Case Law Details

Case Name : Kumar Saurav Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh  High Court)
Appeal Number : WPC No. 2403 of 2019
Date of Judgement/Order : 15/11/2019
Related Assessment Year :

Kumar Saurav Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh  High Court)

Out of 100 questions, as much as 41 questions/answers have wrongly been framed. Re-examination ordered. Carelessness will always have a price.

Considering the degree and percentage of defects in the question papers which according to this Court as much as 41 wrong questions/answers have been found out of 100, the percentage of it would certainly dilute the module of selection process and the Court cannot observe the silence. The Court after the examination cannot allow it as one horse-race but would accept the steep challenge with an idea of reform. Serving certain problems requires multi prolonged approach and reform and they will persist if we view through narrow lens and the carelessness will always have a price. Consequently the way in which the entire examination was conducted cannot be allowed to sustain.

69. In the result, the final result of the preliminary examination conducted by the P.S.C. on 02.07.2019 pursuant to the advertisement dated 06.02.2019 is hereby quashed. The P.S.C., is directed to conduct a fresh preliminary examination on the basis of advertisement dated 06.02.2019 to all those candidates who had appeared in the examination and filled up the forms. No separate examination fee shall be charged for the subsequent examination, which is ordered herein. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand allowed to the extent as directed here-in-above.

FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGEMENT

1. The challenge made in this batch of petitions is to the result dated 02.07.2019 in respect of the on-line preliminary written examination conducted on 07th May, 2019 for the post Civil Judge (Entry Level) by the Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission, Raipur.

2. The predominant common prayer made by the petitioners are to quash the result of written examination of Civil Judge (Entry Level) Exam.2019 and further again publish the correct model key question and answers and thereafter evaluate the answer sheets and accordingly allot the marks obtained by the petitioners. Since the facts and issues involved in all the petitions relate to the subject of law and questions/answers of the on-line written examination held on 07.05.2019, the petitions were heard together and are decided by this common order.

3. The facts of this case are that the respondent Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission conducted the on-line written examination on 07th May, 2019 for the post of Civil Judge (Entry level) Examination 2019. The advertisement was published in February, 2019 for conducting examination to the vacant sanctioned posts of Civil Judges. The written examination was held on 07.05.2019. Various prospecting candidates appeared in the examination and thereafter, the model key answers were published on 08.05.2019 along-with answers opted by the respective examinees. The memo was also published inviting objections by on-line. The on-line objections were received by the respondent/Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission with respect to the questions and answers too and it was placed before the Special Expert Committee for consideration and the final amended model key answer sheets were published on 22.06.2019. The publication made in subject also states that the model key answer sheets would be final and the evaluation and allotment of marks would be done on the basis of amended model key answers. The petitioners contended that after publication of the amended model key answer, out of 100 questions, more than 30 questions were apparently found wrong as they contain certain defects of incorrect answers and wrong phraseology including spelling mistakes in questions and answers and there has also been variance between the English and Hindi versions of question & answers. The petitioners contend that they had answered/ chosen correct answers and due to wrong deletion of some questions/answers, based on objections they received equal distribution of marks but individually correct answers were given. So those students deprived of full marks whereby their merit was brought down. It is stated that such incorrect evaluation resulted into wrong allotment of marks, consequently petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire result of written examination of Civil Judge (Entry Level) Examination 2019 and sought for consequential reliefs.

