Tripura High Court
Sajal Kanti Biswas vs Tripura Public Service Commission ... on 27 May, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 10
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.135 of 2024
1. Sajal Kanti Biswas, son of Rabindra Kumar Biswas, resident of
Badharghat Sreepally, Agartala, PO- Madhuban, PS- Amtali, District-West
Tripura, Pin-799003. Age-39 years.
2. Dipanjan Laskar, son of Late Debasish Laskar, resident of Town
Bardowali, Agartala, PO- Bardowali, PS- A.D. Nagar, District- West Tripura,
Pin-799001. Age-28 years.
3. Subhajit Debnath, son of Sanjit Debnath, resident of North Kacharghat,
Kailashahar, PO & PS- Kailashahar, District-Unakoti Tripura, Pin-799277. Age-
31 years.
4. Subrata Debnath, son of Sushil Chandra Debnath, resident of village, PO
& PS-Panisagar, District- North Tripura, Pin-799260. Age-30 years.
5. Kaushik Das, son of Sibu Chandra Das, resident of Joynagar, PO-
Agartala, PS- West Agartala, District- West Tripura, Pin -799001, Age -26
years.
-- Appellants
Versus
1. Tripura Public Service Commission (TPSC), represented by its
Secretary, Akhaura Road, PO- Agartala, PS- West Agartala, District-West
Tripura, Pin-799001.
2. The Secretary, Tripura Public Service Commission (TPSC), Akhaura Road,
PO-Agartala, PS- West Agartala, District- West Tripura, Pin-799001.
3. The Chairman, Tripura Public Service Commission (TPSC), Akhaura Road,
PO-Agartala, PS- West Agartala, District- West Tripura, Pin-799001.
...Respondents
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. K. Chakraborty, Advocate.
Mr. D. Paul, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Datta, Advocate.
Date of hearing : 20.05.2025
Date of delivery of
Judgment
& Order : 27.05. 2025.
Whether fit for reporting : Yes.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
JUDGMENT & ORDER
[T. Amarnath Goud, J]
Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. K. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also
heard Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for respondents-TPSC.
[2] This present writ appeal has been filed under Rule B (A)
(General Rules for Writ Appeals) of Chapter VIII of the High Court of
Tripura Rules, 2023 read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
against the impugned Judgment and Order (Oral) dated 25.11.2024,
passed in W.P(C) No. 607 of 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of
this Court whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the connected
writ petition.
[3] The brief fact of the case is that in pursuance of an
advertisement dated 07.12.2021 and subsequent Addendum dated
02.05.2022, the appellants had applied for various posts and participated
in the selection process. After publication of result, the appellants did not
find their names in the list of successful candidates. Having found
themselves unsuccessful in the examination, the appellants submitted an
application to TPSC to allow them to inspect their respective answer-
scripts. The TPSC having received their applications followed by
subsequent legal notice informed the appellants about its inability to
produce and show the answer-scripts to the appellants for inspection on
the basis of the notification dated 20.06.2024. Ultimately, prayer for
inspection of answer-scripts had been rejected by the respondents-TPSC.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have approached this Court by filing
WP(C) No. 607 of 2024, wherein the learned Single Judge vide its order
dated 25.11.2024 passed the following observation, the relevant portion
of the aforesaid order is quoted herein below:-
".......7.9. In my opinion, this notification cannot be said to be unreasonable
and arbitrary. In the line of principles laid down in the cited cases supra,
consistent view is that there must be some restrictions in allowing an
individual candidate or any third party to inspect the answer-scripts. In the
opinion of this Court, the notification dated 20.06.2024 issued by the TPSC
is constitutionally valid since the intention behind the issuance of this
notification is to prevent lodging of frivolous complaints vis-à-vis claims
thereof that will lead to an unhealthy atmosphere in the smooth functioning
and administration of Public Service Commissions. Furthermore, it goes
without saying that Public Service Commissions are perpetually engaged in
organizing numerous examinations throughout the year. Having viewed so, I
am of the opinion that the notification dated 20.06.2024 cannot be said to
put an unreasonable restriction, and does not offend Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Accordingly, the submission of learned senior counsel
to quash the said notification is not accepted.
8. In the instant case, when this Court itself inspected the answer scripts of
the petitioners, in that case, further direction upon the respondents-TPSC to
place the answer-scripts before the petitioners will not be proper and
justified.
9. In the light of the above discussions and for the reasons recorded here-
in-above, I find no merit in the instant writ petition and accordingly, the
same stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs."
