she had answered both questions correctly, while another candidate had answered one incorrectly. The learned Single Judge dismissed her writ petition, but the Division Bench of the High Court later ordered a re-evaluation of the papers, leading to the present appeal by the Public Service Commission. The Commission argued that there was no provision for re-evaluation in their guidelines and that the decision to award pro-rata marks was appropriate given the errors in the answer keys. The opposing counsel for the original writ petitioner argued that the re-evaluation was justified due to the close margin in marks and the incorrect awarding of marks to the other candidate. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred in ordering re-evaluation, as the guidelines allowed for pro-rata marking in cases of wrong answer keys. The Court restored the Single Judge's decision, thereby dismissing the writ petition and quashing the High Court's order. The appeal was allowed with no costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Re-evaluation of Examination Papers - Absence of Provision - Public Service Commission's Guidelines - The Division Bench of the High Court ordered re-evaluation of examination papers despite no provision for it in the guidelines, which was found to be erroneous. The Supreme Court held that the decision to award pro-rata marks was valid and consistent with the guidelines, thus quashing the High Court's order (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in ordering re-evaluation of examination papers in the absence of a provision for such re-evaluation.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's order for re-evaluation, and restored the Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition.
Law Points
- Re-evaluation of examination papers
- Pro-rata marking
- Guidelines for examination conduct
- Judicial review of administrative decisions
