the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (Appsc), the Deputy Secretary Cum Comptroller of Examination vs Miss Hage Mamung, the State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others, the Director of Agriculture, Tage Lampung, Joymoni Beyong

The Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission & Another …Appellants

Versus

Miss Hage Mamung & Others …Respondents

JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order dated 10.02.2022 passed by the Gauhati High Court (Itanagar

Bench) in Writ Appeal No.12/2019, by which the Division Bench of the

High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by respondent No.1

herein and has directed the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service

Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ’Public Service Commission’) Signature Not Verified

for re-evaluation of the papers of respondent No.1 and respondent No.4 Digitally signed by Neetu Sachdeva Date: 2023.01.20 16:12:09 IST Reason:

herein by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated

1 05.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.

62/2018, the Public Service Commission has preferred the present

appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:

That the Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on

21.09.2016 for filling up of 22 posts of Agriculture Development Officer.

Respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 herein applied for the said posts. They

successfully cleared the written examination and were called for viva-

voce test. However thereafter when the Public Service Commission

published the result by shortlisting 22 candidates, the name of the

original writ petitioner – respondent No.1 did not figure in the said list.

Respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner filed one RTI application and

was furnished the answer sheet and statement of marks. As per the

information furnished, the original writ petitioner got 268.45 marks in the

written examination. It was found that respondent No.4 herein – original

respondent No.5 was awarded 268.75 marks and was placed at serial

No. 21 in the select list. It appears that the answer keys with respect to

question No.12 and question No. 31 were found to be wrong and

therefore it was decided by the Public Service Commission to cancel the

said question Nos. 12 & 31 and it was decided to give marks to all the

candidates on pro-rata basis for the said two questions in respect of

which answer keys were found to be wrong.

2 2.1 Respondent No. 1 herein – original writ petitioner thereafter filed a

writ petition before the learned Single Judge of the High Court

contending, inter alia, that she gave correct answers to both the

questions, namely, question Nos. 12 & 31 and respondent No. 4 herein

– original respondent No. 5 answered correctly only question No. 31 and

she admittedly answered question No. 12 wrongly and therefore she

could not have been awarded two marks for question No. 12 and

question No. 31 and if that would have been done, in that case, she

would have secured more marks than respondent No. 4 herein – original

respondent No.5 and therefore she ought to have been placed in the

merit list at serial No. 21 in place of original respondent No. 5 –

respondent No. 4 herein.

2.2 The learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition.

However, by the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of

the High Court has allowed the writ appeal and has quashed and set

aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, by

ordering re-evaluation of the papers of respondent No.1 herein – original

writ petitioner and respondent No. 4 herein – original respondent No. 5

accepting the case/submission on behalf of respondent No.1 - original

writ petitioner that as original respondent No. 5 wrongly answered

question No. 12 and correctly answered question No. 31 only, she would

3 be entitled to only one mark instead of two marks allotted by the Public

Service Commission.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court ordering re-

evaluation of the papers of respondent No.1 herein – original writ

petitioner and original respondent No. 5, the Public Service Commission

has preferred the present appeal.

3. Shri Anil Srivastav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Public Service Commission has vehemently submitted that in the facts

and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any provision for

re-evaluation of the papers, the Division Bench of the High Court has

materially erred in ordering re-evaluation of the papers of the original writ

petitioner and original respondent No. 5. Reliance is placed upon the

decision of this Court in the case of Dr. NTR University of Health

Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh & Others (Civil Appeal No. 8037/2022,

decided on 04.11.2022). He has also relied upon and taken us to the

relevant provisions in the Manual for Arunachal Pradesh Public Service

Commission and the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission

Conduct of Examination Guidelines, 2017 (for short, ‘Guidelines 2017’),

in support of his submission that there is no provision for the re-

evaluation of the papers.

4 3.1 It is further submitted that in the present case as the answer keys

with respect to both the questions were found to be wrong, it was

decided to cancel the said questions and to allot the marks on pro-rata

basis to all the candidates with respect to each question. It is submitted

that the same was in consonance with clause 38(v) of the Guidelines

2017.

4. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Manish

Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 –

original writ petitioner.

4.1 It is vehemently submitted that in the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case, the Division Bench of the High Court has not

committed any error in ordering re-evaluation of the papers of original

writ petitioner as well as original respondent No. 5.

