Allahabad High Court
Sunil Kumar Singh And 61 Ors. vs State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. on 9 December, 2016
Bench: Dilip Gupta, Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Reserved
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 28971 of 2016
Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Singh And 61 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Mishra,Abhishek Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav,Virendra Pal Varshney
CONNECTED WITH
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 28794 of 2016
Petitioner :- Sudhir Tripathi And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satendra Tirpathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav
WITH
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 28934 of 2016
Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Verma And 6 Others
Respondent :- U.P. Public Service Commission And Anr.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Maurya,Sanjay Maurya
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav
WITH
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29364 of 2016
Petitioner :- Prashant Yadav And 2 Ors.
Respondent :- U.P. Public Service Commission And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- Nisheeth Yadav
WITH
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29455 of 2016
Petitioner :- Gyanendra Kumar Kanaujia
Respondent :- U.P. Public Service Commission And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyaveer Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Nisheeth Yadav
WITH
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29457 of 2016
Petitioner :- Harpal
Respondent :- U.P. Public Service Commission And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyaveer Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Nisheeth Yadav
WITH
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29475 of 2016
Petitioner :- Om Prakash Yadav And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gautam
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav
WITH
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29500 of 2016
Petitioner :- Nitin Kumar Singh And 12 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Nath Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav
WITH
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29546 of 2016
Petitioner :- Narendra Kumar And 2 Ors.
Respondent :- U.P. Public Service Commission And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Avinash Mani Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav
WITH
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29642 of 2016
Petitioner :- Hemant And 4 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shad Khan,Mumtaz Ali
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav
WITH
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29698 of 2016
Petitioner :- Pankaj Gahlaut And 4 Others
Respondent :- Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad & Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satendra Bahadur Yati
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav
WITH
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29727 of 2016
Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Singh And 6 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav
WITH
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29771 of 2016
Petitioner :- Deepak Kumar Singh And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Devendra Vikram Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav
WITH
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29918 of 2016
Petitioner :- Vikash Kumar Pandey And 20 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Mishra,Abhishek Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav
WITH
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30264 of 2016
Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Kumar Jaiswal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav,Y.K.Srivastva
WITH
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30560 of 2016
Petitioner :- Amita Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shantanu Khare,Ashok Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav
WITH
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30807 of 2016
Petitioner :- Dharmendra Gautam And 11 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Mishra,Abhishek Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav
WITH
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 31216 of 2016
Petitioner :- Satyendra Kumar Singh
Respondent :- Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Narain
Counsel for Respondent :- Nisheeth Yadav
WITH
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 31666 of 2016
Petitioner :- Chaman Lal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satendra Tirpathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav
WITH
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 34946 of 2016
Petitioner :- Satya Prakash (Roll No. 170178)
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar,Raj Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav
WITH
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35093 of 2016
Petitioner :- Om Prakash Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava,Ashok Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav
WITH
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35454 of 2016
Petitioner :- Mathuresh Kumar Mishra And Anr.
Respondent :- U.P.P.S.C. And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav
WITH
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 38478 of 2016
Petitioner :- Vishal Prakash Pandey And 19 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Anr.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav
WITH
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 39221 of 2016
Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhanshu Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh
WITH
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 39904 of 2016
Petitioner :- Garima Mishra And 2 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh
WITH
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 39913 of 2016
Petitioner :- Priyatosh Kumar And Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Mishra,Abhishek Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh
WITH
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 41349 of 2016
Petitioner :- Hari Krishna Tiwari And 3 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh
AND
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44522 of 2016
Petitioner :- Babita
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vandeep Nath
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
(Per Hon. Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
This batch of writ petitions has been filed questioning the result of the combined State/Upper Subordinate Services (General Recruitment) Examination 2016 and Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services (Special Recruitment) Examination 20161 conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission2.
The petitioners are aspirants for various posts of the Provincial Services in the State. The examination is conducted in two stages. It comprises of a preliminary written examination which is in the nature of a screening test to find out suitable candidates in required proportion in each category. The marks obtained in the preliminary examination are not counted for determining the final order of merit. The candidates, who succeed in the preliminary examination, enters the second stage of recruitment, which comprises of a main written examination followed by interview/personality test. The aggregate of the marks obtained in the main examination and interview form the basis for determining the final order of merit. The Commission follows the procedure laid down under the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 20113 framed under sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh State Public Service Commission (Regulation of Procedure) Act, 19854.
The petitioners have appeared in the preliminary written examination but the marks awarded to them have fallen short of the prescribed cut off marks in their respective category. They have approached this Court alleging various discrepancies in the model answer keys and the method of evaluation.
The screening of the candidates was held on basis of two papers of General Studies; (i) General Studies I, which was of qualifying nature and the marks obtained therein were not counted for determining the merit; and (ii) General Studies II comprising of 150 questions bearing in aggregate 200 marks, all carrying equal marks. The questions were multiple choice objective type, each having four options. The candidate has to select one of the alternatives as the correct answer. If a candidate marks two answers as correct, it was treated as a wrong answer.
According to the stand taken in the counter affidavit, the Commission got prepared the key answers and notified the same on the official website of the Commission from 27 April 2016 to 1 May 2016 inviting objections against the same. In pursuance thereof, objections were received in respect of 82 questions. The objections received were placed before an Expert Panel and on the basis of their opinion, the Commission deleted five questions (question nos.22, 26, 30, 122 & 128) and the marks of these questions were distributed on pro-rata basis to all candidates; in respect of two questions (question nos.119 & 139), two options were accepted as correct answer and the Commission awarded full marks to candidates exercising any one of the choice. The Commission on the basis of the opinion of the Expert Panel, while accepting the objections in respect of certain questions, prepared a final answer key and based on the same, declared the result of the preliminary examination on 27 May 2016.
The answer books were in four series; A, B, C & D. All references in this judgment are in context of series B, which was referred to by learned counsel for the parties at the time of making oral submissions.
Learned counsel for the petitioners in various writ petitions have made the following submissions:-
a. Several questions were wrong, compelling the Commission to delete question nos. 22, 26, 30, 122 and 128. This has resulted in valuable time of the petitioners being wasted in attempting to answer these questions.
b. Some of the questions had more than one correct answer, leading to confusion. This was contrary to the specific instructions to the candidates stating that a candidate exercising more than one choice will not get any mark.
c. Questions framed were faulty; incorrectly structured; and in various cases the key answers provided by the Expert Panel were wrong, thus materially affecting the result.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and the Commission submitted that the Commission conducted the examination by adopting a procedure, which is fair and transparent, based on advice of experts at various levels. The candidates were given opportunity to prefer objections against the answer keys, thus ruling out the possibility of mistakes, making the system interactive and responsive. The contention that the answer keys provided by the expert were incorrect, is based on self evaluation of the petitioners which is not legally tenable. The opinion of the expert is final and beyond judicial review. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and another5 and Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Education Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth6 and of this Court in Sandeep Misra and other connected matters Vs. State of U.P. and others7.
Before entering into the merits of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners in regard to the faulty answer keys, we propose to first deal with the contention of the respondents regarding the scope of judicial review in such matters. A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Kanpur University and others Vs. Samir Gupta and others8 has had the occasion to consider specifically the same issue: if a paper-setter commits an error while indicating the correct answer to a question set by him, can the students who answer that question correctly be failed for the reason that though their answer is correct, it does not accord with the answer supplied by the paper-setter to the University as the correct answer? In the case before the Supreme Court, the questions were multiple choice objective type and the candidates were required to exercise choice in respect of one correct answer out of the four alternatives, as in the case at hand. The students contended before the Supreme Court that the key answers provided by the examiner in respect of three questions, one each in Chemistry, Zoology and Botany were incorrect. The University opposed the plea contending that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of key answers. The Supreme Court, repelling the contention, held as under:-
16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University, contended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. We agree that the key-answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The contention of the University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged text-books, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those text-books leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect.
17. Students who have passed their Intermediate Board Examination are eligible to appear for the entrance Test for admission to the Medical Colleges in U.P. Certain books are prescribed for the Intermediate Board Examination and such knowledge of the subjects as the students have is derived from what is contained in those text-books. Those text-books support the case of the students fully. If this were a case of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong."
The Supreme Court thereafter proceeded to examine the correctness of the key answers on the basis of the standard text books and concluded by holding that the key answers to some of the questions were incorrect. Accordingly, the direction issued by the High Court for the re-assessment of certain questions and for granting admission to the students to M.B.B.S. course based on such re-assessment was upheld.