4. It is the case of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission that the petitioners without tallying and comparing the questions with the Set ‘A’ of PSC which was published have drawn a presumption that the model answers published on 22.06.2019 are incorrect. It is further stated that after the examination was conducted, the model answers were published on 08.05.2019 and after the objections having been received within the stipulated period, the same were decided. It is stated that few of the questions/answers were never objected except 3 questions which were numbered as 8, 38 & 40. It is stated that the said objections were dealt with and after assessment made by the 3 Experts Committee consisting of Senior Addl. District Judges, the objections were rejected by the Committee. It is further submitted that there were 100 questions in Civil Judge (Entry Level) Examination 2019 and the first model answer was issued on 08.05.2019 calling upon objections and approximately 157 candidates have raised objections with regard to 49 questions and answers. Thereafter, the Experts Committee was constituted to scrutinize and decide the objections raised by the candidates and the Committee after assessment and scrutiny of papers proposed to delete 12 questions/answers i.e.,question Nos. 1, 16, 28, 45, 47, 52, 61, 78, 81, 93, 96 & 97 (of Set-A). It is further stated that on account of reasons mentioned in the note sheets prepared against those questions and answers, primarily in both the versions i.e., English and Hindi either the questions were vague or suggested answers were not correct or none of the suggested answers were correct, therefore, those questions were dropped.

5. It further stated that the expert Committee ultimately suggested and amended the correct answers to question No.22, 41, 99 & 100 in total 4 and accordingly final amended model answers were published on 22.06.2019 thereby 12 questions were deleted on the basis of recommendation of the Expert Committee. It is stated that 12 questions were deleted for all the candidates who had appeared in the examination, thereby no prejudice is caused to any particular candidate as the marks for one deleted question was distributed to the ratio of 1.2195 to all the examinees. He further submitted that in respect of the other questions, no objections were made. It is contended that as per the usual practice, the question papers were evaluated as per Set ‘A’ and questions and answers were further shuffled to maintain the confidentiality and to avoid uniformity in the question/ answers so as to prevent the malpractice of copying and symmetry amongst the candidates. It is contended that thereafter Set ‘A’ of question papers was published by the CGPSC thereby the question papers of different candidates/ petitioners would have a different distinct serial number. consequently no prejudice would have been caused to any of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the PSC would further submit that separate identification (ID) was given to each participant and they can down­load the question papers and those papers can be tallied with the key answers which is at the left and every question has a separate ID. Therefore, shuffling of questions would not make any difference. Referring to a few of the answer sheets of petitioner Kumar Saurav, it was stated that out of 100 questions, the correct answers were made of 64 questions and the mistakes were of 36. However, for the deleted questions he was also given the mark. Referring to case law laid down in (2018) 8 SCC 81 it is further submitted that as per the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court, the objections to the questions have been dealt with. He further submits that once the objection has been dealt with by the Expert Committee, it cannot be challenged before this Court.

7. It is further submitted that as many as total 4681 candidates have appeared in the examination and out of that, 427 candidates were chosen and before this Court only 8 candidates i.e., petitioners have objected and the objections would relate to only 9 questions. It is stated that 3 petitioners have not objected namely Chhabi Lal Sahu, Nushrat Tahsin Quadr and Priyamvada Singh therefore, even if the questions were not objected by those persons they are before this Court. It is stated that the question papers published by the PSC in set ‘A’, the objections having been invited, 157 persons objected to total 49 questions and out of 49 questions, 12 were deleted by the expert Committee, thereby 37 questions remain undecided. He stated that in 4 questions, answers were corrected and the options were with questions bearing no. 22, 41, 99 & 100 whereas 33 questions were found not required to be corrected. Referring to further answers, it is stated that for Model Answer ‘A’, few of the questions were objected on the ground that there are differences between English and Hindi version, however, the expert committee did not find appropriate to delete the same. It is stated that the same cannot be subject of question.