It is submitted that the total marks secured by respondent No. 1

herein were 268.45 and that of original respondent No. 5 were 268.75. It

is submitted that therefore the difference in the marks between two of

them was 0.30 marks only. It is submitted that each objective question

carried one mark. It is submitted that even the Public Service

Commission has admitted two wrong answer keys to question Nos. 12 &

31. It is submitted that respondent No.1 herein – original writ petitioner

correctly answered both question Nos. 12 & 31 and therefore entitled to

two marks (one mark each for each question). It is submitted that

5 however original respondent No. 5 who has been allotted two marks on

pro-rata basis correctly answered only question No. 31 and answered

question No. 12 wrongly. It is submitted that therefore only one mark

should have been awarded to her, instead she has been awarded two

marks on pro-rata basis, thereby causing injustice to the original writ

petitioner.

4.2 It is submitted that original respondent No. 5 is placed at serial No.

21 in the select list and on the basis of the total marks, original writ

petitioner – respondent No.1 herein will be at serial No. 23. It is

submitted that therefore if original respondent No.5, who is placed at

serial No. 21, would have been allotted only one mark for giving correct

answer to only one question, i.e, question No. 31 only and in that case,

the original writ petitioner would have been at serial No. 21. It is

submitted that therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case, the

Division Bench of the High Court has rightly ordered re-evaluation to do

complete justice to the original writ petitioner.

4.3 It is submitted that giving pro-rata marks to all the candidates

irrespective of whether the said two questions were correctly answered

or not by them would mean putting a premium on wrong answers.

4.4 It is further submitted that as such Clause 38(v) of the Guidelines

2017, which has been heavily relied upon by the Public Service

Commission shall not be applicable at all. It is submitted that the same

6 shall be applicable only in a case where the questions are found to be

wrong and not the answer keys are found to be wrong.

4.5 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of High Court

of Tripura through the Registrar General v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee

and others, reported in (2019) 16 SCC 663, it is vehemently submitted

by Shri Manish Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.1 herein – original writ petitioner that as observed and

held by this Court, the re-evaluation of the papers even in absence of

any specific provision is permissible.

4.6 Making above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present

appeal.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at

length.

At the outset, it is required to be noted that as the answer keys

with respect to two questions, namely, question No. 12 and question No.

31 of the General Knowledge Paper were found to be wrong, a

conscious decision was taken by the Public Service Commission to

cancel the aforesaid two questions and with a view to see that no

candidate should be penalised for the mistakes in the answer keys

provided by the resource persons, it was decided to award marks

against question No. 12 and question No. 31 to all the candidates on

pro-rata basis. The original writ petitioner including original respondent

7 No. 5 and all the candidates therefore were awarded two marks each on

pro-rata basis. Therefore, after such process with corresponding

increase in the marks of all the candidates, the rank/merit would remain

the same and in fact remained the same. In fact, the original writ

petitioner is also allotted two marks on pro-rata basis with respect to

question Nos. 12 & 31 along with all the candidates. Merely because,

according to the original writ petitioner, she correctly answered both

question Nos. 12 & 31 and original respondent No. 5 answered one

question correctly and one question wrongly, the Division Bench of the

High Court is not justified in ordering re-evaluation of the papers of only

two candidates, namely, the original writ petitioner and original

respondent No. 5, against a conscious decision taken by the Public

Service Commission to award two marks to each candidate on pro-rata

basis with respect to two questions of which the answer keys were found

to be wrong.

6. As per clause 38(v) of the Guidelines 2017, where in the question

in the examination paper itself is wrong and thus could not possible be

evaluated to have correct answer, there may be deletion of such

incorrect questions and the consequent pro-rata distribution of the marks

allocated to them. Applying the same analogy with respect to wrong

answer keys and thereafter when a conscious decision was taken to

allocate the marks on pro-rata basis with respect to two questions whose

8 answer keys were found to be wrong and when all the candidates were

awarded two marks (one mark each for the aforesaid two questions), it

cannot be said that the Public Service Commission acted illegally and/or

arbitrarily and/or committed any wrong. Therefore, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, the Division Bench of the High Court has

committed a very serious error in ordering re-evaluation of only two

candidates, namely, the original writ petitioner and original respondent

No. 5 only.

7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the

impugned judgment order passed by the Division Bench of the High

Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set

aside. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned

judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court

ordering re-evaluation of the papers of respondent No.1 and respondent

No. 4 herein is hereby quashed and set aside and the judgment and

order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition

preferred by respondent No.1 herein is hereby restored. No costs.

………………………………..J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………J. JANUARY 20, 2023. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]

9