The decision in the case of Kanpur University (supra) was followed by the Supreme Court in its later decision in Manish Ujwal and others Vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati9. The Supreme Court did not approve of the view taken by the High Court in refusing to interfere in the matter by holding that "it cannot be said with certainty that answers to the six questions given in the key answers were erroneous and incorrect". The Supreme Court not only held that where the key answers are demonstrably erroneous the students cannot be made to suffer but even observed that in such cases persons responsible for preparing an incorrect answer key should be proceeded against. It held thus :-
"10. .......... As already noticed, the key answers are palpably and demonstrably erroneous. In that view of the matter, the student community, whether the appellants or intervenors or even those who did not approach the High Court or this Court, cannot be made to suffer on account of errors committed by the University. For the present, we say no more because there is nothing on record as to how this error crept up in giving the erroneous key answers and who was negligent. At the same time, however, it is necessary to note that the University and those who prepare the key answers have to be very careful and abundant caution is necessary in these matters for more than one reason. We mention few of those; first and paramount reason being the welfare of the student as a wrong key answer can result in the merit being made a casualty. One can well understand the predicament of a young student at the threshold of his or her career if despite giving correct answer, the student suffers as a result of wrong and demonstrably erroneous key answers; the second reason is that the courts are slow in interfering in educational matters which, in turn, casts a higher responsibility on the University while preparing the key answers; and thirdly, in cases of doubt, benefit goes in favour of the University and not in favour of the students. If this attitude of casual approach in providing key answers is adopted by concerned persons, directions may have to be issued for taking appropriate action, including the disciplinary action, against those responsible for wrong and demonstrably erroneous key answers but we refrain from issuing such directions in the present case."
In a more recent decision in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh and others Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & others10, the Supreme Court was called upon to adjudge the validity of the decision of the Chhattishgarh Professional Examination Board conducting the recruitment on the posts of Subedars, Platoon Commanders and Sub Inspectors in cancelling the result of the main examination. In that case, after the appointments were made based on the selection held by the Board, several complaints were received in respect of mistakes in several questions of the main examination. The Board constituted an expert committee and based upon its recommendation, it deleted eight questions in second paper, which were found to be incorrect and also corrected model answer key in respect of eight questions and accordingly, carried out re-evaluation of the answer scripts of the candidates. As a result thereof, some of the candidates who had been declared selected and given appointment got affected resulting in cancellation of their appointments. The selected candidates assailed the decision of the Board before the High Court, but the High Court upheld the decision. In appeal by the selected candidates, the Supreme Court approved the following guidelines framed by the Board for deleting the questions:-
(i) if the structure of the question is wrong;
(ii) out of the options given as answers, if more than one options are correct.
(iii) if no option is correct.
(iv) if there is difference in Hindi and English translation of any question because of which different meaning is drawn from both and one correct answer could not be ascertained.
(v) if any other printing mistake is there because of which correct answer is not ascertainable or more than one option is correct.
The Supreme Court also approved the decision of the Board in re-evaluating the answer scripts based on the correct answer keys by holding thus:-
"In respect of the respondent-Board's propriety in taking the decision of re-evaluation of answer scripts, we are of the considered view that the respondent-Board is an independent body entrusted with the duty of proper conduct of competitive examinations to reach accurate results in fair and proper manner with the help of Experts and is empowered to decide upon re-evaluation of answer sheets in the absence of any specific provision in that regard, if any irregularity at any stage of evaluation process is found. (See: Chairman, J & K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and others, (2000) 3 SCC 59 and Sahiti and Ors. v. The Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and Ors., (2009) 1 SCC 599). It is settled law that if the irregularities in evaluation could be noticed and corrected specifically and undeserving select candidates be identified and in their place deserving candidates be included in select list, then no illegality would be said to have crept in the process of re-evaluation. The respondent-Board thus identified the irregularities which had crept in the evaluation procedure and corrected the same by employing the method of re-evaluation in respect of the eight questions answers to which were incorrect and by deletion of the eight incorrect questions and allotment of their marks on pro-rata basis. The said decision cannot be characterized as arbitrary."
In Rajesh Kumar and another Vs. State of Bihar and others11, the Supreme Court was considering the validity of a selection made by Bihar State Staff Selection Commission, on the basis of a written objective type examination. The evaluation of the answer scripts was subject matter of challenge at the instance of unsuccessful candidates. The High Court referred the model answer key to a body of experts, which found two questions to be wrongly framed, while two others were found to have been repeated. One of the questions was also found to be defective as the choices in the answer key were printed only partially. The High Court, having noticed that the model answers were wrong, quashed the entire selection and directed for conducting a fresh examination. The Supreme Court approved the decision of the High Court in so far as it held that the selection made on the basis of incorrect model answer key is not sustainable, but moulded the relief by directing preparation of final merit list on basis of correct answer key and in permitting the candidates who had already been appointed to continue in service subject to the rider that they shall figure at the bottom of the list of the candidates who would be selected on the basis of correct answer key.
Much emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the respondents upon the decision of the Supreme Court in H.P. Public Service Commission (supra). In that case, the unsuccessful candidates in a selection for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) applied before the High Court for re-evaluation of the paper of Civil Law II, which was a subjective type test. The High Court got the answer sheets of the candidates re-evaluated from a Reader in Law in Himachal Pradesh University. Based on the result of the re-evaluation, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Commission to issue appointment letter to the petitioners. The direction issued by the High Court was subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid background held that in absence of any specific provision relating to re-evaluation of answer books, the High Court should not have issued such a direction. The Supreme Court itself got a fresh evaluation done by an eminent Professor, wherein the marks awarded was much less. In the aforesaid background facts, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of any specific provision relating to re-evaluation, the High Court was not justified in issuing such a direction. It has been observed thus:-
"26. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that in absence of any provision under the Statute or Statutory Rules/Regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation.
27. In the instant case, undoubtedly, the High Court issued direction for revaluation and the respondent No.1 secured 119 marks in revaluation making him eligible to be called for interview and further for appointment, in case, he succeeds in interview. But the order of the High Court was kept in abeyance by this Court for having fresh revaluation by an eminent Professor, who had revalued the answer sheets and awarded only 82 marks to the respondent No.1."
In the aforesaid context, the Supreme Court held that:-
"20. 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."
The observations made above are to be understood in the context of the facts of that particular case where correctness of a subjective type test was in issue and not laying down a general proposition that in no event the High Court can examine the correctness of the model answer key. We do not feel persuaded to accept that the Supreme Court has excluded the process of judicial review even where the result of the selection is based on objective type test, having one out of the given options as the correct answer.
In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Education (supra) also relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents, the issue before the Supreme Court was in regard to the right of a candidate to seek re-evaluation of the answer scripts. It was held that non availability of provision relating to re-evaluation does not amount to denial of fair play in the examination nor such a provision could be stuck down as violative of Article 14. The Supreme Court observed that the candidate having taken the examination on the full awareness of the provisions contained in the Regulation and in the declaration made in the form of application for admission to the examination cannot later complain that absence of provision relating to re-evaluation was against public interest.
Another decision cited by learned counsel for the respondents is by a Division Bench of this Court in Sandeep Mishra (supra), wherein this Court relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (supra) held that re-evaluation of question paper was beyond the power of review by the High Court. The larger Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Kanpur University (supra) nor other decisions following the said judgment were placed before the Division Bench. Thus, with profound respect to their Lordships of the Division Bench, we find it difficult to follow the said decision particularly in view of the authoritative pronouncement made by the Supreme Court in Kanpur University (supra).
We thus conclude that the law on the point is very clear. The opinion of the University or the examining body is normally to be accepted as it is assumed that such body of men are well versed in their subject. At the same time, the decision of the examining body or the experts is not beyond judicial review. The prime consideration is to maintain the purity of the examination and the welfare of the students/candidates, as in case a wrong key answer is accepted, it would result in the merit being a casualty. The object of conducting an examination is to assess the respective merits of the candidates and to find out the most suitable one for admission or for selection to a public post. The very object of conducting the test would stand defeated, in case a wrong answer key is held to be sacrosanct and beyond judicial review. However, the Court should be cautious and circumspect in interfering with the opinion of the experts. It could only be where the key answers are demonstrably wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no men well versed in the subject would regard as correct.
Having regard to the legal position discussed above, we proceed to examine the contentions on merits. The parties, in order to support their respective contentions, have placed reliance on various text-books Wikipedia, dictionaries and reference books. The Court with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties categorised the disputed questions subjectwise and by order dated 15 September 2016 sought opinion of experts. The questions relating to current affairs were not sent to the Expert, the Court being of the opinion that the controversy in regard thereto is required to be resolved by the Court itself, based on facts and figures provided by the respective parties.
Question nos.44, 52 and 80, which relate to geography, were referred for expert opinion to Prof. H.N. Misra, who is presently a Senior Professor in the Department of Geography, University of Allahabad. Question no.44 is as under:-
S. No.
Question No.
Question (English)
Question (Hindi)
Which one of the following pairs is not correctly matched?
(a) Fohn - Alps Mountain
(b) Bora - Poland
(c) Mistral - Rhine Valley
(d) Khamsin - Egypt
fuEufyf[kr esa ls dkSu lk ;qXe lqesfyr ugha gS \
(a) Qksºu & vkYIl ioZr
(b) cksjk & iksySaM
(c) feLVªy & jkbu ?kkVh
(d) [keflu & felz
The Commission initially notified option (c) as the correct answer but after considering the objections filed by the candidates, it notified the correct answer as option (b). However, according to the candidates, both options (b) and (c) are correct and, therefore, it was urged on their behalf that either the question should have been deleted or the Commission should have given full marks to the candidates exercising any of these options as has been done by it in respect of other questions to which two options have been found to be correct. It is submitted that Mistral is a local wind which blows in 'Rhone Valley', which is not the same as 'Rhine Valley'. Thus, 'Mistral' does not match with 'Rhine Valley' and consequently, option (c) is also correct.