[4] Being dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order of the learned
Single Judge as stated herein above, the appellant-petitioner approached
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by filing Writ Appeal vide No. 135
of 2024, seeking the following relief:-
"i)Admit this Writ Appeal;
ii) Call for the relevant records, pertaining to the impugned Judgment & Order
(Oral) dated 25.11.2024, passed in W.P.(C) No. 607 of 2024;
iii)After hearing the parties, in terms of the GROUNDS set forth above, be pleased
to quash/set aside the impugned Judgment & Order (Oral) dated 25.11.2024,
passed in W.P.(C) No. 607 of 2024, by the Learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble High
Court, and thereafter, allow this Writ Appeal, thereby quashing/setting aside the
impugned Notification dated 20.06.2024 and mandating/directing the Respondents
to allow the Appellants to inspect their respective answer scripts of the Main
Examination [i.e., Paper-1 (English) & Paper-II (General Studies & Arithmetic)],
conducted in connection with the Advertisement No. 06/2021 dated 07.12.2021&
the Addendum dated 02.05.2022 (Annexures-1 & 2 respectively to the WP)".
[5] Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants submits before this Court that the appellants have the right to
inspect their answer scripts and rejection of the same is arbitrary and
discriminatory. Furthermore, according to learned senior counsel,
rejection to inspect the answer-script has raised serious doubt as regards
the transparency in the process of conducting examination.
[6] He also submits that the impugned notification dated
20.06.2024, would amply reveal that the decision for not allowing the
unsuccessful candidates from inspection of their answer scripts has been
taken away by the respondents, taking umbrage of an Order dated
20.02.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Civil
Appeal No.(s). 6159-6162 Of 2013 (UPSC Vs. Angesh Kumar &
Others) with Civil Appeal NO. 5924/2013. He further submits that in
the above judgment, the issue was regarding the validity of denial of
inspecting the answer scripts of the Civil Services (Preliminary)
examination as sought for by the concerned candidates, during pendency
of the concerned selection process. But, in the instant case, the prayer
has been made for inspecting the answer scripts of the Main
Examination, that also, after the entire selection process have been
completed.
[7] To fortify his contentions Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior
counsel placed reliance on the Judgments rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Mradul Mishra vs. Chairman, U.P. Public
Service Commission Allahabad and Ors. decided on 16.07.2018 in
Civil Appeal No. 6723 of 2018 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 33006 of
2017 (Para 14) and Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr.
vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. reported in (2011) 8 SCC 497
(Para 51,59 and 66). Therefore, he prays to allow his appeal.
[8] Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-
TPSC vehemently objected the submission of learned senior counsel for
the appellants. He submits that considering the need for transparency
and accountability of the Commission, the answer-scripts should not be
allowed to be inspected by the candidates who have appeared in the
examination. It is further submitted that if this kind of prayer is allowed,
then, the integrity of the Public Service Commission will be at stake and
the entire system of conducting examination will be jeopardized.
[9] Mr. Datta, learned counsel, thereafter, submits that the entire
process was completed maintaining optimum transparency and there is
no scope of doubting the integrity about the evaluation of the answer-
scripts. It is also mentioned by him that the entire process follows three
steps to evaluate the answer-scripts like examiner, head examiner and
scrutinizer. Even if all examiners initials are masked, the way marks are
awarded could itself be a giveaway in revealing the examiner's identity.
Any such possibility of the examiner's identity getting revealed in such a
high-stakes examination would have serious implication both for the
integrity and fairness of the examination system and for the security and
safety of the examiner.
[10] In support of this argument Mr. Datta, learned counsel placed
reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Union Public Service Commission and Ors. vs. Angesh Kumar and
Ors. in Civil Appeal nos. 6159-6162 of 2013 and Prashant Ramesh
Chakkarwar vs. Union Public Service Commission and others,
reported in (2013) 12 SCC 489. Reliance has also been placed on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranav Verma and Ors. vs.
Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh and Anr., reported in (2020) 15 SCC 377 [Three-Judge
Bench (SCC p 395 ). He therefore, prays before this Court to dismiss this
present appeal.
[11] Heard both sides.
[12] Before delving into the merits of the case , we may take a
note of the application dated 14.06.2024 which is made by the appellant-
petitioner addressed to the Secretary, TPSC. The same is extracted
hereunder:-
"To
The Secretary, TPSC
Tripura Public Service Commision
Akhaura Road, Agartala, Tripura (W)
Pin: 799001.
