AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nagendra Rai, J.—As the common question of facts and law are involved in all the aforesaid three cases they have been heard together and
are being disposed of by this common judgment.
The Petitioner, numbering 103 in C.W.J.C. No. 9746 of 1994 and the sole Petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 10014/94, have filed the application for
quashing the result of the 39th Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter
referred to as the ""Commission"") for filling up the posts under different services under the State Government which has been published in daily
newspaper ''Aaz'' on 9-10-94. A copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure-1 in C.W.J.C. No. 9746/94.
C.W.J.C. No. 10171/94 has been filed by the 7 successful candidates in Preliminary Test of the said Competitive Examination for quashing the
revised syllabus for main examination, i.e. 39th Combined Competitive Examination, as well as for conducting the examination on the basis of the
old syllabus and fixing the date of main examination according to convenience of the successful candidates.
An advertisement was published in the Newspaper ''Aaz'' on 10-5-1994 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for appearing in the
39th Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination for appointment to various posts in different services under the State Government. A
complete copy of the advertisement has been annexed as Annexure-1 to C.W.J.C. No. 10174/94. It has been clearly mentioned in the said
advertisement that the applications should be filled up in English. The Competitive Examination shall be held at two stages, namely Preliminary and
Main examinations. The Preliminary Test will be held for the purpose of selecting the candidates for appearing in the Main examination. The Main
examination shall consist of written and oral test. Paragraph 7 of the note clearly mentioned that the revised syllabus for the main examination will
be. similar to the syllabus of the Main examination of the Union Public Service Commission, the details of which will be published after the
approval of the State Government.
The Petitioners of all the aforesaid three writ applications and Ors. applied in terms of the advertisement within time. Admit Cards were issued
to them. The date of examination was fixed on 31st July, 1994, which was changed later on to 27-8-94, on which date the examination was held
at different centers and the result of successful candidates of the preliminary test was published on the Notice Board of the Office of the
Commission on 7-10-1994. The result was also published in Daily Newspaper ''Aaz'' on 9-10-1994, a copy of which as stated above has been
annexed as Annexure-1 to C.W.J.C. No. 9746/94.
The Petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 9746/94 assert that though they have done well in the Preliminary Test yet they have been arbitrarily not
declared as successful. When they did not find their names in the list of successful candidates they approached the Commission and requested for
re-checking and re-totaling of their answer-sheets, but the Commission did not pay any heed to their request. Then some of them sent applications
by registered post on 31st August, 1994 for evaluating their answer-sheets after eliminating wrong questions, even then nothing was done by the
Commission.
They have challenged the result of the Preliminary Test on the ground that there is no provision for holding preliminary test under the provisions
of the Bihar Civil Service (Executive Branch) and the Bihar Junior Civil Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It
is also asserted on their behalf that the syllabus for preliminary test was not approved by the State Government as required by the aforesaid Rules.
Out of 150 questions in the preliminary test, either the questions or the suggestive answers of 20 questions were wrong and incorrect even then the
aforesaid wrong questions were evaluated and the marks were given to the successful candidates, as a result of which the Petitioners were
eliminated from the list of the successful candidates.
The Petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 10014/94 has asserted that he had done very well in the examination and got approximately 100 marks out of
150 marks, but his result has been withheld by the Commission; whereas, the candidates having secured only 90 marks have been declared
successful. He approached the Commission by filing an application to supply the marks obtained by him in the examination, but the Commission
did not supply the same. He has also challenged the result of the said examination on the same very ground which has been asserted by the
Petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 9746/94.
The Petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 10171/94 are the successful candidates in the preliminary test and their case is that they all applied in terms of
the advertisement and appeared in the preliminary test and they were declared successful candidates. In the advertisement it was clearly mentioned
that the revised syllabus for main examination will be published after the approval of the State Government separately. The Petitioners were
informed by the Commission about their result and were directed to fill up their examination forms for the main examination in the prescribed form.
