Rajendra Kumar Gupta vs State of Rajasthan and Another

Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.—By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the final answer key of ILR Examination, 2011, Paper-I and Paper-II for selection to the post of Land Revenue Inspector. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the Advertisement, the petitioner along with others submitted applications. They were called for written examination, which was objective type. After appearance in the selection test, respondent issued provisional answer key and sought objections. The petitioner submitted detail objection to the aforesaid vide Annexure-4. The respondent did not consider these objections and issued final answer key vide Annexure-5, followed by select list of the candidates. There 21 questions were deleted followed by grant of bonus marks. The petitioner''s objection to various questions have not been dealt with, thus, even the second and final answer key declared by the respondent calls for interference. Petitioner disputed the answer key for various questions of Paper-I and Paper-II, supported by required material, yet it was ignored by the respondents. Certain questions were even out of syllabus. Taking into consideration the discrepancies in the answer key, the final answer key prepared by the respondent may be quashed and set aside with the direction to look into objection of the petitioner and issue fresh answer key thereupon.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

It is a case where petitioner appeared for the selection to the post of Land Revenue Inspector. After appearance in the selection test, respondent issued answer key to call upon the objections. The petitioner accordingly submitted certain objections to the answers giving out either it to be out of syllabus or the answer keys contain incorrect answers. The respondent thereupon issued final answer key wherein various questions were deleted with the award of bonus marks. The issue of my consideration is as to whether deletion of questions with award of bonus marks is justified in the facts and circumstances or not?; and consequently, as to whether the publication of final answer after calling objection needs further interference by this Court.

So far as the deletion of certain questions with award of bonus marks is concerned, it is nothing but consequence of the objections raised by the various candidates including the petitioner. Petitioner raised objections regarding question Nos. 36, 38, 40 and 42 of Series B for Paper-I showing it to be out of syllabus. All these questions have been deleted by the respondents. It is apart from other questions and answers, which have been corrected while issuing final answer key. It includes correction of one of the question of Paper-II pursuant to the objection of the petitioner.

In view of above, I find justification on the part of the respondents to delete the questions containing either incorrect answer or is out of syllabus and if question itself was incorrect. It was in the circumstances mention that bonus marks have been awarded so that no candidate is put to loss for a question incorrectly set or containing no correct answer or is out of syllabus. The award of bonus marks have not effected anyone. It is though correct to state that now the determination of merits would be out of 79 questions only.

It is true that the respondent should have been careful in setting out the questions so as the answer key. However, human errors are possible. Thus, need to be corrected with the best possible mechanism. The respondents have done it in the instant case. Though, the respondents are directed to remain careful in future while setting out the question paper and answer key because it concerns to the candidates and their service career.

So far as the issue regarding objection to the question raised by petitioner is concerned, I find that many of the questions said to be out of syllabus have been deleted by the respondents and even question No. 13 of Paper-II has been corrected as per the request of the petitioner. It cannot, thus, be said that petitioner''s representation has not been taken into consideration. In fact, the respondents have corrected the question which may be with the opinion of expert and otherwise. Such opinions cannot be substituted by this Court in all the cases while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless glaring mistakes have been shown therein.

As regards the system of ''Multiple Choice Objective-type test'', Hon''ble the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider such situation in the judgment of Kanpur University and Others Vs. Samir Gupta and Others, In that case, there was a challenge to the correctness of some of the answers of the key. The matter was decided by the Allahabad High Court by taking a particular view. While disposing of the appeal, the Supreme Court indicated principle to be adopted while dealing with such matter. The Supreme Court in Para 18 observed ad infra:

In a system of ''Multiple Choice Objective-type test, care must be taken to see that question having an ambiguous import are not set in the papers. That kind of system of examination involves merely the tick-marking of the correct answer. It leave no scope for reasoning or argument. The answer is ''yes'' or ''no''. That is why the questions have to be clear and unequivocal. Lastly, if the attention of the University is drawn to any defect in a key answer or any ambiguity in a question set in the examination, prompt and time decision must be taken by the University to declare that the suspect question will be excluded from the paper and no marks assigned to it.

In a recent judgment in H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and Another, the Apex Court held as under: In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for respondent No. 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court.

In view of above, I am unable to accept any of contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent can delete a question in a given circumstances without awarding any mark or by giving bonus marks to equalise every one. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.