The expert appointed by the Court, after going through the material placed on record by the candidates as well as the Commission, opined thus:-
"Both Bora and Mistral are strong, gusty, cold local winds. Whereas, Bora blows along the Adriatic coast descending from Dinaric Alps, Mistral blows in the Rhone Valley descending from Central Massif in France towards Gulf of Lyons in the Mediterranean Sea. In support thereof, I am enclosing herewith Annexures I, II, III, IV, V, VI and VII which are standard and authentic publications :
Annexure I :
A Modern Dictionary of Geography - Arnold London, pages 26 and 171
Annexure II :
Climatology-Prentice Hall, New York, pages 79-80 and 374 and 377
Annexure III:
Essentials of Physical Geography - Thomson, page 124
Annexure IV:
Encyclopedia of weather and climate, pages 285-286 and 299
Annexure V:
Introducing Physical Geography - Wiley, New York, Page 159
Annexure VI:
Physical Geography Made Simple - Rupa & Co. Pages 180-181
AnnexureVII:
Oxford Student Atlas For India - Oxford India, page 64
A perusal of thes (sic these) standard publications clearly reveals that neither Bora blows in Poland nor Mistral in Rhine valley. Thus, both the options (b, c) of question no. 44 are incorrectly matched, and therefore, create confusion.
The candidate, in support of his claim, has attached photocopy of relevant pages of five simple textbooks which are apparently based on the foreign authors. Nevertheless, these books support the stand of the candidate.
The Examining Body has submitted six (+1 in duplicate) annexures in its support. These are :
1. HkkSfrd Hkwxksy dk Lo:i & lfoUnz flag
2. Wind Energy Meterology - Stephen Emies
3. Mountain Geography : A Critique and Field Study - Roderick Peattie
4. Deadly Secrets of Iranian Princess - Pascal Mahvi
5. Relationship of Synoptic Winds and Complex Terrain Flows during the MISTRAL Field Experiment - Rudolf O. Weber and Pirmin Kaufmann
6. Classification of Mesoscale Wind Fields in the MISTRAL Field Experiment - Pirmin Kaufmann and Rudolf O. Weber
The first three annexures/ documents (1,2, 3) fail to support the stand of Examining Body. The fourth (4th) i.e. Deadly Secrets of Iranian Princess by Pascal Mahvi, is basically a travelogue and cannot be considered to be any authentic document for any geographic detail.
The fifth in duplicate and sixth (5 & 6) documents have nothing to say about Mistral, the local cold Mediterranean wind referred to herein question. These research papers talk about a Meteorological Field Experiment called MISTRAL. (Modell fur Immissions-Schulz bei Transport und Ausbeitung von Luftfremdstoffen), a model for impact preventive during transport and diffusion of air pollutants.
These are completely, thus, irrelevant and do not support the contention of the Examining Body.
In my considered opinion this question has been incorrectly framed and, thus, may be deleted. However, it is for the Hon'ble Court to take appropriate decision."
It is amply clear from the opinion of the expert, who extensively considered the standard text-books on the subject, that Mistral blows in 'Rhone Valley', which got its name from the river 'Rhone' which flows through it. The 'Rhone' originates in Rhone Glacier in the mountains of Switzerland, passes through Lake Geneva and running through southeastern France and empties in the Mediterranean Sea. Its length is 505 miles. On the other hand, 'Rhine' is a European river that begins in the Swiss Canton of Graubunden in the southeastern Swiss Alps and empties into the North Sea in the Netherlands. Its length is about 764 miles. It passes through Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Austrian, Germany, Franco and Netherlands. The area through which it flows is known as Rhine Valley (from Wikipedia and Oxford Student Atlas). Thus, Mistral though matches with 'Rhone', it does not match with 'Rhine' and thus option 'c' would also be a correct answer.
In such circumstances, as per the procedure adopted by the Commission, in cases where two options were found to be correct, it should have awarded full marks to the candidates exercising any of these options. In not doing so, the Commission has committed a grave error, resulting in serious prejudice to the candidates who had exercised option (c).
Question no.52 is to the following effect:-
S. No.
Question No.
Question (English)
Question (Hindi)
Which one of the following countries is the largest exporter of tea in the world?
(a) India
(b) China
(c) Kenya
(d) Sri Lanka
fuEufyf[kr esa ls dkSu lk ns'k fo'o esa pk; dk lcls cM+k fu;kZrd ns'k gS \
(a) Hkkjr
(b) phu
(c) dsU;k
(d) Jhyadk
The correct answer as notified in the provisional answer key is option (c) 'Kenya', which was later on changed to option (d) 'Sri Lanka' in the final answer key.
The candidates have placed reliance on the data provided by (i) the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, according to which, the export of tea by Sri Lanka was 311.0 thousand tonnes in the year 2013, whereas that by Kenya was 415.9 thousands tonnes; (ii) the statistics provided by the Statistics Branch of Tea Board of India, an agency of the Government of India, according to which, the export share of Kenya in the year 2014 was 27.30%, whereas that of Sri Lanka was 17.38%; and (iii) material downloaded from the internet, according to which, Kenya ranks highest in the list of tea exporting countries of the world, exporting 396,641 metric tonnes annually whereas, Sri Lanka 318,329 metric tonnes annually.
The Commission has also placed reliance on the figures provided by (I) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations for the year 2014, according to which, Sri Lanka exported tea worth Rs.1.6 billion US dollar (23% of total exports), China 1.3 billion dollar (18.2%), whereas Kenya 907.5 million US dollar (12.9%).
The expert appointed by the Court, after going through the entire material, was of the opinion that although Kenya may be largest exporter of tea in terms of volume but Sri Lanka occupies the first rank amongst the tea exporting countries of the world in terms of the earning in the International market. In his opinion, it is the value earned in terms of US dollars, which is taken note of for the purposes of comparison and not the quantity/volume being exported. The difference in the ranking in terms of earning as compared to volume is for the reason that Sri Lankan tea is considered far superior in quality in the International market and thus, fetches much higher price as compared to Kenyan tea. Accordingly, he concurred with the opinion of the Commission that option (d) 'Sri Lanka' is the correct answer. Although from the question as framed it is not very clear as to whether the Commission is seeking a reply from the candidates in terms of earnings or in terms of quantity, but in case the earnings in terms of US dollars is taken as yardstick for comparison, the answer given by the Commission is a correct one and thus, keeping in mind the enunciation of law on the subject by the Supreme Court, we accept the answer provided by the Commission, but with a suggestion to the Commission that it should abstain from asking questions which are confusing.
Question no.80 reads thus:-
S. No.
Question No.
Question (English)
Question (Hindi)
The largest Sugar Mill of Asia is located at which of the following places in Uttar Pradesh?
(a) Khatouli
(b) Balrampur
(c) Bulandshahar
(d) Najibabad
,f'k;k dh lcls cM+h phuh fey mRrj izns'k ds fdl LFkku ij vofLFkr gS \
(a) [krkSyh
(b) cyjkeiqj
(c) cqyUn'kgj
(d) uthckckn
According to the Commission, the correct answer is option (a) 'Khatouli', whereas according to the candidates, the question as framed is confusing and should have been deleted. It is urged that none of the options given are correct, as largest sugar mill of India in terms of sugar produced during the season (2010-11) is Shree Khedut Sahakari Khand Udyog, Mandli Limited, Bardoli (Gujrat). For the said purpose, they have placed reliance on various material, which was sent to the expert (Dr. H.N. Misra) for his opinion, who opined thus:-
"I have gone through the documents annexed by the candidate as well as the Examining Body. Based on the data provided by the National Sugar Institute, Government of India (2013) (Annexure I), Khatauli is the largest sugar mill in terms of its crushing capacity. The crushing capacity of this sugar mill is 16,000 Tonnes sugarcane crushing per day which is far too high compared to any other sugar mill (see Annexure I).
The documents submitted by the candidate are not authentic. The photocopy of a solved paper of unidentified source is based on 2010 data, and quite unreliable. The report of Shakti Sustainable Energy Foundation (2012) is also unreliable because the figures pertaining to crushing capacity in M.T. are highly non-compatible."
Thus, we have no hesitation in accepting option (a) as the correct answer as notified by the Commission.
Question nos.92 and 122 were referred to Dr. Manju Sahney, Professor & Head, Department of Botany, University of Allahabad, Allahabad for opinion.
Question no.92 is as under:-
Sl.
No.
Ques-tion No.
Question (English)
Question (Hindi)
12.
