Paramjeet Nagar & Ors. vs Staff Selection Commission & Ors.

Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member(J)

The present OA has been filed by the applicants, 40 in number aggrieved by the evaluation process adopted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) in connection with the Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE) – 2015 have approached this Tribunal seeking the following relief:-

“(a) Call for the records of the case including the OMR answersheets of the applicants and the answer key (i) applied by the SSC for evaluating the same

(b) direct the SSC to rectify its answerkey(s) wherever the incorrect answers have been treated as correct and publish the same,

(c) direct the SSC invite objections and thus consider the same to delete the wrong questions in the questions papers

(d) direct the SSC to apply 'scaling' so that they parity in the difficulty level is ensured

(e) quash and set aside the results of Tier-l examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission towards CGLE-2015 and/or the results thereof and

(f) direct the SSC to get all the answersheets re-evaluated from an independent recruiting agency of the Govt. or a Committee of experts be directed to be constituted for the aforesaid purposes

(g) To award the costs of the proceedings, and

(h) Pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicants and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case”

The applicants, being fully eligible, had applied for various Group 'B' and 'C' civil posts under Ministries/Organizations of the Union of India pursuant to an advertisement issued by SSC in May 2015. As per the said advertisement, Tier-I of the CGLE was scheduled for 09.08.2015 and 16.08.2015, in morning and evening shifts.

The examination comprised four parts: General Intelligence & Reasoning (Part A), General Awareness (Part B), Quantitative Aptitude (Part C), and English Comprehension (Part D). Each part carried 50 questions with a negative marking of 0.25 per wrong answer. The applicants duly appeared in their respective shifts and completed the examination.

The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that SSC published a provisional answer key on 01.09.2015 and invited objections. However, the manner in which the answer key was uploaded prevented candidates from downloading or preserving it for further reference. Despite several objections being submitted, pointing out numerous incorrect answers in the answer key, SSC failed to publish a revised or final key. Thereafter, results and marks were declared on 29.09.2015 and 01.10.2015 respectively, with a vague statement that representations had been considered without disclosing which objections were accepted or rejected.

He argued that the evaluation reveals grave inconsistencies. For example, applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 27, who were entitled to marks above 100 as per the key itself, were awarded grossly low marks such as 5, 95, and 97.5 respectively. Despite filing RTI applications, many applicants were not provided their OMR sheets or the applied answer key. In some instances where OMR sheets were supplied, the corresponding answer keys were withheld. This has rendered it impossible for the applicants to verify their scores.

Furthermore the counsel highlighted that different test form numbers were used across shifts, with identical questions shuffled in sequence. Thus, distinct answer keys must have been applied. Yet SSC failed to clarify or publish these.

Further, it is emphasized that the difficulty level of the evening shift paper of 16.08.2015 was significantly higher than other shifts. This has prejudiced candidates of that shift, as no scaling or normalization of marks was applied despite established practice in agencies like UPSC and RRB. He therefore contended that this flawed evaluation has resulted in denial of fair assessment, lower marks, and ultimately exclusion from the Tier-II examination. They submit that the SSC has not acted in a transparent or fair manner, failing in its duty as a public authority.

After issuance of notices in the OA, the respondent i.e. SSC is contesting the case and has filed its reply.

Learned counsel for the respondent relying on the reply, submitted that the SSC has in place a robust and transparent mechanism for handling candidate grievances relating to answer keys. Upon publication of the tentative answer keys on the official website, representations and objections from candidates were duly invited and thoroughly examined by a panel of Subject Experts. Based on these representations, the Commission revised the answer keys wherever required. It is noteworthy that the evaluation of all OMR sheets was carried out based on these finalized and revised answer keys.

He submits that the revised final answer keys, though not re-published on the website, were meticulously prepared after careful consideration of all representations and objections. This process ensures that no incorrect answer key remains uncorrected, thereby preserving fairness. To enhance transparency further, the Commission has adopted a policy to upload the final answer keys for Tier-II examinations where candidate numbers are more manageable.