They sent their applications in the prescribed form and on 21-10-1994 the Commission issued notice in the daily Newspapers informing that the
examination of 39th Combined Competitive Main Examination will commence from 5-12-1994 (Annexure-2). On 26-10-94 Anr. notification was
issued by the Commission in the daily Newspaper ''Aaz'' by which the candidates were informed that the revised syllabus has been made
applicable for the 39th Combined Competitive Main Examination in anticipation of the approval by the State Government. The revised syllabus in
Hindi as well as in English was published, the copies of which, have been made Annexures-3 and 4 to the writ application. It is asserted that the
holding of main examination by Commission on the basis of revised syllabus is not permissible in view of the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules,
which requires prior approval of the State Government before revision of the syllabus. It is also asserted that there is a lot of contradictions in the
two versions of the syllabus, namely, Hindi and English. Some of the subjects which are included in the English Version of syllabus are not in the
Hindi version of the syllabus. The programme for holding the main examination was published on 21-10-94 and the time gap between publication
of revised syllabus and holding of main examination is too short for the candidates to make preparation for the said examination and, as such, the
dates for holding main examination be extended by giving reasonable time so that the candidates may make preparation for appearing in the said
examination.
The stand of the Commission, as evident from the counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavits filed in all the aforesaid three writ
applications, is that in pursuance of the policy decision taken by the Government, it was decided to hold a Combined Competitive Examination for
various services including non-gazetted service in conformity with the decision of the Government of India taken in the year 1950. The
Appointment Department, Government of Bihar, vide Circular No. 8646 dated 19th July, 1958, laid down the procedure regarding allotment of
candidates to the different services on the basis of the result of the Combined Competitive Examination. The aforesaid decision was reiterated by
the State Government by Circular Dated 17th June, 1977, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-C to the supplementary counter affidavit filed
on behalf of the Commission on 12-12-1994. The practice of holding Combined Competitive Examination is in vogue from last four decades. In
pursuance of the said decision of the State Government and the direction issued from time to time, the Commission acting under the provisions of
Sections 320(1) and (3) conducts examination for appointment for different services in the State. The list of the services for which the Combined
Competitive Examination is being held is modified or changed from time to time by the State Government. As large number of candidates used to
appear in the examination conducted by the Commission for the appointment on different posts, the Commission mooted out an idea to hold
preliminary screening test. In the year 1990, the Commission communicated its decision for holding a preliminary screening test to the Government.
After several exchange of notes between the Commission and the Government, the Commission reiterated its decision to hold a preliminary
screening test and communicated the same to the Government on 14th November, 1991. The Government by its resolution dated 23rd January,
1992, accepted the same and since then the preliminary screening test is being held by the Commission and the same has been approved by the
High Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar and Others Vs. The Bihar Public Service Commission and Others and in the case of Association of Civil
Services Examinees through the secretary, Association of Civil Service Examinees and Amaresh Kumar Singh Vs. The Bihar Public Service
Commission and Others The Special Leave against the aforesaid judgments has been refused by the Supreme Court.
The further case of the Commission is that prior approval of syllabus is not required with regard to the preliminary test under any of the rules
framed or any executive instructions issued by the State Government. However, the Commission gave the details of the syllabus for preliminary test
in the advertisement inviting application from candidates which is annexed as Annexure-1 to C.W.J.C. No. 10171/94. The advertisement was also
published in the Extraordinary Gazette on 24-5-1992, a copy of which has been made Annexure R-1/B to C.W.J.C. No. 10171/94. It was
clearly stated in the advertisement that the preliminary test will contain the questions regarding general studies for the purpose of selection of the
candidates for appearing in the main examination.
The said examination was an objective type of test and the questions were set up by the experts of the concerned subjects and key
answers/suggestive answers were also prepared by the same experts. The question papers contained the instructions in Hindi and English both and
it has been duly stated in the instructions that all the 150 questions carry equal marks and there was only one correct answer to each question.
Each question comprised of four responses and the candidates were required to give one response which they considered best and correct. The
separate computerised answer-sheet was provided in which the candidates were required to give their answers. This answer-sheet is called
O.M.R. In the answer sheet there are four circles-(A), (B), (C) and (D) against each question. The candidates were required to make dark only
one circle with H.B. pencil for the correct answer. All the answers given by the candidates were evaluated by the aforesaid system and as such no
illegality or irregularity has been committed in evaluating the answer-sheets. It was clearly stated in the notice/instruction published by the
Commission on 19-8-1994 that no application for revaluation or rechecking of answer-sheets shall be allowed by the Commission, a copy of
which has been made Annexure R-4/A to the counter affidavit of the Commission in C.W.J.C. No. 9746/94.