8. Referring to the case laws reported in (2018) 7 SCC 254 (U.P. Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh) (2018) 8 SCC 81 (Richal Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission); (2018) 2 SCC 357 (Ran Vijay Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh) and (2018) 15 SCC 796 (Union Public Service Commission Vs. M. Sathiya Priya) learned counsel would further submit that the precedents of Supreme Court would show that interference in the matters of academic nature should not be made as has been laid down by the Supreme Court and would submit that the decision of expert in a field would bind the court and the challenge can be made on a very limited ground and the opinion of the expert has to be given due weight. It is further stated that no error can be found with the answer of the Expert Committee and the questions which have been deleted, the redistribution of marks with respect to the deleted questions cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational and all the candidates at large have been benefited by redistribution of marks. Learned Counsel would further submit that it was not permissible for the Court to examine the question paper and the answer sheets itself when the PSC has assessed the inter-se merit of the candidates and if there is discrepancy in framing the questions or evaluation of the answers it would be for all the candidates, therefore, no prejudice is to have been caused to anyone. Consequently, the instant petitions have no merit and are liable to be dismissed.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that after the final model answer was released on 22.06.2019, 12 questions were deleted from 100 questions, which made the remaining questions to be 88 and since 12 questions were deleted, the marks of 12 questions were distributed in 88 questions in the ratio of 1.2195. It is stated that out of the said 88 model questions, 23 questions were still wrong. It is further contended that merging of 12 marks in 88 marks would also not be correct as few of the questions which were deleted had the correct answers, therefore, in the examination of the like nature, few of the questions which draws a line of distinction between the merit and general were diluted.

10. Referring to the model answer sheets, counsel for the petitioners would submit there has been serious variance in English and Hindi versions. Consequently, it cannot be expected that the candidates will read both the questions of Hindi & English and draw a presumption. It is further submitted that the Expert Committee selected only 12 questions to be defective and deliberately left the other faulty questions/answers to bring it out from the corners of the re­examinations as the notification purports that if there is a defect in more than 20% of the questions, then it would result into re­examination. Therefore, it is contended that the Expert Committee has acted arbitrarily and without application of mind.

11. Further it is submitted that different sets of papers though were distributed to different candidates, the shuffling in questions was allowed but shuffling of answers were not allowed but was done. In the result, when the answers were tallied with the model answers because the questions were shuffled and the answers were not shuffled, the incorrect evaluation has been done. While advancing the said arguments, the petitioners referred to different question numbers and would submit that if the answer no.4 is correct in a certain question but the question is shuffled, the answer would be different from the question. It is further stated that when the translation is wrong about the English and Hindi questions, it would be the mistake of translator and the entire questions would be wrong consequently the candidate who has answered such question(s) on the presumption would be at the disadvantageous stage. It is further submitted that few of the candidates have raised limited objections towards questions for the reason that for every objection, charge of Rs.50/- is collected and if the objections are made to 70 questions, the amount would be of Rs.3500/- which would be more than that of examination fee. It is further submitted that raising objection cannot be sin quonan for correctness of a question and it’s answer.

12. With respect to the deleted 12 questions, one of the petitioners would submit that out of 12 questions, 10 were correctly answered and wrong deletions have been made by the Expert Committee though the questions and answers were correct, therefore, that number as against the person who has wrongly answered would be a gainer for the wrong and it would be a wrong procedure adopted in a competitive examination. Referring to a case law reported in (2018) 8 SCC Pg. 81 (supra), it is further submitted that the Supreme Court has supported the equal distribution of the number when the questions are wrong. But in case the right questions/answers are deleted and equal marks are given in lieu of deletion of such questions/answers, it would a further wrong. Learned counsel further referred to different questions and would submit that the objections though were raised, it has been wrongly dealt with and the Expert Committee also failed to discharge its obligation and has cursorily done the job which is completely illegal and has an eventual affect of legal right.

13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. During the course of hearing, the question papers of English version and Hindi versions were placed for perusal. In order to appreciate the nature of questions & answers including the questions which are deleted, the questions which are subject of issue have been identified and separately taken out. For the purpose of identification and verification for English version, the participants ID 1903104434 is considered and for Hindi version, participants ID 1903100713 is taken up for consideration. There were two sets of questions in the papers. One was in English and the other was in Hindi. The total questions were numbering in 100 for each English and Hindi. As per the prevalent system, the on­line written examination was conducted on computers, therefore, as is averred while the examinee appears for the examination, it was within their choice either to read in English or Hindi according to their medium of language. Importantly on the Computer screen, the English as also Hindi questions both were to appear. The candidate who opted for English would tick mark the English answer and the candidate who opted for Hindi would choose the Hindi answer. Therefore, the candidate would have both the English and Hindi questions on his computer screen. These facts are being discussed for the reason that a candidate has a limited time of 2 hours. Therefore, naturally the candidates who have opted the English medium will read 100 questions of English and similarly the Hindi opted candidates would read 100 questions within the period of two hours. Meaning thereby the candidates are not expected to read both English and Hindi questions simultaneously within the limited time, as otherwise, it would make the number of questions to be 200. With such back ground the questions and answers are being considered.

