The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently quashed entry-level examination for the post of Civil Judge on founding that 41 Questions out of 100 questions set up in the exam were wrong.
CASE BACKGROUND
Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission conducted the on-line written examination for the post of Civil Judge (Entry Level) Examination 2019 on 07th May 2019 in which many aspirant applicants took part.
As contended by the petitioners, Model Key Answer Sheets published in regard to the exams have 30 questions out of 100 questions, apparently wrong as they contain certain defects of incorrect answers and wrong phraseology including spelling mistakes in questions and answers and there has also been variance between the English and Hindi versions of question & answers.
The petitioners further contended that they had answered/ chosen correct answers and due to the wrong deletion of some questions/answers, based on objections they received an equal distribution of marks but individually correct answers were given. So those students deprived of full marks whereby their merit was brought down. It is stated that such incorrect evaluation resulted in the wrong allotment of marks, consequently, petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire result of written examination of Civil Judge (Entry Level) Examination 2019 and sought for consequential reliefs.
The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission while presenting its case, submitted that petitioners without tallying and comparing the questions with the Set 'A' of PSC published have drawn a presumption that the model answers published are incorrect. It was stated that few of the questions/answers were never objected except 3 questions.
It is stated that the objections raised by the petitioners were dealt with and after assessment made by the 3 Experts Committee consisting of Senior Addl. District Judges, the objections were rejected by the Committee. It is further stated that on account of reasons mentioned in the note sheets prepared against those questions and answers, primarily in both the versions i.e., English and Hindi either the questions were vague or suggested answers were not correct or none of the suggested answers were correct, therefore, those questions were dropped.
In furtherance, the Expert Committee ultimately suggested and amended the correct answers to some of the objectional questions. Some questions were deleted for all the candidates who had appeared in the examination, thereby no prejudice is caused to any particular candidate as the marks for one deleted question was distributed to the ratio of 1.2195 to all the examinees. It was explained to the Court that how 'Sets' are constructed to remove any sort of prejudice to students.
It was also mentioned how shuffling of the question hadn't been an odd and how fairly marks had been awarded for deleted questions. Referring to case law laid down in (2018) 8 SCC 81 it is further submitted that as per the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court, the objections to the 8 questions have been dealt with. The Learned Counsel was of the opinion that once the objection has been dealt with by the Expert Committee, it cannot be challenged before this Court.
It is further submitted that as many as a total of 4681 candidates have appeared in the examination and out of that, 427 candidates were chosen and before this Court only 8 candidates i.e., petitioners have objected and the objections would relate to only 9 questions.
It is stated that the question papers published by the PSC inset 'A', the objections having been invited, 157 persons objected to total 49 questions and out of 49 questions, 12 were deleted by the Expert Committee, thereby 37 questions remain undecided. He stated that in 4 questions, answers were corrected and the options were with questions bearing no. 22, 41, 99 & 100 whereas 33 questions were found not required to be corrected. Referring to further answers, it is stated that for Model Answer 'A', few of the questions were objected on the ground that there are differences between English and Hindi version, however, the expert committee did not find appropriate to delete the same. It is stated that the same cannot be subject of the question.
The Learned Counsel then referred to case laws reported in (2018) 7 SCC 254 (U.P. Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh); (2018) 8 SCC 81 (Richal Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission); (2018) 2 SCC 357 (Ran Vijay Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh) and (2018) 15 SCC 796 (Union Public Service Commission Vs. M. Sathiya Priya) to submit that precedents of Supreme Court in the mentioned cases would show that interference in the matters of academic nature should not be made as has been laid down by the Supreme Court and would submit that the decision of expert in a field would bind the court and the challenge can be made on a very limited ground and the opinion of the expert has to be given due weight.
Learned Counsel would further submit that it was not permissible for the Court to examine the question paper and the answer sheets itself when the PSC has assessed the inter-se merit of the candidates and if there is discrepancy in framing the questions or evaluation of the answers it would be for all the candidates, therefore, no prejudice is to have been caused to anyone.