So far as the assertion of the Petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 9746/94 that twenty questions or its key answers are incorrect, it is asserted that
only the key answers to two questions, i.e. question Nos. 121 and 130 were found incorrect and the Commission took a decision to award marks
with regard to the said questions to all the candidates. So far as other questions and their key answers are concerned, the Commission took
opinion of the experts who had set the questions and suggestive answers and they asserted that the questions and their key answers are correct, a
copy of their opinion has been annexed as Annexure-E series to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission on 12-12-1994. It
was also asserted that after the publication of the result of the preliminary test none of the candidates represented before the Commission that
either some of the questions or their key answers are incorrect or there was variation in English version and Hindi version of the questions and their
key answers. Petitioner No. 1 of C.W.J.C. No. 9746/94 has filed an application before the Commission in which he only asserted that he has
done well in the preliminary test even then his result has not been published. There was no allegation in the said application that either any question
was wrong or suggestive answers were wrong. The Petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 9746/94 and C.W.J.C. No. 10014/94 after having participated
in the examination cannot be allowed to challenge the aforesaid examination on the said ground.
It is further stated that in view of the observation made by this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar and Others Vs. The Bihar Public Service
Commission and Others that the Commission can frame rules, norms or guidelines for the transaction of its business and to carry out its different
constitutional duties and functions, the Commission has framed the Rules known as ""The Bihar Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure,
1993,"" which became effective from 3rd November, 1993. The 39th Combined P.T. Examination has been held by following the procedure as
provided under the said Rules. The 39th Combined P.T. Examination was conducted by a Committee of three members of the Commission and
approved by the Chairman in accordance with the provisions of the said Rules. The said Rules provide that the decision of the said Committee will
be deemed to be the decision of the Commission. In other words, the decision was taken by the entire body of the Commission in accordance with
the provisions of the said Rules.
So far as the grievances of the Petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 10171/94, who are successful candidates in the preliminary test, are concerned, it
is asserted on behalf of the Commission that their grievances that the examination cannot be held on the basis of the new syllabus as the same has
not been approved by the State Government as required by Rule 15 of the Rules, is without substance. The Commission discussed the question of
change of syllabus for the main examination in the year 1992-93 and on 21-4-93 it has resolved to adopt it for the 39th Combined Competitive
Examination and on 6-4-94 the proposal for change of syllabus was sent to the State Government for approval, as required by the Rules. In the
advertisement issued for holding Combined Competitive Examination it was clearly stated therein that the syllabus for the main examination will be
similar to the syllabus adopted by the U.P.S.C. for civil services main examination and the same will be published separately after approval by the
State Government. The revised syllabus was published in Rojgar Prabhat Khabar in its edition No. 12 dated 16-30 January, 1994, in anticipation
of the approval of the Respondent-State and later on revised syllabus was published in daily newspaper in Hindi and in English, a copy of which
has been annexed as Annexures-3 and 4 to the writ application (C.W.J.C. No. 10171/94). The aforesaid revised syllabus was published much
before the conduct of main examination. Notice for holding the main examination was issued on 21-10-94 informing that the main examination was
to commence from 5-12-94, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to C.W.J.C. No. 10171/94. The State Government approved the
syllabus on 14-11-94 by letter No. 10740 (vide Annexure A-1/A to C.W.J.C. No. 10171/94). Thus, the revised syllabus was approved before
start of the main examination and necessary information about the same was given to the candidates by a notice in the newspaper much before the
conduct of the main examination and as such there is no violation of Rule 15 of the Rules. It was also stated that according to the schedule for main
examination sufficient time has been given to the candidates and the examination was conducted in two phases only with a view to give the
candidate an opportunity to appear in the examination to be conducted by the Union Public Service Commission.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 9746/94 and C.W.J.C. No. 10014/94 contended that the holding of the preliminary test
itself was not permissible in law, as there is no provision under the Rules to hold a preliminary test. It is further contended that the result of the
preliminary test of 39th Combined Competitive Examination has been vitiated because of twenty wrong questions and answers Lastly, it is
contended that the examination has not been conducted by the entire body of Commission in as much as only three members had conducted the
examination and on this ground also the result of the preliminary test is vitiated.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Commission, on the other hand, contended that the combined Competitive Examination is held by the
Commission for filling up the vacancies of various gazetted and non-gazetted posts. Large number of persons used to apply for the said posts and
with a view to minimize their number the Commission decided to hold preliminary screening test for the purpose of selecting candidates for
appearing in the main examination, and, after various correspondences with the State Government, the Government approved the idea mooted out
by the Commission to hold a preliminary screening test and, thereafter, the preliminary test is being held to minimize the number of candidates for
the purpose of appearing in the main examination. This test was introduced for the first time for 38th Combined Competitive Examination. Though
the rule is silent about holding of the preliminary test, but, as the Government has approved the suggestion of the Commission for holding
preliminary test, there is no legal lacuna in holding the same. It is further contended that even assuming that there is no rule framed or instructions
issued by the State Government for holding preliminary test before holding the main examination for recruitment of the candidates for the various
posts under the State Government the steps taken by the Commission to hold preliminary test with a view to minimize the number of candidates,
cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary. With regard to the wrong questions and their key answers, it is stated that only two questions were
found incorrect, namely Q. No. 121 and Q. No. 130 and the Commission decided to award marks to all the candidates with regard to the said
question.