Match the List -I with List List -II and select the correct answer from the codes given below the lists :
List I List II
A. Viticulture 1. Vegetable Farming
B. Vegeculture 2. Fish farming
C. Pisciculture 3. Tree farming
D. Olericulture 4. Grapes farming
Lwkph&I dks lwph&II ds lkFk lqesfyr dfj;s rFkk lwfp;ksa ds uhps fn;s dwV ls lgh mRrj pqfu;s%
Lwkph&I lwph&II
A. foVhdYpj 1. lCth [ksrh
B. osthdYpj 2. eNyh ikyu
C. filhdYpj 3. o`{kksa dh [ksrh
D. vksysjhdYpj 4. vaxwj dh [ksrh
Codes : A B C D
(a) 1 2 3 4
(b) 4 3 2 1
(c) 3 2 1 4
(d) 4 1 2 3
According to the Commission, the correct answer is option (b), which matches thus:
List- I List-II
A Viticulture (4) Grapes farming
B Vegeculture (3) Tree farming
C Pisciculture (2) Fish farming
D Olericulture (1) Vegetable farming
According to the candidates, option (b) and option (d) are equally correct or equally incorrect and the question should have been deleted.
There is no dispute that 'Viticulture' refers to 'Grapes farming', thus item A in List-I matches with item 4 in List-II. 'Pisciculture' item C in List-I matches with item 2 (Fish farming) in List-II. Item D (Olericulture) in List-I, according to the Commission, matches with item 1 (Vegetable farming) in List-II. However, according to the candidates, item no.3 (Tree farming) in List-II is more appropriate. The expert opined that the answer given by the Commission is more appropriate answer. The expert has placed reliance on the text-book by Dr. H.P. Singh by the name 'Horticulture At a Glance' (Volume-II), wherein Olericulture has been explained as that branch of Horticulture Science which deals with study of vegetable production. The relevant extract from the said text book in relation to 'Olericulture' is as under:-
"Oleri-culture is that branch of horticulture science, which deals with the study of vegetable production. The term 'Olericulture' reportedly originated from Latin words either 'Olerus' meaning herb or 'Ole' meaning cabbage. However, Olericulture as such is not limited to cultivation of cabbage alone but extend to growing of all type of vegetables. It is designated or used interchangeable with vegetable culture."
In another text-book on Horticulture by Rajendra Reddy and J.P. Abhay Shanker, 'Olericulture' has been stated to be that area of Horticulture which relates to study of production and marketing of vegetables. We thus concur with the opinion of the Commission and the Expert appointed by the Court.
According to the Commission, item B (Vegeculture) in List-I matches with item 3 (Tree farming) of List-II. The candidates have emphatically disputed the same. The expert appointed by the Court opined that more appropriate term for tree farming is 'Arboriculture'. Whereas, the expert opined that option D, as suggested by the candidates, is not correct but at the same time, she also did not seem to be in agreement with the Commission that 'Vegeculture' refers to 'tree farming'. In the book, Agricultural Systems of the World by D.B. Grigg, published by Cambridge University Press, 'Vegeculture' is explained as the mode of cultivation in which the reproduction of the plant is by vegetative propagation. A portion of the plant is replanted at a new location for reproduction. Thus, Vegeculture, according to the text-book, "refers to plants reproduced by vegetative propagation, mainly tropical roots such as taro, manioc, yarns, sweet potatoes and arrowroot." A research paper by Huw Barton, School of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester and Tin Denham, School of Geography and Environmental Studies, Australia explain Vegeculture as:
"a system of cultivation in which the dominant mode of plant reproduction used by people in vegetative propagation. All of the traditional staples across Island Southeast Asia and New Guinea discussed thus far, including yam, taro, banana and sago, are usually reproduced by transplanting a portion of the plant to a new location. For yams and taros, a portion of the tuber will produce new growth; for some species of nut trees, bananas and Metroxylon sago replanting is usually undertaken via suckers. In New Guinea, traditional cultivation was predominantly vegetative and a vast range of plant types were propagated this way, including root crops, herbs, grasses and trees (Powell 1976; Denham 2005b).
It is clear that 'Vegeculture' does not refer to vegetable farming as such, but is a mode of propagation wherein part of the same plant (root, stem or portion of the vegetable itself) is used for reproduction. This mode of vegetative production is found not only in plants bearing vegetables but equally in herbs, grasses and trees, as explained in the above referred research paper. The appropriate word for tree farming is in fact arboriculture as explained in Encyclopedia Britanica, according to which, arboriculture is cultivation of trees, shrubs and woody plants where the propagation may take place by seeding, grafting, layering or cutting and not necessarily be vegetative reproduction.
Having regard to the above material, the only irresistible conclusion is that there is no entry in List-II which matches with vegeculture. There is also no correct entry in List-I which matches with tree farming. Thus, question as framed itself was defective and should have been deleted.
Question no.122 is as under:-
S.No.
Q.No.
Question (English)
Question (Hindi)
1.
Which one of the following food materials contains all essential amino acids ?
(a) Rice
(b) Milk
(c) Egg
(d) Soyabean
fuEu fyf[kr HkksT; inkFkksZa esa ls fdlesa lHkh vfuok;Z ,sehuks vEy mifLFr gS \
(a) pkoy
(b) nw/k
(c) vaMk
(d) lks;kchu
The Commission in the provisional answer key notified option (c) 'eggs' as the correct option but later on deleted the same in the final answer key, as the experts of the Commission opined that the question as framed is incorrect.
The candidates contended that (b) and (c) are both correct, as these food products contain all essential amino acids. It is urged that since the Commission in cases where two options were found to be correct has awarded full marks to the candidates, consequently, in the present instance as well, it should have given full marks to a candidate exercising any of the option. According to the expert appointed by the Court, all the above food materials contain all essential amino acids but in different amount. Eggs are considered to have perfect protein and are assigned score 100 and other foods rated in comparison with eggs have the following protein score:-
Food Protein Score
Eggs - 100
Cow's Milk - 79
Rice - 69
Soyabean - 67
The expert has placed reliance on the text-book 'Introduction to Agronomy' by Craig C. Sheaffer and Kristine M. Moncada and 'Biochemistry' by Mc Kee and M Kee. On the other hand, the candidates have relied on a text-book by Dr. Smt. Brinda Singh, which only enumerates certain foods which contains all essential amino acids, but it does not contain exhaustive list of all such food products.
Thus, in the opinion of the Court, not one of the food materials given as options contains all essential amino acids but all of them and consequently, the question was rightly deleted. No prejudice has been caused thereby to any candidate.
Question nos.128, 136 and 140 relating to History were referred to Professor Yogeshwar Tiwari, a Senior Faculty in the Department of History, University of Allahabad.
Question no.128 is to the following effect:-
Sl.
No.
Ques-tion No.
Question (English)
Question (Hindi)
2.
'Prithivyah Pratham Veer' was the title of
(a) Samudragupta
(b) Rajendra-1
(c) Amoghavarsha
(d)Gautamiputra Shatkarni
*i`fFkO;k izFke ohj^ mikf/k Fkh\
(a) leqnzxqIr dh
(b) jktsUnz izFke dh
(c) veks?ko"kZ dh
(d) xkSrehiq= 'kkrd.khZ dh
The Commission deleted the said question, as none of the options were found to be correct. The expert appointed by the Court is also of the same opinion. On the other hand, the candidates contend that correct answer is option (a) 'Samudragupta'. The candidates placed reliance on a text-book by Tej Ram Sharma 'A Political History of Imperial Guptas' which states that Samudragupta earned for himself the title 'Prithivyama-Pratiratha' having no rival on earth and another text-book by Krishna Chandra Srivastava, Reader, Ancient History, Chaudhary Mahadev Prasad Degree College, Allahabad which states that the popularity of Samudragupta reached even to Indra Lok for having conquered entire earth. However, none of these text-books mentions that he was ever conferred the title in question. We thus have no hesitation in concurring with the stand taken by the Commission in deleting the said question and in discarding the choice suggested by the candidates.
Question no.136 is as under:-
Sl.
No.
Ques-tion No.
Question (English)
Question (Hindi)
3.
Sir Thomas Munro was Governor of Madras during years
(a) 1820 -1827 A.D.
(b) 1819-1826 A.D.
(c) 1822-1829 A.D.
(d) 1818-1825 A.D.
lj Vkel equjks fdu o"kksZa esa enzkl ds xouZj jgs\
(a) 1820 -1827 bZ-
(b) 1819-1826 bZ-
(c) 1822-1829 bZ-
(d) 1818-1825 bZ-
According to the Commission, the correct option is (a), whereas according to the candidates, it is option (b). The candidates relied on NCERT text book 'Our Pasts-III' which contains a portrait of Sir Thomas Munro and states that he was governor of Madras from 1819-1826. The expert appointed by the Court concurred with the Commission for the following reasons:-
(1) Þvk/kqfud Hkkjr dk bfrgklß ch-,y- xzksoj o ;'kiky] ,l- pUn ,.M dEiuh fy-] ubZ fnYyh] 1999] i`"B la-&162 (This goes on to establish "A" as the correct choice.)
(2) The London Gazette, No.1815, July 1825, Page No.1155, mentions "A" as the correct choice.