The Court duly analyzed the submission of both the sides and researched on the behavior and pattern of the examination. Sample papers had also been submitted before the Court. The Bench was of the opinion that it cannot over-look and sideline the pattern of examination as the examination was to choose a competent Civil Judge.
Regarding the cases cited, it said that Supreme Court while evaluating the gravity of Judicial Officer's Post has drawn a line of distinction between a general candidate of selection other than that for a Judge.
To make the point, the Court highlighted the recent case of Shri Rang Wagmare vs. the State of Maharashtra.
In the particular case, SC held that the Judges must remember that they aren't merely employees but hold the Public Office. The SC reiterating the judgement made in
R.C. Chandel Vs. High Court 13 of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 8 SCC 58 in which it was held that the standard of conduct expected of a Judge is much higher than that of an ordinary person.
The SC the Court has further held that the judge must decide the case only on the basis of facts on records and the law applicable to the case. It categorically held that if the judge decides a case for extraneous reasons then he is not performing his duties in accordance with the law which shows the value of the post of a judge and the duty he would discharge.
The Top Court thus was of the opinion that considering the post for which a candidate is to be selected, the selection process including the examination should also stand the test of purity devoid of any confusion deciding a fact on extraneous considerations by drawing a presumption.
Thus in the present case, the Court was conscious of the fact that the examination was conducted for selection of Civil Judge and after going through the nature of questions as the same does not refer to any serious statutory interpretation or intricate question of law, this Court would deal to examine the question and answers including the findings of experts on objections.
It also became obvious that when the High Court in deciding the case in respect of competitive examination, which pertains to questions and answers for selection of a candidate to the post of Civil Judge being of the nascent stage of law, it can certainly examine the same while adjudicating.
Thus in present case, in its judgment, the Court made clear that the SC has time and again placed the Post of Judge into a different category in a separate compartment, therefore, it cannot be compared at par with the other civil posts.
Pointing at the present case it said that the questions framed and the answers given are in respect of the law. These are not so complicated or require intricated interpretation of the law and the answer is available in the statute book and the dictums laid down by the Supreme Court and the High Court. Therefore, the answers given by the experts in respect of law can always be tested by the High Court and it can certainly look into correctness of it and if found wrong, it cannot shut its eyes on the ground that the answers given by the expert are final. The nature of questions does not show that the questions & answers are so tough that the Courts cannot understand. The questions framed by the PSC are the basic fundamental questions which can always be tested by application of open book procedure of statute. The Expert Committee appears to have dealt with the issue little casually and should have taken it more seriously as it pertains to the appointment of Civil Judges, who would be the future Judges and would hold the high office in the judiciary.
In regard to the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission being a statutory body, the Court remarked the maxim “omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta” i.e., all acts are presumed to have been rightly and regularly done, is 53 chiefly applied to judicial and officials acts as per Section 114 (e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. and presumed that presumed that the questions written on the question paper are rightly written and asked.
The Court then exercised its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by stating that the power under Article 226 are extraordinary, discretionary and equitable and is required to be exercised in the larger interest of justice and once a wrong is brought to the notice of the High Court, it can look into all the aspects of the lis. The Court thus, therefore, in the present case, can look into the correctness of the questions asked in the question paper though not objected by any of the examinees.
The Court thus considering the degree and percentage of defects in the question papers quashed the examination conducted.
It said:
"The Court after the examination cannot allow it as one horse-race but would accept the steep challenge with an idea of reform. Serving certain problems requires multi prolonged approach and reform and they will persist if we view through narrow lens and the carelessness will always have a price. Consequently, the way in which the entire examination was conducted cannot be allowed to sustain"
The P.S.C. was thus directed to conduct a fresh preliminary examination with no separate examination fees.
The judgement has been delivered by Judge GOUTAM BHADURI on 15-11-2019.\
Read Judgement Here;