The other questions and their suggestive answers are correct in the opinion of the experts of the different subjects who have prepared the
questions and their key answers. After the filing of the writ applications, their opinion was sought for and they have stated that neither the questions
were incorrect nor their suggestive answers were incorrect. Lastly, it is submitted by the Commission that in pursuance of the observations made
by this Court, the Commission has framed rules known as Bihar Public Service Commission''s Rules of Procedure and the examination has been
conducted according to the provisions of the said rules.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 10171/94 has contended that as the revised syllabus has not been
approved by the State Government, as required by Rule 15 of the Rules, the Commission should hold the main examination on the basis of the
unrevised syllabus. The stand of the Commission regarding the syllabus is that the syllabus was approved by the Government prior to holding of the
main examination which was to commence from 5-12-94 and as such the point urged on behalf of the Petitioners is without any substance.
The Public Service Commissions at the Union as well as at the State level have been constituted with the object to recruit civil servants solely
on the basis of merits so that they may carry out the administration independently. The Commission is an autonomous body and it should consist of
men of high integrity and qualifications and it should also act fairly and impartially so that suspicions and doubts may not be raised against its
functioning. In the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, the Apex Court emphasised the importance and
role which the Public Service Commission in the State has to play in the following words:
The Public Service Commission occupies a pivotal place of importance in the State and the integrity and efficiency of its administrative apparatus
depends considerably on the quality of the selections made by the Public Service Commission. It is absolutely essential that the best and finest
talent should be drawn in the administration and administrative services must be composed of men who are honest, upright and independent and
who are not swayed by the political winds blowing in the country. The selection of candidates for the administrative services must therefore be
made strictly on merits, keeping in view various factors which go to make up a strong, efficient and people oriented administrator. This can be
achieved only if the Chairman and members of the Public Service Commission are eminent men possessing a high decree of caliber, competence
and integrity, who would inspire confidence in the public mind about the Objectivity and impartiality of the selections to be made by them. We
would therefore like to strongly impress upon every Stats Government to take care to see that its Public Service Commission is manned by
competent, honest and independent persons of outstanding ability and high reputation who command the confidence of the people and who would
not allow themselves to be deflected by any extraneous considerations from discharging their duty of making selections strictly on merits.
I have quoted these observations with a view to emphasise that the Commission at the State level has to play a very important role in shaping the
services under the State, as such it should be manned by persons of high integrity and caliber. All its actions concerning selection, appointment,
promotion of the public servants should not be only just and fair but it should appear also to be just and fair, so that people may not loose
confidence in the Commission. Any suspicion in the mind of people regarding the functioning of the Commission will have a disastrous effect
beyond repair. Unfortunately for some years in the past every examination held by the Commission has been challenged in the Court on the ground
of unfairness and other grounds. This Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar (supra) held that the manner in which 37th Combined Competitive
Examination was held was unsatisfactory. Similarly, in the case of Association of Civil Services Examinees (supra), this Court observed that the
working of the Commission discloses a sorry state of affairs. But this Court did not cancel the examinations in the larger public interest. However,
irregularities in the examination conducted in past could not be a ground for finding fault in this examination. It is for the non-selected Petitioners to
satisfy the Court that the preliminary examination is vitiated in law.