(3) A Memorial stone of Thomas Munro placed at St. Mary's Cathedral, Madras also goes on to establish "A" as the correct choice."
We are persuaded to accept the answer given by the Commission, being supported by authentic material, also referred to by the expert appointed by the Court. We, therefore, reject the contention of the candidates that option (b) was correct.
Question No.140 is as under:-
Sl.
No.
Ques-tion No.
Question (English)
Question (Hindi)
4.
'The last Sun of Indian glory' has been used for
(a) Shivaji
(b) Prithviraj
(c) Rana Pratap
(d) Hemu
*Hkkjrh; xkSjo ¼;'k½ dk vfUre lw;Z^ fdlds fy;s iz;qDr gqvk \
(a) f'kokth
(b) i`Fkohjkt
(c) jkukizrki
(d) gsew
The Commission initially notified option (a) as the correct choice in the provisional answer key but after considering the objections of the candidates accepted option (b) as the correct answer. According to the candidates, the correct answer is option (a) or in the alternative, question as framed is incorrect and should have been deleted.
The Commission in accepting option (b) as correct choice has placed reliance on a book by Dr. Vipin Bihari Sinha titled 'Madhyakalin Bharat', wherein it is stated thus:-
Þi`Fkohjkt vius dky dk ;'kLoh lezkV Fkk vkSj mls *Hkkjrh; ;'k dk vfUre lw;Z^ (the sun of Indian glory) dg dj iqdkjk tkrk gSAß
Albeit, the book states that the 'Sun of Indian Glory' has been used for Prithviraj but the expert appointed by the Court points out that 'the contemporary court historians make no mention of such title'. He refers to another historian Cynthia Talbot as having mentioned Prithviraj as the last glorious Hindu Emperor of India in her book tilted 'The Last Hindu Emperor: Pre and Indian Past-1200-2000' Cambridge University Press but even therein, he has not been referred to as the 'Last Sun of Indian Glory', which was specifically the question posed to the candidates. The expert appointed by the Court, while sounding a note of advice not to frame such questions, has accepted the choice given by the Commission. We concur with the opinion of the Expert that the Commission should abstain from framing question, whose answer is not supported by renowned academicians in the field. Since however, at least in one of the text-book by Dr. Bipin Bihari Sinha it is stated that Prithviraj was known by such title, we reluctantly accept the choice notified by the Commission.
Question no.25 reads thus:-
S. No.
Question No.
Question (English)
Question (Hindi)
1.
The costliest metal of the world discovered recently, is
(a) Endohedral Fullerence
(b) Californium 252
(c) Tritium
(d) Rhodium
gky gh esa [kksth x;h fo'o dh lcls eWagxh /kkrq gS %
(a) ,aMksgsMªy Qqyjhu
(b) dSyhQksjfu;e 252
(c) fVªfV;e
(d) jksfM;e
According to the Commission, the correct answer is option (b) 'Californium 252', whereas according to the candidates, the correct answer is option (a) 'Endohedral Fullerence' and in the alternative, the question as framed is wrongly structured and, should have been deleted.
The Expert appointed by the Court agreed with the petitioners that the costliest metal on earth discovered so far is 'Endohedral Fullerence', but did not accept it as a correct answer to the question posed as it is a non-metal. According to the Expert, the costliest metal on earth discovered so far is Californium 252 as suggested by the Commission. For convenience of reference, the opinion of the expert is extracted below:-
"1. The modern Periodic Table of the Elements (Long Form) is a collection of elements discovered so far and contains 118 elements classified as metals, non-metals, metalloid and noble gases.
Annexure "A"
2. In the above-mentioned Periodic Table, Californium (atomic number 98: Californium 252 being an isotope of Californium) and Rhodium (atomic number 45) have been marked as metals. It is also clear that Endohedral Fullerences and Tritium do not fall under the category of metals.
Annexure "A"
3. Californium 252 was discovered in 1950 and costs US $ 27 million per gram whereas Rhodium was discovered in 1803 and costs US $ 58 per gram.
Annexure "B"
4. Endohedral fullerences, also called endofullerenes, are fullerenes that have additonal atoms, ions, or clusters enclosed within their inner spheres. The first lanthanum C60 complex was synthesized in 1985 and called [email protected] The @ (at sign) in the name reflects the notion of a small molecule trapped inside a shell. Two types of endohedral complexes exist: endohedral metallofullerenes (if metal atom is inside the fullerene cage) and non-metal doped fullerenes (if atom/luster is other than metal atom inside the fullerene cage). It is worth mentioning here that the main case or sphere of fullerenes is composed of "Carbon" atoms only and "Carbon" is marked as non-metal in the Periodic Table."
In the face of the said opinion, we have no hesitation in repelling the contention of the candidates that option (a) was the correct answer.
We now proceed to examine the alternate submission that the question as framed was misleading, wrongly structured and should have been deleted.
A close examination of the question reveals that the question uses the word 'recently' as a clue to the candidates for answering the same. The candidate immediately starts reflecting upon a recent discovery as a correct answer. Californium 252 having been discovered in the year 1950 may, therefore, be ruled out as a possible answer. He is immediately drawn towards option (a) 'Endohedral Fullerence' which was discovered more recently in 1985. The confusion gets confounded by the fact that Endohedral Fullerence also exists with metal atom inside the fullerence cage. The said discovery is a more recent one. Hisanori Shinohara, Department of Chemistry and Institute for Advanced Research Nagoya University, Japan and Nikos Tagmatarchis, Theoretical and Physical Chemistry Institute, National Hellenic Research Foundation, Greece in their research paper on 'Endohidral Metallo Fullerences' have reported about the said discovery as under:-
"Just a week after the first experimental observational of the "magic number" soccer-ball-shaped C60 in a laser-vaporized cluster beam mass spectrum by Kroto et al [1], the same research group of Kroto, Smalley, and co-workers also found a magic number feature due to LaC60 in a mass spectrum prepared by laser vaporization of a LaC ion species with LaC60 as a magic number ion in the mass spectrum (Figure 1.1) and concluded that a La atom was encaged within the (then hypothetical) soccerball-shaped C60. This was obviously the first proposal of the so-called "endohedral Metallofullerene" concept based on experiments..............................
Endohedral Fullerenes, also called endofullerenes, are fullerenes that have additional atoms, ions, or clusters enclosed within their inner spheres. The first lanthanum C60 complex was synthesized in 1985 and called [email protected] The @ (at sign) in the name reflects the notion of a small molecule trapped inside a shell. Two types of endohedral complexes exist; endohedral metallofullerenes and non-metal doped fullerenes."
The free Encyclopedia from Wikipedia also states about the recent discovery of Endohedral Metalofullerences. It categorises the Endohedral complexes as 'endohedral metallofullerenes' and 'non-metal doped fullerenes'. Although it is true that fullerences discovered in 1985 have non metal cage comprising of carbon but a candidate having an idea of endohedral metallo fullerence would immediately start thinking of the said substance discovered recently in view of the clue given in the question itself.
A candidate had to answer 150 questions in two hours and thus got 48 seconds on an average for each question. A candidate with higher intelligent quotient will obviously make an effort to answer the question and in the process will loose valuable time, so crucial for optimum output. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, a question containing a wrong clue works seriously to the prejudice of a bright student. The very object of identifying the best talent stands defeated. The Court is, thus, of the opinion that the question, as it contains a wrong and misleading clue, should have been deleted.
Question no.91 is as under:-
S. No.
Question No.
Question (English)
Question (Hindi)
2.
Which one of the following gases is not a green house gas ?
(a) CO2
(b) CH4
(c) NO2
(d) O2
fuEufyf[kr xSlksa esa ls dkSu lh ,d xzhu gkml xSl ugha gS\
(a) CO2
(b) CH4
(c) NO2
(d) O2
According to the Commission, the correct answer is option (d) 'O2', whereas according to the candidates, options (c) and (d) both are correct answers. The expert appointed by the Court opined thus:-
"1. As per the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agency, which covers all meetings, like Conference of the Parties (COP), The Kyoto Protocol, The Paris Agreement and the Marrakech Conference to be held in Morocco from November 7-18, 2016, the greenhouse gases (GHG) include both; (i)( direct greenhouse gases, and (ii) indirect greenhouse gases, which are mentioned below:-
The GHG data reported by Parties contain estimates for direct greenhouse bases, such as:
CO2 - Carbon dioxide
CH4 - Methane
N2O - Nitrous oxide
PFCs - Perfluorocarbons
HFCs - Hydrofluorocarbons
SF6 - Sulphur hexafluoride
as well as for the indirect greenhouse gases such as SO2, Nox, CO and NMVOC.
Annexure "A"
In Atmospheric Chemistry, the term NOx means the total concentration of NO and NO2, which under the effect of sunlight get converted into tropospheric ozone, a well-known greenhouse gas, and thus are responsible for global warming.
Annexure "B"
2. Nox are shown as indirect GHG in the "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2014 (Chapter 2, page 32-33)
Annexure "C"
3. NOx are shown as indirect GHG in the "National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, UK: Overview of greenhouse gases".
