Jyoti vs Uttarakhand Public Service Commission

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission to grant the petitioner two more marks for giving the correct answer to Question No. 4(b)(iv) of General Hindi, taking the total marks obtained by the petitioner, in the General Hindi Examination, to 88 in the place of 86, and the total marks obtained in the Main Examination from 816.2826 to 818.2826, which is above the cut-off marks of the successful Uttarakhand Female Category candidate for P.C.S. Examination/Subordinate Service Exam 2010; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent-Commission to interview the petitioner for selection in the executive branch post for which the last cut-off marks, for appearing in the interview, was declared as 816.5741 marks.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioner appeared for selection in the Provincialised Civil Services Examination pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (for short the "Commission") on 11.03.2011. She was declared successful in the preliminary examination, and to have qualified to appear in the main examination. She, thereafter, appeared in the main examination, the result of which was declared showing her not to have qualified to appear in the interview. The petitioner, thereafter, sought information under the Right to Information Act, and was furnished a copy of her answer-sheet. As against the total marks prescribed for Hindi paper of 100, the petitioner secured 86 marks. On verification of her answer-sheet, she found that for Question No. 4(b)(iv), which carried two marks, she was wrongly given "zero" marks, though she had written the correct answer. She claims that, if she had been given "two" marks, she would then have secured more marks than the last Uttarakhand (Women) category candidate who was called for interview. The interview process was undertaken by the Commission in January, 2015, and the interviewed candidates were selected and appointed thereafter.

Question No. 4 required the candidates to give the antonym (opposite) of certain Hindi words. Question No. 4(b)(iv) contained the word "चिरंतन" for which the petitioner answered the opposite to be "नष्वर". According to Mr. I.P. Gairola, learned counsel for the petitioner, the word "चिरंतन" means indestructible for which the opposite word is destructible, which translated into Hindi is "नष्वर", and the petitioner had rightly answered this question. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel, on several textbooks of Hindi Grammar, to contend that the answer furnished by the petitioner was correct.

The present writ petition has been pending on the file of this Court for the past four years, and no interim order was passed therein directing that one post be kept vacant/unfilled. Consequently all the posts, for which the selection process was undertaken, must have been filled up.

In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondent, it is stated by the Secretary of the Public Service Commission that the answer-sheets of every candidate is checked impartially by experts in the concerned subject; the Commission does not interfere with the experts' opinion; the answer-sheet of the petitioner was evaluated by the subject expert who did not find the answer "नष्वर" to be the correct; since the subject expert did not accept the answer "नष्वर" to be the correct answer, he did not award marks to the petitioner; and the results were prepared by the Commission on the basis of merit and the qualifications of the candidates.

Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Standing Counsel for the Commission, would submit that there is no provision in the Rules for re-evaluation of the answer-sheets; the respondent-Commission entrusts the task of evaluating answer-sheets to subject experts; on the basis of the marks, as evaluated by the subject experts, candidates are ranked in the order of their merit; the most meritorious candidates in each category are appointed to various posts; and, in the present case, the subject expert in Hindi had held the answer of the petitioner to be wrong.

Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission, would place before us an internal report of the Commission, to which is enclosed the opinion of the expert wherein he has stated that the antonym of the word "चिरंतन" is "क्षणभंगुर". While Mr. I.P. Gairola, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that a word may have several antonyms, and not necessarily one alone, we may not be justified in sitting in judgment over the view of the expert in the subject, or to take upon ourselves the task of deciding which is the correct antonym of the word "चिरंतन", in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Article 315(1) of the Constitution of India stipulates that subject to the provisions of this Article, there shall be a Public Service Commission for each State. Article 320(3) of the Constitution of India requires the State Public Service Commission to be consulted on the principles to be followed in making appointments to civil services and posts, and on the suitability of candidates for such appointments.

A selection process is undertaken by the Commission, at the request of the State Government, for appointment to posts in the Provincialised Civil Services. The procedure adopted by the Commission is to have the answer-sheets evaluated by subject experts. In the present case, the subject expert in Hindi awarded the petitioner "0"marks finding her answer, as the opposite of the word "चिरंतन" to be "नष्वर", to be wrong, which the petitioner claims is erroneous as she had given the right answer and ought to have been awarded "02" marks instead of the zero marks which she was given on the erroneous premise that she had given a wrong answer. It is no doubt true that, if the petitioner had been awarded "02" marks for that answer, she would have secured 818.28 as against 816.28 marks awarded to her; and if she had been awarded 818.28 marks, she would have secured more marks than the last candidate in the Uttarakhand (Women) category to be called for interview, who had secured 816.57 marks.

While the submission, urged on behalf of the petitioner, is no doubt persuasive, we must bear in mind that neither do we have the required expertise in the subject, nor would it be permissible for us to enter into the domain of experts and re-evaluate the petitioner's answer-sheet, more so in a case where the Rules of the Public Service Commission do not provide for any such exercise of re-evaluation. We may not be understood to have held that subject experts never err or that, in the present case, the subject expert was right and the petitioner was wrong in her claim that the antonym of the word "चिरंतन" is "नष्वर". All that we have held is that, in the absence of a provision for re-evaluation of answer-sheets, this Court would be loathe to direct the Public Service Commission to undertake such an exercise, as there may well be several other candidates who were also not awarded any marks for this or other questions, and permitting re-evaluation in one case may necessitate extending the said benefits to others also.

In Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Rahul Singh and another : (2018) 7 SCC 254 the Supreme Court, relying upon its earlier judgment in Ran Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. : (2018) 2 SCC 357, held that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet; if an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers; the entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or are dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous answer; all candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more, but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible; the examination authorities are placed in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny, and not the candidates; while there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination; the enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who had successfully participated in the examination, and the examination authorities; and the consequence of such interference, where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of several years, may not be justified.

While Mr. I.P. Gairola, learned counsel for the petitioner, would draw our attention to paragraph no. 30.2 of the very same judgment in Ran Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. : (2018) 2 SCC 357, to submit that the Court may permit re-evaluation if the error is demonstrable, and that the present case falls under the said rare and exceptional category since a material error has been committed, we are satisfied that this Court should not take upon itself the task of assessing whether or not the answer given by the petitioner is right or wrong, or to sit in judgment over the evaluation of her answer-sheet by the subject expert, when Courts lacks expertise in such matters.

As there is no provision for re-evaluation of answer-sheets in the Rules framed by the Public Service Commission, the jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be invoked by the petitioner requesting that her answer-sheet be re-evaluated; and, since the entire process of selection has been completed and the selected candidates appointed, it would not be possible to re-do the entire exercise all over again, or to adjust the petitioner in the subsequent process of selection. Accepting the petitioner's contention that since her answer was correct she should be permitted to appear in the interview, would result in cancellation of the appointment of the last selected candidate in Uttarakhand (Women) category, and in directing the Public Service Commission to consider the petitioner for appointment in her place. No such order can be passed behind the back of the last selected candidate, and without her being given an opportunity of being heard. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere.

The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.