The first question for determination is as to whether the preliminary examination/test held by the Commission for selection of candidates for
appearing in the main examination is vitiated in law on the ground asserted on behalf of the non-selected Petitioners. It is admitted by both the
parties that the main examination is conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. The controversy is only with regard to holding of
preliminary test. Rule 4 of the Rules provides that the Commission shall announce in each year in such manner as they think fit, the number of
vacancies in each service to be filled by direct appointment on the result of a competitive examination and shall invite applications from candidates
eligible for appointment under Rules 6 and 7. Rule 5 provides that the Commission may fix a limit in any particular year as to the number of eligible
candidates to be admitted to the examination and if the number of candidates exceed the limit fixed, the Commission may make a preliminary
selection of candidates to be admitted to the written examination on the basis of their academic records, provided that no member of the scheduled
castes or the scheduled tribes who is eligible under the rules shall be excluded from appearing at the written examination.
According to the learned Counsel for the non-selected Petitioners, in case, where the applicants exceeded the number of eligible candidates to
be admitted to the examination, the procedure for short-listing the candidates as provided under Rule 5, has to be followed and the Commission
has no power to hold preliminary test in breach of the said rule. The stand of the Commission, on the other hand, is that as large number of
candidates used to apply for selection in the combined competitive examination, the Commission, with a view to minimize the number of
candidates, decided to hold preliminary screening test as far back as in the year 1990 and the decision was communicated to the State
Government and after several exchange of notes between the Commission and the Government, the Government by its Resolution dated 23rd
January, 1992 accepted the same and thereafter preliminary screening test is being held. It is also asserted that in the case of Sanjay Kumar
(supra), this Court approved the holding of preliminary screening test on the ground that the same would naturally reduce the number of candidates
who will finally take the written examination and number would once again come within the manageable limits. Again in the case of Association of
Civil Service Examinees v. Bihar Public Service Commission (supra), wherein 39th Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination was
challenged, this Court did not find any fault in holding of the preliminary test. No doubt, the Rules do not contemplate holding of preliminary
screening test, it only provides for preliminary selection on the basis of their academic records. But, the fact remains that the decision of the
Commission to hold preliminary test with a view to reduce the number of candidates for appearing in the main examination has been approved by
the State Government and, as such, it becomes a decision of the State Government. Even assuming that there is no approval of the State
Government, the decision of the Commission to hold a preliminary test with a view to reduce the number of candidates for the main examination
cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary.
The main hurdle in the way of the Petitioners to challenge the preliminary test is that they cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate. In the
advertisement in pursuance of which the unsuccessful candidates have applied, it was clearly mentioned that the preliminary test will be held for
selection of candidates in the main examination. They have appeared in the preliminary test and have taken a chance in the selection process and as
such this can not now be allowed to say that the rule does not provide for holding such preliminary test. After having acquiesced in that position
and having participated in the preliminary test and, now, after having not been selected, they cannot be allowed to find fault with the preliminary
test.
In the case of Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow 1978 L.I.C. 1546 the Appellant before the Supreme Court knowing full-well of the
constitution of the selection committee did not raise any objection regarding constitution of the selection committee, on the other hand, he appeared
before the same and took a chance of having a favourable recommendation. However, after he became unsuccessful, he challenged the constitution
of the selection committee. Dealing with the said matter, the Apex Court held that the Appellant having knowledge of constitution of the committee,
appeared before it and took a chance and as such it was not open for him to challenge the constitution of the committee.
In the case of I.L. Honnegonda v. The State of Karnataka AIR 1978 SC 28 the Appellant before the Supreme Court applied for the post of
Village Accountant under the relevant rule and appeared before the recruitment committee constituted under the said rule and later on he
challenged the constitutionality of the rules. The Apex Court held that the Appellant having taken a chance for selection cannot be allowed to
challenge the rule.
Thus, in my considered view once the unsuccessful candidates having appeared in the preliminary test/examination and taken their chance in the
selection process, could not be allowed to challenged the holding of preliminary test. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the contention raised
on behalf of the Petitioners.
The other ground of challenge on behalf of the non-selected Petitioners is that the key answers of more than 20 questions are either wrong or
incorrect or there is difference in English and Hindi versions of the questions and answers. The wrong key answers were evaluated and marks were
allotted to the successful candidates to the detriment of the Petitioners and on this ground alone the result is vitiated in the eye of law. According to
the Petitioners the following questions and their suggestive answers were wrong :
(a) Question Nos. 16, 78, 82, 98, 103 and 121 have no correct suggestive answers or options.
(b) Question Nos. 1, 35, 75 and 130 having two correct options.
(c) Question No. 12 is having different meaning in Hindi and English.
(d) Question Nos. 15, 25, 44, 88, 129, 133 and 177 have correct options but have different meaning in Hindi and English.
(e) Question No. 72 does not carry an appropriate word suited to the question.