Concerning the alleged lack of uniformity and higher difficulty level in the evening shift question paper of 16.08.2015 compared to other shifts. He submitted that the CGLE was conducted in multiple shifts to prevent malpractices and maintain examination integrity, given the vast number of candidates. Different sets of question papers were prepared under strict guidelines by a panel of highly qualified Subject Experts. These Experts select questions from a pre-validated question bank, ensuring uniformity in terms of syllabus, standard, and difficulty level. Each question paper set undergoes a rigorous validation and moderation process, which includes review by independent Experts to maintain parity across shifts. Hence, the Commission ensures, to the maximum extent feasible, an equitable distribution of question difficulty across all sets and the claim that the evening shift paper was excessively tough or lengthy is speculative and lacks objective evidence.

As for the Evaluation Process and OMR Re-Checking he submitted that the evaluation of OMR sheets was carried out by an automated computer system strictly based on the revised answer keys. After the filing of the present OA, a manual re-evaluation of the OMR sheets of all Applicants, was conducted. This re-examination confirmed that the computer-based evaluation was accurate and consistent with the final answer keys.

Furthermore, it was found that Applicant No. 1 i.e. Shri Paramjeet Nagar’s OMR sheet was evaluated based on an incorrect test form number, which was the Applicant’s own error. This led to evaluation against a wrong answer key, for which the Commission cannot be held responsible. The Commission is bound by the conditions of the examination, which clearly state that incorrect or mismatched coding of test form numbers results in disqualification.

He therefore submitted that the Commission has acted fairly, impartially and with complete transparency throughout the examination process. The SSC has also taken proactive steps to address all legitimate grievances raised by the candidates. This includes revision of answer keys wherever mistakes were identified and granting benefits to affected candidates in appropriate cases.

Heard the parties and perused the documents on record.

The Applicants have approached this Tribunal aggrieved of the results of Tier-I of the Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE) 2015 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC), alleging disparity in the difficulty level of question papers across different shifts, erroneous answer keys, and unfair evaluation.

It is not in dispute that the SSC, after conducting the examination in multiple shifts, uploaded tentative answer keys and invited representations from candidates. The Commission has explained in detail the mechanism in place for expert review of such objections and subsequent revision of answer keys. In this case, the answer keys of 13 questions were indeed revised after due consideration.

The Applicants' grievance primarily appears to be based on their perception that the question paper administered during their shift i.e. the evening shift of 16.08.2015 was of a higher difficulty level compared to other shifts. However, we find merit in the Respondents’ explanation that due to logistical and administrative constraints, identical question papers cannot be given to all candidates. Nevertheless, SSC has submitted that panels of Subject Experts are engaged to ensure that different sets of papers are balanced in terms of difficulty and syllabus, and that such moderation is a recognized practice in large-scale examinations. In this case substantive evidence has been brought on record by the Applicants to challenge the integrity or fairness of the Respondents’ moderation procedure.

Not only that a key aspect that reinforces the fairness of the SSC’s conduct is its post-facto action upon filing of the OA. It has been affirmed and supported by documents (Annexure RA-1) that all 40 Applicants’ OMR answer sheets were manually re-evaluated in addition to the computer-based evaluation. The Respondents have convincingly submitted that the computerized marks awarded were accurate and in accordance with the finalized answer keys.

In our considered view, the entire process conducted by the SSC from question setting, answer key revision, to evaluation appears to have been conducted in a systematic, expert-driven, and transparent manner. The Applicants have not demonstrated any violation of their legal or fundamental rights. The mere fact that their performance was not as per expectation, or that they were unsuccessful in Tier-I, cannot be a ground to invalidate the entire examination process, which was applied uniformly to lakhs of candidates.

In view of the above, this Tribunal finds no merit in the present OA. The process adopted by the Respondents appears fair, transparent, and consistent with established norms. Accordingly, this OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.