Annexure "D"
4. The textbook written under the supervision of the University Grants Commission, New Delhi, "Environmental Studies" clearly mentions nitrogen oxides as greenhouse gases responsible for global warming.
Annexure "E"
5. A report from WHO (2003) also clearly says that the gas NO2 (and other nitrogen oxides) is also a precursor for a number of harmful secondary pollutants, including nitric acid, the nitrate part of secondary inorganic aersols and photo oxidants (including ozone).
Annuexure "F"
6. Two different Text Books clearly indicate the mechanism of conversion of NO and NO2 under the effect of sunlight into ozone (Tropospheric ozone is a greenhouse gas).
Annexure "G" & "H"
Further comments:
1. Material supplied by the Commission
The material supplied by the Commission is appropriate in support of the correct answer.
2. Material supplied by the candidate
The material supplied by the candidate is incomplete as it covers only the list of the direct greenhouses gases and has no mention of indirect greenhouse gases and hence can be considered as insufficient data regarding greenhouse gases."
It is clear from the opinion of the expert that NO2 under the effect of sunlight gets converted into Ozone. It is thus an 'indirect green house gas'. We therefore accept option (d) as the correct answer, as suggested by the Commission.
Question No.66 in English as well as in Hindi reads thus:-
S. No.
Question No.
Question (English)
Question (Hindi)
1.
Which one of the following is not a new scheme announced for the development of urban infrastructure ?
(a) Swachcha Bhaarata Mission
(b) Heritage City Development and Augmentation Yojna
(c) Smart City Scheme
(d) Digital India Scheme
fuEufyf[kr esa ls dkSu lh ;kstuk 'kgjh v/kkslajpuk ds fodkl ds fy;s ?kksf"kr dh x;h u;h ;kstuk ugha gS \
(a) LoPN Hkkjr fe'ku
(b) gsfjVst flVh MsoyiesaV ,.M vkWxesUVs'ku ;kstuk
(c) LekVZ flVh ;kstuk
(d) fMftVy Hkkjr ;kstuk
According to the Commission, the correct answer is option (a) 'Swachha Bharat Mission', whereas according to the petitioners, the correct answer is option (d) 'Digital India Scheme'. The petitioners contend that Digital India Scheme is not a scheme relating to development of infrastructure but was launched to ensure that Government services are made available to citizens electronically by improving online infrastructure and increasing internet connectivity making the country digitally empowered in the field of technology. It is further urged that it is not confined only to rural area but extends also to urban areas and thus, out of the given options, option (d) would be the most appropriate answer.
The opinion of the expert body of the Commission is as under:-
"Answer A is correct. Swachha Bharat Mission for urban areas development was launched on 2nd October 2014 while
(a) Heritage City development was launched on 21st January 2015
(b) Smart City Scheme was launched on 25 June 2015
(c) Digital India Scheme was approved on 9 February 2015 and launched on 1 July 2015"
The data provided above reveals that all the schemes are relatively new one launched between October 2014 and 1st July 2015. The question was not that which amongst the following is relatively not a new scheme or which amongst the following is the oldest one.
A bare reading of the question would reflect that the emphasis is on the words 'not a new scheme'. In other words, the question setter intended to ask that which one of the following schemes announced for development of urban infrastructure is an old scheme continuing since before and not a new one. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, the expert body of the Commission completely misunderstood the question.
If we proceed to examine the correct answer to the question by understanding it in the most common sense discussed above, we find from the material provided by the petitioners themselves that amongst these schemes, Swachcha Bharat Mission is the only scheme which had existed in the past in some form or the other. 'A Mission for Every Indian' an article by Jasveer Singh mentions that Swachcha Bharat Mission is not the first cleanliness programme of the Government and had existed in the past by other names which are as under:-
Rural Sanitation Programme - 1986 to 1999
Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) - 1999 to 2012
TSC renamed as Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (NBA)-2012 to 2014
NBA restructured as Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (SBA)- 2014 onwards
A book on current affairs especially meant for students appearing in U.P. PCS examination states that the Central Council of Ministers in their meeting held on 24 September 2014 gave approval to Swachcha Bhaarata Mission after restructuring and renaming the earlier scheme by the name of 'Nirmal Bhaarat Abhiyan'. It reads thus:-
24 flrEcj] 2014 dh dsanzh; eaf=eaMy dh cSBd esa ^fueZy Hkkjr vfHk;ku^ dks ^LoPN Hkkjr fe'ku^ ds :i esa iqulZjfpr dj ns'k O;kih o`gn vfHk;ku ds :i esa izkjEHk djus dks Lohd`fr nh x;h Fkh] ftlds rgr nks mi&mife'ku gSa & LoPN Hkkjr fe'ku ¼xzkeh.k½ rFkk LoPN Hkkjr fe'ku ¼'kgjh½A
LoPN Hkkjr fe'ku ¼xzkeh.k½ ds fdz;kUo;u dk mRrjnkf;Ro dsanzh; is;ty ,oa LoPNrk ea=ky; dks rFkk LoPN Hkkjr fe'ku ¼'kgjh½ ds fdz;kUo;u dk mRrjnkf;Ro dsanzh; 'kgjh fodkl ea=ky; dks lkSaik x;k gSA
LoPN Hkkjr fe'ku ¼xzkeh.k½ ds rgr ns'k ds xzkeksa esa vxys 5 o"kksaZ esa yxHkx 11-11 djksM+ 'kkSpky; cukus ds fy, 1 yk[k 34 gtkj djksM+ :- [kpZ fd;s tk,axsA
LoPN Hkkjr fe'ku ¼'kgjh½ ds rgr vxys 5 o"kksaZ esa dqy 62]009 djksM+ :- O;; dk vuqeku gSA bl izdkj 'kgjh vkSj xzkeh.k {ks=ksa dks feykdj ^LoPN Hkkjr fe'ku^ ij 5 o"kksaZ esa yxHkx 2 yk[k djksM+ :- O;; fd, tk,axsA
Thus, option (a) could be the correct answer to the question posed, though for an entirely different reason from what is suggested by the experts of the Commission but that could be possible only if the assumption on which the question is based i.e. that all the schemes relate to development of urban infrastructure is found to be correct. We find from the material supplied by the parties that Swachcha Bhaarata Mission is not exclusively a scheme for urban development but also extends to rural areas as mentioned in the extract quoted above from the current affairs book relating to U.P. PCS examination. A paper published by the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India relating to the guidelines for Swachcha Bhaarata Mission states that the scheme is to be implemented jointly by the Ministry of Urban Development and Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation for urban and rural areas respectively. Thus, in respect of rural areas, the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation has been made incharge for implementing the scheme. The extract from the current affairs book of U.P. PCS examination quoted above also clearly speaks of the scheme being dycotomotised into Swachcha Bharat Mission (Gramin) and Swachcha Bharat Mission (Shahari) and the amount spent for each of these areas has also been earmarked separately.
Likewise, option (d) Digital India is not a scheme confined to urban areas only but also extends to rural areas. Apart from it, it is not only a scheme floated with the object of development of the urban infrastructure but with a vision to transform India to a digitally empowered society, knowledge and economy. It is not a project being implemented by the Ministry of Urban Development as in case of the remaining three schemes meant of development of urban areas. This is clear from the material provided by the Commission in relation to the said scheme dated 9 February 2015. The object of the scheme and the key areas in which it operates mentioned therein is as under:-
"Government of India has approved the 'Digital India' programme with the vision to transform India into a digitally empowered society and knowledge economy. Digital India is an umbrella programme that covers multiple Government Ministries and Departments. It weaves together a large number of ideas and thoughts into a single, comprehensive vision so that each of them can be implemented as part of a larger goal. Each individual element stands on its won, but is also part of the entire Government. Digital India is implemented by the entire Government and being coordinated by the Department of Electronics & Information Technology (Deity).
The vision of Digital India is centered on three key areas, viz., (I) Infrastructure as a Utility to Every Citizen (ii) Government and Services on Demand and (iii) Digital Empowerment of citizens. Digital India aims to provide the much needed thrust to the following nine pillars of growth areas as summarized below:
1.Broadband Highways
2. Universal Access to Mobile Connectivity
3. Public Internet Access Programme
4. e-Governance - Reforming Government through Technology
5. e-Kranti (NeGP 2.0) - Electronic delivery services
6. Information for All
7. Electronic Manufacturing - Target NET ZERO Imports
8. IT for Jobs
9. Early Harvest Programmes"
It is amply clear that Digital India is a scheme floated by the Central Government on Pan India basis keeping in mind the entire population of the country. It is not confined to urban areas alone. Though it cannot be disputed that in the process, development of infrastructure is bound to take place but that is not confined to urban areas alone. It is for the said reason that the petitioners contend that what the question mean to ask is that which one of the following schemes does not relate to the development of urban India alone. If the question is construed in the sense suggested by the candidates, then option (a) which also extends to both urban and rural areas would equally be a correct answer. For all the reasons discussed above, we are of the firm opinion that the question as framed is confusing, wrongly structured and the options given are equally incorrect. In order to rule out prejudice to any candidate, we are of the firm opinion that the question should have been deleted.