Before discussing the said point it would be apt to state that the preliminary examination is an objective type of test consisting of 150 questions,
each question-carrying 1 (one) mark. Four responses or suggestive answers are given in Hindi and English against each question and the
candidates are required to give their answers on the computerised answer-sheets where there are four circles corresponding to four responses
given in the question papers. The answer-sheets are evaluated by O.M.R. (Optical Marks Reader) system. According to the Commission the
suggestive answers of only two questions, i.e. Q. Nos. 121 and 131 are incorrect one and other suggestive answers are correct. There are some
variation in Hindi and English version regarding questions and answers but the same are printing mistakes of insignificant nature. The Petitioners
cannot take advantage of the same. The questions and their suggestive answers have been selected by the experts of the concerned subjects and in
their opinion (vide Annexure-E series) the questions and their suggestive answers are correct one. As the examination is conducted by the
Commission and the questions and their key answers have been prepared by the experts of the concerned subjects unless it is proved that the
questions and their key answers are wrong, the Court cannot annul the result of the preliminary test only on the ground that by an inferential
process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation the key answers are held to be wrong. In the case of Kanpur University and Others Vs.
Samir Gupta and Others, the Apex Court held that ""it is true that the key-answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong
and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be dearly demonstrated
to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct"". It was
further held that ""where it is proved that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect, the students are entitled to
relief asked for. In case of doubt unquestionably the key answer has to be preferred. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be
unfair to penalise the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to
be wrong"".
Now, I will consider as to whether the questions as enumerated in (a) have no correct answer. So far as question No. 121 is concerned,
admittedly, the Commission has accepted that the key answer of the said question is wrong and, as such, it is not necessary to deal with the said
question. Question No. 16 reads thus:
Q. No. 16. Who wrote Barahmasa:
(a) Amir Khusrau,
(b) Isami,
(c) Malik Mohd. Jaisi,
(d) Raskhan.
According to the non-selected none of the responses are correct, as ""Barahmasa"" was written by a great poet Sundar Das, whereas, none of the
key options carry this correct option. In this connection the Petitioners relied upon the Books written by Acharya Ramchandra Shukla and A.L.
Srivastava. This question relates to the History and even the extract from Book written by Acharya Ramchandra Shukla shows that it is said that
Barahmasa"" has been written by Sundar Das. On the basis of the said book it cannot be said that the author of Barahmasa was Sundar Das. The
experts concerned has opined that one of the suggestive answers is correct one. In my view, in such a situation it can be said definitely that the key
answers of the said question is wrong one.
Q. No. 78. The total number of bones in human skull are:
(a) 8,
(b) 30,
(c) 32,
(d) 34.
According to the non-selected, there are 22 bones in the skull and in support of the same they have filed a Medical Dictionary by L.M. Harrison
and a Book by B.D. Chaurasia, which show that skull consists of 22 bones.
According to the learned Counsel for the Commission, response No. 1 of the said question is correct one. According to him the skull means
bony case that includes the brain. The brain case is composed of 8 bones as evident from the Book of Dr. Chaurasia relied upon by the Petitioner.
With a view to clarify the position we examined the Head of the Department of Zoology of the Patna University on this point and he has confirmed
that the total number of bones in the human skull is 22. Thus, the assertion made on behalf of the Petitioners is correct that none of the responses to
question No. 78 is correct one. Accordingly, there is no difficulty in holding that none of the key answers to question No. 78 is correct one.
The question No. 82 reads as follows:
Q. No. 82. Insulin is found in:
(a) Rhizome of ginger,
(b) Roots of Dahlia,
(c) Balsam flower,
(d) Potato tuber.
According to the non-selected none of the suggestive answers is correct, on the other hand, Insulin is found in the Roots of Dahlia, which is one of
the suggestive answers. To clarify the position we examined the expert. Head of the Department of Zoology, Patna University, who has slated that
Insulin is secreted by certain cells of pancreas and not by any of the four plants mentioned as alternatives to the question. Insulin, a poly-saccharide
is obtained from the roots of Dahlia, which is the second alternative for question No. 82. According to him this is a printing mistake. After having
considered the Books relied upon by the non-selected and the opinion of the expert, I am of the view that key answers to this question is incorrect
one.
Q. No. 98 reads as follows:
The depth of Ganga alluvial soil generally goes below the ground surface to the extent of:
(a) 6000 metres,
(b) 600 metres,
(c) 800 metres,
(d) 100 metres.