Subject: Prayer for seeking the permission to inspect my Mains Copy
(Paper-1 & Paper -II) of TPSC Combined Exam, vide Advt. No. 06/2021,
Dated: 07/12/2021, Roll No. 29441.
Respected Sir,
Most humbly I would like to inform you that as mentioned above I want to
inspect my Mains Copy (Paper-I & Paper II) of TPSC Combined Exam, vide
Advt. No. 06/2021, Dated 07/12/2021, which Final Recommended List was
published on 06/06/2024 against notification No.F. 11 (91-3) -Rectt/
TPSC/ 2022(V01-1).
I was in a positive hope and quite confident about my result since my
Written Exam and Personal Interview went well and expected that my
name would be in the final merit list but unfortunately it did not happen.
So, for personal satisfaction, self improvement and course corrective
measures for future prospects I want to inspect aforementioned copies
which will be at least a minimum solution for me.
So, based on the above circumstances you are highly requested to kindly
look into the matter and grant my request to inspect the same as early as
possible and I will be thankful for your kindness.
Therefore, looking forward with a positive hope for your necessary action
in this regard and thus oblige.
Thanking You.
Date: 14/06/2024
Yours Faithfully
Sajal Kanti Biswas
MobileNo. 9436768450.....".
[13] It is seen from the application which is extracted above, for
personal satisfaction, self improvement and course corrective measures
the appellant herein approached the concerned respondent. This Court
feels that these reasons cannot be a sufficient grounds for inspection of
answer-scripts.
[14] Thereafter, in pursuance of the application as stated above,
the secretary, TPSC issued a notification dated 20th June,2024, which
reads as under :-
".........NOTIFICATION
It is for information of all concerned that in pursuance of Honb'le Supreme
Court of India order arising upon Civil Appeal No.(s).6159-6162 of 2013 with
C.A.No.5924/2013 and order of Tripura Information Commission vide Appeal
No.TIC-08 of 2020-21/5888-89 dated 20.04.2021 the Commission's decision is
inforce that inspection of Answer Scripts (Conventional Type)/ OMR base
examination are not allowed by individual candidate or any third party. The same
decision of the Commission not to allow inspection of Answer Scripts (Conventichal
Type)/ OMR base examination by individual candidate or any third party will
continué. The Commission will not entertain such request either through plain paper
application or RTI application.
(S Mog, LAS)
Secretary, TPSC."
[15] This Court finds force in the argument of learned counsel Mr.
R. Datta as well as the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Union Public Service Commission and Ors. vs. Angesh Kumar
and Ors. in Civil Appeal nos. 6159-6162 of 2013. The relevant
portions are extracted as under :-
6. Thus, it is clear that in interpreting the scheme of the Act, this Court has, while
adopting purposive interpretation, read inherent limitation in Sections 3 and 6 based
on the third recital in the Preamble to the Act. While balancing the right to
information, public interest including efficient h working of the Government,
optimum use of fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive
information has to be balanced and can be a guiding factor to deal with a given
situation dehors Sections 8. 9 and 11. The High Court has not applied the said
parameters.
7. The problems in showing evaluated answer sheets in the UPSC Civil Services
Examination are recorded in Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar v. UPSC¹. From the
counter-affidavit in the said case, the following extract was referred to: (SCC pp.
497-98. para 12)
"12.....6.... (B) Problems in showing evaluated answer books 10 candidates. (f) Final
awards subsume earlier stages of evaluation. Disclosing answer books would reveal
intermediate stages too, including the so-called "raw marks" which would have
negative implications for the integrity of the examination system, as detailed in
Section (C) below.
(ii) The evaluation process involves several stages. Awards assigned initially by an
examiner can be struck out and revised due to (a) totalling mistakes, portions
unevaluated, extra attempts (beyond prescribed number) being later corrected as a
result of clerical scrutiny. (b) The examiner changing his own awards during the
course of evaluation either because he/she marked it differently initially due to an
inadvertent error or because he/she corrected himself/herself to be more in
conformity with the accepted standards, after discussion with Head
Examiner/colleague examiners. (c) Initial awards of the Additional Examiner being
revised by the Head Examiner during the latter's check of the former's work. (d) the
Additional Examiner's work having been found erratic by the Head Examiner. been
rechecked entirely by another examiner, with or without the Head Examiner again
rechecking this work.