Question No.83 reads thus:-
S. No.
Question No.
Question (English)
Question (Hindi)
1.
'e-Biz' refer to
(a) electronic commerce
(b) single window financial transactions
(c) single window for business inquiries
(d) single window for approach to government services
'e-fct^ lEcfU/kr gS %
(a) bysDVªkfud okf.kT; ls
(b) foŸkh; ysu&nsu gsrq ,dy }kj ¼IysVQkeZ½ ls
(c) foi.ku laca/kh iwN&rkN gsrq ,dy }kj ¼IysVQkeZ½ ls
(d) ljdkjh lsokvks dh igqWap gsrq ,dy }kj ¼IysVQkeZ½ ls
According to the Commission, the correct answer is option (d) 'single window for approach to government services', whereas according to the candidates, the correct answer is option (c) 'single window for business inquiries'.
The Commission in support of option (d) has placed reliance on a communique by the Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry dated 19.2.2015 which states that 11 government services have been launched on e-Biz portal and mentions as under:-
"The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), Ministry of Commerce & Industry today announced the launch of 11 Central Government Services on eBiz portal. These services are required for starting a business in the country - four services from Ministry of Corporate Affairs, two services of Central Board of Direct Taxes, two services of Reserve Bank of India and one service each from Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation and Petroleum & Explosives Safety Organisation. A business-user today avails these services either from the portal of respective Ministry/Department or by physical submission of forms. With the integration of these services on eBiz portal, he/she can avail all these services 24*7 online end-to-end i.e., online submission of forms, attachments, payments, tracking of status and also obtain the license/permit from eBiz portal.
Through eBiz portal, a business user can fill the eForms online/offline, upload the attachments, make payment online and submit the forms for processing of the department. He will be provided with copy of challan, which he can save or print, acknowledgment of submission and tracking of status of the form besides receiving sms alerts on important notifications. The certificate/clearance can be downloaded from eBiz. The eBiz platform, thus, enables a transformational shift in the Governments' service delivery approach from being department-centric to customer-centric as a single window portal.
eBiz-India's Government-to-Business (G2B) portal was conceptualized with support from National Institute of Smart Government (NISG) as the consulting partner and developed by M/s. Infosys Ltd., Bangalore in a Public Private Partnership (PPP) Model for a period of 10 years. The first three years of the term would be the pilot phase, while the remaining seven years will be the expansion phase. During the pilot phase, 50 (26 central + 24 state) services are being implemented across ten pilot states viz., Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Haryana, Maharashtra, Tamilnadu, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. It is envisaged that during the next few years, more than 200 services related to investors and businesses will be rolled-out across the country."
e-Biz portal owned by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry on its website (https://www.ebiz.gov.in/guideme) introduces e-Biz as "India's one-stop-shop of convenient and efficient online Government-to-Business(GZB) service. The core theme of eBiz lies in radical shift by Government in its service approach, from being department-centric to customer-centric, in providing services to the business community. From this single website, you will be able to apply and manage all your liencses, clearances, registrations and regulatory filings. You no longer need to go from department to department or wait in line or hop multiple websites for information and services."
It further states that e-Biz enables a person to :
Obtain information about various licenses, clearances and registrations required to establish a new business in India;
Apply online for new or renewal of licenses, permissions, approvals, clearances and registrations;
File tax returns and other regulatory reports;
Make electronic payments towards statutory (processing) fees, (stamp) duties, taxes, service fee etc.;
Track status of the application online:
Receive alerts via email and SMS on the progress of submitted applications;
Interact online with the various Government departments such as responding to queries/ clarifications, submit additional documentary artifacts;
Obtain electronic copies of approved Licenses, registration certificates and other clearances letters.
It is clear beyond doubt that e-Biz is a portal aimed at fostering business environment in the country by providing not only information, but a host of government services to the business community to facilitate ease of doing business. Thus, it cannot be said that option (d) suggested by the Commission is a wrong answer or that option (c) is the correct answer.
Question No.30 reads thus:-
S. No.
Question No.
Question (English)
Question (Hindi)
2.
How many countries of the world have adopted compulsory voting system ?
(a) 32
(b) 25
(c) 24
(d) 22
fo'o ds fdrus ns'kksa esa vfuok;Z ernku dh O;oLFkk ykxw gS \
(a) 32
(b) 25
(c) 24
(d) 22
According to the Commission, none of the options are correct and consequently, the question has been deleted. The experts of the Commission were also of the opinion that the Hindi version of the question convey a different meaning and for which again there is no correct answer and thus, the question has been deleted. However, according to the candidates, the correct answer is option (a) '32'. The candidates have placed reliance on an article published in 'Civil Services Chronicle January 2015', according to which 32 countries have adopted compulsory voting, although out of these, 19 countries are such who follow the same in all their elections. In another article on 'Compulsory Voting in India' downloaded from internet by the petitioners it is stated that currently there are 32 countries with compulsory voting of which 19 pursue it through enforcement. In an article 'International IDEA' a chart of 40 countries has been given stating the year in which law relating to compulsory voting was introduced in those countries. A perusal of the said chart reveals that in some countries, the law was enforced in the past but later on it seems to have been withdrawn. Some countries enforce the law for all citizens, while in some countries, certain sections of the society are exempt from its purview. Some countries enforce the law by imposing sanctions, whereas others do not. The facts and figures in the said chart does not indicate that any of the options given are correct. The Court thus concurs with the answer given by the Commission.
Question No.34 reads thus:-
S. No.
Question No.
Question (English)
Question (Hindi)
3.
In which of the following districts of U.P., a 112 year old woman (Nauroji Devi) has been elected Pradhan of a Village ?
(a) Mau
(b) Ghazipur
(c) Azamgarh
(d) Jaunpur
mRrj izns'k ds fuEufyf[kr ftyksa esa ls fdlesa 112 o"kZ dh cqtqxZ efgyk ¼ukSjksth nsoh½ dks xzke iz/kku pquk x;k gS\
(a) eÅ
(b) xkthiqj
(c) vktex<+
(d) tkSuiqj
According to the Commission, the correct answer is option (c) 'Azamgarh', whereas according to the petitioners, it is option (a). The Commission has placed reliance on a newspaper cutting from Amar Ujala dated 14 September 2015 which states Nauroji Devi was elected as Pradhan of Adma Mau, Block Phoolpur, District Azamgarh. Adma Mau village comes under District Azamgarh. Though strictly speaking the options given are all that of various districts, whereas the question was in relation to the village to which Nauroji Devi was elected but since the village from which she was elected is situated in district Azamgarh, the Court declines to accept the contention of the petitioners that option (a) is the correct answer.
We now proceed to examine the next contention of the petitioners as regards the correctness of the decision of the Commission in awarding full marks to candidates who have exercised one of the correct choice in respect of questions, for which two options have been found to be correct. It is contended that the instructions to the candidates specifically provided that if more than one answer was marked, it would be treated as wrong answer and will not be examined. The necessary corollary of the said instruction is that each answer should have one correct answer. Thus, if two options are correct, the question itself should have been deleted. The argument is specious and has to be rejected. Normally, each question is supposed to have one correct answer and it is for the said reason that such an instruction was given to the candidates. The object is to ensure that the candidate should be sure of the choice exercised by him and should not indulge in guess work. On the other hand, the decision of the Commission to award full marks to candidates exercising choice in respect of any of the two correct answers has been taken to rule out prejudice to such candidates. It was applied uniformally to all candidates. Thus, this Court does not find any fault in the decision of the Commission taken in this regard.
The other facet of the argument of the petitioners is that their valuable time was lost on account of large number of questions having been wrongly framed or on account of the fact that there was no correct answer to certain questions or in some cases, there were more than two correct answers. It is urged that on account of these mistakes, there was a lot of confusion amongst the candidates resulting in serious prejudice to them. On the other hand, the Commission submitted that this could not be a ground to grant any relief to the petitioners, as the deletion of questions or award of full marks to candidates exercising any one of the correct choice was applied uniformally to all the candidates.
Indisputably, the Commission itself deleted five questions on account of various reasons, whereas in respect of two questions (Questions no.119 and 139) two options were found to be correct and thus, it decided to award full marks to candidates exercising any one of these options. Apart from the anomalies found by the Commission itself, this Court has found (i) question no.44 as having two correct options; (ii) question no.92 being defective and not having any correct option; (iii) question no.25 containing a wrong and misleading clue; and (iv) question no.66 having been wrongly structured and the options given being equally incorrect.