According to the non-selected the depth of Ganga alluvial soil goes below the surface to the extent of 400 metres. In support of their assertion the
Petitioners have relied upon a book Bharat Ka Brihat Bhugol by Dr. Chaturbhuj Mamoria, wherein it is stated that according to the records of the
Geological Survey of India, Vol. 68 Part 4 Page 372, the depth of Ganga alluvial soil goes up to the ground surface level to the extent of 400
metres. On the basis of the said extract it is difficult to accept the submission advanced on behalf of the non-selected as from perusal of the
relevant paragraph of the said book, which has been supplied to us, it is evident that in the said paragraph it it is clearly stated that until now the
depth of Ganga alluvial soil has not been definitely known but as a result of digging it has transpired that the depth is upto 400 metres. In such a
situation it cannot be said with definitness that none of the suggestive answers of question No. 98 is correct one, especially when the expert on the
subject concerned has reiterated that the correct response has been given to the said question.
Q. No. 103 reads as follows:
The coastline of India is:
(a) 6,200 Km long,
(b) 6,100 Km long,
(c) 5,985 Km long,
(d) 6,175 Km long.
According to the non-selected, the coastline of India is 7,516.6 Km. and, as such, none of the response is correct one.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Commission has supplied to us India 1993 Reference Annual, Published by the Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, Government of India, which shows that the Indian Coastline is more than 6000 Kms. long and the second alternative to question
No. 103 is 6,100 Kms. long. Thus, only on the basis of entry relied upon by the Petitioners it cannot be said that none of the alternatives of the
said question is correct one.
So far as the grievance of the non-selected that the four questions i.e. 1,35,75 and 130 have two correct options; is concerned, it is to be
slated that the Commission has admitted that key answers to question No. 130 is incorrect. The question No. 1 reads as follows:
Q. No. 1. Indus civilization falls in the period known as:
(a) Historical Period,
(b) Pre-Historical Period,
(c) Post-Historical Period,
(d) Proto-Historical Period.
According to the non-selecteds, this question has two correct options, namely, (b) and (d) and in support of their assertion they have relied upon
certain books written by the Historians. According to the Commission, only one option is correct one and in support of the same it has relied upon
the opinion of the concerned paper setter (Expert). A copy of his opinion has been appended to the counter affidavit. In view of the Commission''s
stand, the opinion of the expert shall prevail. Accordingly, the submission advanced on behalf of the non-selected with regard to this question has
to be rejected.
Q. No. 35 reads as follows:
I.N.A. was conceived and founded by:
(a) Subhash Chandra Bose,
(b) Dr. Mohan Singh,
(c) Chandra Sekhar Azad,
(d) Bhagat Singh.
According to the Petitioners, the correct option is Capt. Mohan Singh, but it is mentioned as Dr. Mohan Singh, and, as such, this question caused
confusion amongst the examinees. It is difficult to accept the suggestion, any students who have, knowledge to the subject will notice the correct
response. ""Dr."" has been misprinted for ""Capt"" and the Petitioners, who are unsuccessful candidates, cannot be allowed to take the benefit of the
said mistake.
Q. No. 75 runs as follows:
Members of the bee-colony recognise each other by:
(a) Smell,
(b) Vision,
(c) Dance,
(d) Touch.
According to the non-selected, the members of the bee-colony recognise each other by ""smell"" and ""vision"" both; whereas, in the suggestive
answers ""smell"" and ""vision"" have been given separately and, as such, the examinees could not answer the question correctly. On this question also
the Court took the opinion of the Head of the Department of Zoology, Patna University, who said that ""smell"" is an appropriate answer, because it
is the dominant means of recognition in the bee colony. ""Vision"" and ""Dance"" help in communication outside the bee-colony. ""Touch"" has a
subsidiary role in recognition. According to him, in objective test of this type, it is not unusual to place more than one alternative, out of which only
one is the major alternative. As such candidates putting ""smell"" for correct answer should be credited fully. Thus, in view of the opinion of the
expert, it is difficult to accept that the correct suggestive answer was not given in the aforesaid question.
So far as other defects pointed out by the non-selected are concerned, i.e. with regard to the variations regarding questions and suggestive
answers in Hindi and in English, I have gone through the aforesaid questions and answers and I am of the view that duo to printing mistakes there is
some variations between Hindi and English versions, but the same is not vital in nature and any candidate appearing in the examination knowing the
answer will select the correct alternative and, accordingly, mark the same in the answer-sheet. The unsuccessful students, cannot take the
advantage of the translation mistakes or printing errors which are of trivial or insignificant nature.