(iii) The corrections made in the answer book would likely arouse doubt and perhaps
even suspicion in the candidate's mind. Where such corrections lead to a lowering of
earlier awards, this would not only breed representations/grievances, but would
likely lead to litigation. In the only evaluated answer book that has so far been
shown to a candidate (Shri Gaurav Gupta in Gaurav Gupta v. UPSCS dated 6-7-
2012) on the orders of the High Court. Delhi and that too, with the marks assigned
masked; the candidate has nevertheless filed a fresh WP alleging improper
evaluation.
(iv) As relative merit and not absolute merit is the criterion here (unlike academic
examinations), a feeling of the initial marks/revision made being considered harsh
when looking at the particular answer script in isolation could arise without
appreciating that similar standards have been applied to all others in the field. Non-
appreciation of this would lead to erosion of faith and credibility in the system and
challenges to the integrity of the system, including through litigation.
(v) With the disclosure of evaluated answer books, the danger of coaching institutes
collecting copies of these from candidates (after perhaps encouraging/inducing them
to apply for copies of their answer books under the RTI Act) is real, with all its
attendant implications.
(vi) With disclosure of answer books to candidates, it is likely that at least some of
the relevant examiners also get access to these. Their possible resentment at their
initial awards (that they would probably recognize from the fictitious code numbers
and/or their markings, especially for low-candidature subjects) having been
superseded (either due to inter-examiner or inter-subject moderation) would lead to
bad blood between Additional Examiners and the Head Examiner on the one hand,
and between examiners and the Commission, on the other hand. The free and frank
manner in which Head Examiners, for instance, review the work of their colleague
Additional Examiners, would likely be impacted. Quality of assessment standards
would suffer.
(vii) Some of the optional papers have very low candidature (sometimes only one),
especially the literature papers. Even if all examiners' initials are masked (which too
is difficult logistically, as each answer book has several pages, and examiners often
record their initials and comments on several pages with revisions/corrections,
where done, adding to the size of the problem), the way marks are awarded could
itself be a give-away in revealing the examiner's identity. If the masking falters at
any stage, then the examiner's identity is pitilessly exposed. The "catchment area"
of candidates and examiners in some of these low-candidature papers is known to
be limited. Any such possibility of the examiner's identity getting revealed in such a
high-stakes examination would have serious implications, both for the integrity and
fairness of the examination system and for the security and safety of the examiner.
The matter is compounded by the fact that we have publicly stated in different
contexts earlier that the paper-setter is also generally the Head Examiner.
(viii) UPSC is now able to get some of the best teachers and scholars in the country
to be associated in its evaluation work. An important reason for this is no doubt the
assurance of their anonymity, for which the Commission goes to great lengths. Once
disclosure of answer books starts and the inevitable challenges (including litigation)
from disappointed candidates starts, it is only a matter of time before these
examiners who would be called upon to explain their assessment/award, decline to
accept further assignments from the Commission. A resultant corollary would be
that examiners who then accept this assignment would be sorely tempted to play
safe in their marking, neither awarding outstanding marks nor very low marks, even
where these are deserved. Mediocrity would reign supreme and not only the
prestige, but the very integrity of the system would be compromised markedly."
9. Weighing the need for transparency and accountability on the one hand and
requirement of optimum use of fiscal resources and confidentiality of sensitive
information on the other, we are of the view that information sought with regard to
marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically.
Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing.
Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above
which will not be in public interest. However, if a case is made out where the Court
finds that public interest requires furnishing of information, the Court is certainly
entitled to so require in a given fact situation. If rules or practice so require,
certainly such rule or practice can be enforced. In the present case, direction has
been issued without considering these parameters."
[16] This Court feels that the appellants herein approached TPSC
for mere personal satisfaction, self improvement and course corrective
measures. These reasons do not constitute a valid request or to warrant
the interference of this Court. The appellants can introspect themselves
and perform better in future. It is not practicable to permit the appellants
to inspect the answer-scripts in a routine manner. Moreover, when the
confidentiality and identification of examiner, head examiner and
scrutinizer are involved because each page is signed by three persons.
There is also hidden amount of risk and threat involved.
[17] In view of the above observation, the judgment and order
dated 25.11.2024 passed in WP(c) No. 607 of 2024 by the learned Single
Judge is confirmed and this present appeal stands dismissed.
As a sequel, stay if any, stands vacated. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands closed.
B. PALIT, J T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
Paritosh
SABYA Digitally signed
by SABYASACHI
SACHI GHOSH
Date: 2025.05.27
GHOSH 16:36:47 +05'30'