The question which thus requires a serious consideration is the relief to which the petitioners are entitled to. In Rajesh Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court in declaring the selection made on basis of incorrect answer key as invalid even in the absence of selected candidates being made party to the litigation and also approved the decision of the High Court in extending the relief even to those who have not approached the High Court by observing as under:-
"15. .........It is true that the writ petitioners had not impleaded the selected candidates as party-respondents to the case. But it is wholly incorrect to say that the relief prayed for by the petitioners could not be granted to them simply because there was no prayer for the same. The writ petitioners, it is evident, on a plain reading of the writ petition questioned not only the process of evaluation of the answer scripts by the Commission but specifically averred that the "Model Answer Key" which formed the basis for such evaluation was erroneous. One of the questions that, therefore, fell for consideration by the High Court directly was whether the "Model Answer Key" was correct. The High Court had aptly referred that question to experts in the field who, as already noticed above, found the "Model Answer Key" to be erroneous in regard to as many as 45 questions out of a total of questions contained in ''A' series question paper. Other errors were also found to which we have referred earlier. If the key which was used for evaluating the answer sheets was itself defective the result prepared on the basis of the same could be no different. The Division Bench of the High Court was, therefore, perfectly justified in holding that the result of the examination in so far as the same pertained to ''A' series question paper was vitiated. This was bound to affect the result of the entire examination qua every candidate whether or not he was a party to the proceedings. It also goes without saying that if the result was vitiated by the application of a wrong key, any appointment made on the basis thereof would also be rendered unsustainable. The High Court was, in that view, entitled to mould the relief prayed for in the writ petition and issue directions considered necessary not only to maintain the purity of the selection process but also to ensure that no candidate earned an undeserved advantage over others by application of an erroneous key".
However, the Supreme Court did not approve of the directions given by the High Court to hold a fresh selection, rather it was laid down that in such circumstances, the most natural and logical way to correct the mistakes was to get the answer scripts re-evaluated on the basis of correct answer key. It has been observed thus:-
"19........ Given the nature of the defect in the answer key the most natural and logical way of correcting the evaluation of the scripts was to correct the key and get the answer scripts re-evaluated on the basis thereof. There was, in the circumstances, no compelling reason for directing a fresh examination to be held by the Commission especially when there was no allegation about any malpractice, fraud or corrupt motives that could possibly vitiate the earlier examination to call for a fresh attempt by all concerned. The process of re-evaluation of the answer scripts with reference to the correct key will in addition be less expensive apart from being quicker. The process would also not give any unfair advantage to anyone of the candidates on account of the time lag between the examination earlier held and the one that may have been held pursuant to the direction of the High Court. Suffice it to say that the re-evaluation was and is a better option, in the facts and circumstances of the case."
A similar course adopted by the examining body in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh (supra) was approved but with the rider that those who had already been selected and have worked for number of years should not be ousted but shall be placed at the bottom of the seniority list.
It has been brought to our notice that though the main written examination has been held but its result has not been declared so far. In view of the above, following the course adopted by the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar (supra), we dispose of the writ petitions with the following directions:
(a) The Commission shall re-evaluate the answer scripts of the preliminary examination of all the candidates by (i) deleting questions no.25, 66 and 92; and (ii) giving full marks for question no.44 to candidates who have exercised option (b) or (c).
(b) The candidates who are found to have qualified the preliminary examination as a result of re-evaluation, shall become entitled to appear in the main written examination. In respect of such candidates, the Commission will hold the main written examination at the earliest possible.
(c) The result of the main written examination already held, if not declared so far, shall not be declared till such time the main written examination of the candidates declared qualified as a result of direction issued by this Court is declared. In case the result of the main written examination already held is declared in the meantime, further exercise in regard to such candidates shall not be held until the holding of the examination of the remaining candidates as a result of directions being issued by this Court.
(d) The Commission shall thereafter hold interview from the merit list drawn on the basis of the result of both the main written examinations i.e. one held previously and the other that would be held in pursuance of the directions given herein.
(e) Some of the candidates who have appeared in the main written examination may fail to qualify preliminary examination as a result of re-evaluation. The candidature of such candidates shall be cancelled and they shall not be entitled to participate any further in the selection process.
Before parting, we are constrained to make certain observations in relation to the functioning of the Commission. Concededly, the Commission is a creature of Constitution as envisaged by Article 315. It is an institution of utmost importance in a country like ours which has the highest population of young men and women in the world. These men and women must have burnt their midnight oil in an effort to get employment on coveted posts in the Provincial Services of the State. The competition is cut thrown with even a fraction of mark being decisive of the fate of the candidates.
A candidate roughly got 48 seconds on an average to answer each question. Thus, time management in such a competitive examination was of considerable importance. A candidate who succeeds in attempting all questions would be in an advantageous position. In such a scenario, it is of utmost importance that questions framed are clear and unambiguous and admit of no doubt or confusion. Ideally, there should be one and only one correct answer. If the question contains a clue, it should be exact and relevant and not misleading. However, as noticed in the judgment, several questions were wrongly structured and contained more than one correct answer or contained incorrect clues or the options given were not exact.
The procedure which the Commission follows in setting up the question papers is contained in the Act. Under Section 9, the Controller of Examination prepares a list of persons qualified for appointment as examiners in a particular subject. Such a list is revised every three years. The Paper Setters, Moderators and Valuers are appointed from amongst the persons included in the said list. Section 10 envisages that there shall be three different Paper Setters who shall not belong to the same place. They shall prepare three different papers. The Moderators shall thereafter moderate all the three question papers, place them in separate covers under their seal and thereafter, the Controller of Examination shall choose any one of the moderated question papers of a subject without opening the sealed covers and send it to the Press for printing.
The Commission has placed on record the procedure which it follows in preparing the provisional answer key and in dealing with the objections filed against the same. The said procedure is as under:-
ÞizkjfEHkd ijh{kkvksa ¼oLrqijd½ ds izkIr lHkh mRrj i=dksa dh LdSfuax dh dk;Zokgh lekIr gksus ds i'pkr mRrj dqaft;kW rS;kj fd;s tkus ds fufeRr iz'u&i=okj xfBr nks vyx vyx fo'ks"kK lfefr (Expert Committees) dks laxr iz'u iqfLrdk miyC/k djkrs gq, 'kr izfr'kr iz'u [email protected] laLrqfr izkIr dj yh tk;A nksuksa desfV;ksa }kjk iznRr lHkh iz'u mRrj ,d leku gksus ij Lohdkj dj yh tk;] fdUrq ;fn mDr nksuksa desVh }kjk iznRr iz'u [email protected] laLrqfr;ksa esa dksbZ vUrj gks rks fo"k; fo'ks"kKksa dh ,d rhljh fo'ks"kK lfefr xfBr dh tk;] ftlesa iwoksZsDr nksuks desfV;ksa ds dksbZ lnL; u gksa rFkk muls fHkUu mRrjksa [email protected] iz'uksa ds lEcU/k esa laLrqfr izkIr dj rnuqlkj pkjksa fljht dh mRrj dqaft;kW rS;kj dj tkjh djrs gq, vH;fFkZ;ksa ls vkifRr;kW izkIr dj yh tk;A rn~dze esa ;fn fdUgh iz'uksa ij vkifRr;kW izkIr gksrh gSa rks fo"k; fo'ks"kKksa dh iqu% ,d fo'ks"kK lfefr xfBr dj mDr fookfnr iz'uksRrjksa dk ijh{[email protected] djk fy;k tk;A rRi'pkr~ izkIr laLrqfr;ksa ds vuqlkj vfUre :i ls pkjksa fljht dh la'kksf/kr mRrj dqaft;kW rS;kj dj ewY;kadu o ifj.kke ?kksf"kr djus dh dk;Zokgh dh tk; rFkk izkjfEHkd ijh{kk dk ifj.kke ?kksf"kr djrs le; gh mDr vfUre mRrj dqaft;kW (Final Key-Sheets) tkjh dj nh tk;A ;gh izfdz;k Ldzhfuax ijh{kk ds lEcU/k eas Hkh viuk;h tk;Aß
We find that a very elaborate and detailed procedure is prescribed involving experts at every stage of recruitment. Thus, there should be no reason why such large number of discrepancies have crept in. This leads us to ponder as to where the exercise has gone wrong. Was the Commission callous in performance of its duties in conducting the selection or was the choice of experts wrong? Section 9 (4) of the Act provides that in making appointment of Paper Setters, Moderators and Valuers, every care shall be taken to ensure that no person is so appointed who is found guilty by any University or Government body or against whom investigation may be pending on allegations of misconduct or whose integrity is in doubt. It further contemplates that any person whose work as Head Examiner, Paper Setter or Valuer is found to be unsatisfactory, he shall not be reappointed for that purpose. In Manish Ujwal and others (supra) the Supreme Court has deprecated the casual approach of Paper Setters in providing wrong key answers and has further observed that in such cases, appropriate action, including disciplinary action, should be taken against those responsible. Though, we abstain from issuing any direction in this regard in the absence of complete facts and figures being available but we part with an earnest hope that the Commission will come alive to the responsibilities conferred upon it by the Constitution. It will be careful and vigilant while holding such selections as well as in its choice of experts. The material placed before us by the Commission reveals that the remuneration paid to the experts is a pittance considering the nature of responsibilities and thus, we suggest the Commission to consider enhancing their remuneration so that best talent is available and such mistakes are not repeated in future.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) (Dilip Gupta, J.)
Order Date :- 9 December 2016
SL