Thus, the suggestive answers of four questions i.e. questions No. 82, 78, 121 and 130 are incorrect. Two of them have already been noticed
by the Commission and the marks have been awarded to all the candidates. So far as other two questions are concerned, the suggestive answers
are incorrect. Now, the question is as to whether on this ground alone the preliminary test has to be held to be vitiated. The total marks in the
preliminary test is 150. It is an admitted fact that more than one lack candidates had appeared in the examination and thereafter 11,000 candidates
have been selected for appearing in the main examination, the unsuccessful candidates did not object to the aforesaid mistakes either during the
examination or filed any objection soon after the examination that they were prejudiced and suffered because of the aforesaid wrong suggestive
answers. On the other hand, they waited for the result of the examination and only when they became unsuccessful they have come out with this
case in this Court. They have stated in the writ applications that they had brought the aforesaid mistakes to the notice of the Commission, but
nothing has been brought on their behalf on the record to show that such things have been brought to the notice of the Commission, the
Commission has emphatically denied that at any point of time they informed about the mistakes in response to the questions.
No doubt, there are mistakes in the alternative answers or responses to the four questions, but on that basis it cannot be said that the
Commission adopted any unfair means or acted in an unfair manner, on the other hand, the aforesaid mistakes appear to have been committed by
the experts to whom the work of setting of questions and their suggestive answers was entrusted. It cannot be said that there was unfair treatment
to the non-selected in particular. All the candidates including the successful candidates have answered the same set of questions and in that view of
the matter either all the candidates have suffered equally or took advantages of wrong suggestive answers. In that view of the matter, inspite of the
aforesaid errors, in my view, it would not be proper to quash the preliminary test for the aforesaid defects.
So far as the last submission advanced on behalf of the non-selected is concerned, it is to be stated that this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar
v. B.P.S.C. (supra) in paragraph 26 observed as follows:
In the absence of any rule making power (conferred by the Constitution) all that can be said is that the rules framed by the Commission will not be
statutory in nature. The absence of any rule making power under the Constitution surely does not prohibit the Commission from framing rules,
norms or guidelines for the transaction of its business and to carry out its different constitutional duties and functions. Such rules will be operational
and binding irrespective of the fact that they may not be statutory but only administrative in nature provided of course they satisfy the tests of
fairness and reasonableness. These will be highly useful in providing the much needed guidelines in the functioning of the Commission and shall go a
long way in saving it from any controversies of the present kind.
In pursuance of the aforesaid observation, the Commission has framed the Rules as mentioned above. The said Rules have been framed by the
Commission, which means that all the members have participated in framing the said Rules. According to the Rule 3(1) the business of the
Commission shall be transacted either by the Commission or by one or two members including the Chairman as specified in the Schedule. Sub-rule
(2) of Rule 3 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rule (1) the Chairman may, if he considers necessary and expedient to do so
in public interest, direct that any particular matter or business, be placed before the Commission for disposal. Schedule to the said ''Rules provides
that the task of making examination rules including scheme of examination and syllabus has been entrusted to two members nominated by the
Chairman. The existing policy of conduct of examination could be changed only by the Commission. It has been specifically stated in the affidavit
filed on behalf of the Commission that the examination has been conducted according to the rules. Thus, no fault can be found in the conduct of the
examination by the Commission on the ground asserted by the non-selected. Thus, none of the submissions advanced on behalf of non-selected for
cancelling the preliminary test is sustainable in law.
So far as the grievance of the Petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 10171/94 is concerned, it is to be stated that they are the successful candidates and
their claim is that the examination is to be conducted on the basis of old syllabus and not on the basis of the revised syllabus, which has not been
approved by the Government, in terms of Rule 15 of the Rules.
From the materials on the record, as mentioned above, it is evident that before the commencement of the main examination the revised syllabus
has been approved by the State Government, and, as such, the very ground to challenge the conduct of main examination, on the basis of revised
syllabus, does not survive. The date of the examination cannot be fixed according to the choice of each candidate. They have been given sufficient
time to appear in the examination. None of the submissions advanced on their behalf is acceptable.
In the result, there is no merit in these writ applications and, accordingly, they are dismissed.
In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost.
Ashish N. Trivedi, J.
I agree.