February 02, 2019:
On Wednesday, the Bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Prateek Jalan of Hon'ble High Court, decides upon petitioner's claim to have found errors in the questions/ answer key of seven questions.
Brief facts are:
Six petitioners have preferred the present writ petition before the High Court to assail some aspects of the Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2018.
The petitioners participated in the preliminary examination. They claim that they were not declared as qualified in the preliminary examination on account of some demonstrable and palpable errors in the questions/ answer keys. Upon scrutiny of the questions and the key answers, the petitioners claim to have found errors in the questions/ answer key of seven questions.
Arguments:
Their main contention is if rectification/ deletion of the errors found by them in the question paper/ key answers is undertaken, they shall qualify in the preliminary examination and become entitled to participate in the main examination.
The petitioners state that the General Instructions dated 04.01.2019 for the guidance of the candidates appearing in the Delhi Judicial Service
(Preliminary) Examination, 2018, were uploaded on 07.01.2019.
Another grievance raised by them is that the said instructions were notified barely six days before the date of the examination i.e. 13.01.2019. Even these instructions contained a stipulation, which barred the candidates from raising any objections to the questions and answer keys. The petitioners claim that such a general instruction itself is arbitrary and irrational, and falls foul of the principal of natural justice and fairness.
Petitioners submit that this procedure was itself faulty and the respondent could have avoided the situation which has now arisen, if the answer key had first been uploaded; objections invited; objections considered and; thereafter the answer key finalized before marking of the answer scripts of the candidates.
Observations by the High Court:
- While framing the questions and providing for four different options as the possible answers, the endeavour of the examiners is to, inter alia, examine the intelligence, knowledge and clarity on the subject, which the candidates possess. Thus, the four options need not necessarily contain only one possible correct answer. However, for each question, there is one “most
appropriate answer”.
- In a system of “Multiple Choice Question type test”, care is required to be taken to see that questions having an ambiguous import are not set in the question paper.
- The procedure adopted by the respondent of publishing the result of the preliminary examination without first uploading the answer key and inviting objections, cannot be faulted. No prejudice has been suffered by the petitioners, since answer key was uploaded well before the holding of the main examination on the basis of the result declared, and the petitioners have had their opportunity to ventilate their grievance before this Court.
- Their grievance that the General Instructions dated 04.01.2019 barred the raising of objections to the questions or the answer key has not precluded them from approaching this Court. The respondent has not sought dismissal of this petition by relying upon the said clause. Thus, the said grievance is academic.
Partially allowing the Wit Petition, the High Court has directed the respondent to treat option (1) i.e. “is an equitable principle” and
option (4) i.e. “is codified in Indian Law” as equally “most appropriate answers in respect of question No. 183 in the series “B” question booklet.
Thus, all those candidates, who have marked option (1) as the correct answer, as well as those candidates who have marked option (4) as the
correct answer for the said question, should be awarded 1 mark.
The Registrar General, DHC should re-draw the result of the preliminary examination after taking into account the decision arrived at by the Examination-Cum-Judicial Education and Training Programme Committee in its meeting held on 29.01.2019, which has been approved by the Hon’ble Chief Justice, as well as in the light of this decision before proceeding to hold the main examination.
Read Judgment @ LatestLaws.com
ANJALI GOSWAMI & ORS vs REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT 30.01.2019 DHC(Downloadable PDF)