14. This Court cannot over-look and sideline the pattern of examination as the examination was to choose a competent Civil Judge i.e., Judicial Officer. The Supreme Court while evaluating the gravity of Judicial Officer’s Post has drawn a line of distinction between a general candidate of selection other than that for a Judge. In a recent decision rendered in Civil Appeal No. 7306/2019 (Shri Rang Wagmare vs. State of Maharashtra) decided on 16.09.2019 the Supreme Court has held that the Judges must remember that they are not merely employees but hold the public office. In the said case, reiterating the observations made in R.C. Chandel Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 8 SCC 58 the Supreme Court has further held that the standard of conduct expected of a Judge is much higher than that of an ordinary person. The observations made in R.C. Chandel V. High Court of M.P. (supra) at Para 37 would be relevant here and quoted below :

“37. Judicial Service is not an ordinary government service and the judges are not employees as such judges hold the public office; their function is one of the essential functions of the State. In discharge of their functions and duties, the Judges represent the State. The Office that a judge holds is an office of public trust. A judge must be a person of impeccable integrity and impeachable independence. He must be honest to the core with high moral values. When a litigant enters the courtroom, he must feel secure that judge before whom his matter has come, would deliver justice impartially and uninfluenced by any consideration. The Standard of conduct expected of a Judge is much higher than an ordinary man. This is no excuse that since the standards in the society have fallen, the Judges who are drawn from the Society cannot be expected to have high standards and ethical firmness required of a judge. A Judge like Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion. The credibility of the judicial system is dependent upon the Judges who man it. For a democracy to thrive and rule of law to survive, judicial system and the judicial process have to be strong and every judge must discharge his judicial functions with integrity, impartially and intellectual honesty”.

15. In Shrirang Yadavrao Waghmare (Supra), the Court has further held that the judge must decide the case only on the basis of facts on records and the law applicable to the case. It categorically held that if the judge decides a case for extraneous reasons then he is not performing his duties in accordance with law. The said judgment reminds time and again the value of post of a judge and the duty he would discharge. Therefore, considering the post for which a candidate is to be selected, the selection process including the examination should also stand the test of purity devoid of any confusion deciding a fact on extraneous considerations by drawing a presumption. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the examination was conducted for selection of Civil Judge and after going through the nature of questions as the same do not refer to any serious statutory interpretation or intricate question of law, this Court would deal to examine the question and answers including the findings of experts on objections. It is also obvious that when the High Court is deciding the case in respect of competitive examination, which pertains to questions and answers for selection of a candidate to the post of Civil Judge being of nascent stage of law, it can certainly examine the same while adjudicating. With both the grounds as stated herein-above, the questions and answers of the English and Hindi both are being tested and considered. Both for English version and Hindi version, separate IDs of participants have been referred to maintain the secrecy and the names of candidates have not been disclosed.

16. For the sake of brevity, to appreciate the nature of defective questions and answers as has been argued by the petitioners, the questions and answers along-with the Experts Report on the objections were considered. The said questions and answers are discussed herein below :

17. Question No.1 of English version equivalent to question no.1 of Hindi version read as under:

Q.1 ‘A’ schools ‘Z’ with intention of killing him. ‘Z’ dies in consequences. ‘A’ is quality of

Ans. 1. Murder

2. Culpable homicide

3. Both (A) and (B)

4. None of the above

Q.1 य’ को मार डालने के आशाय से ‘क’ उस पर गोली चलाता है। पिरणामसवरप ‘य’ मर जाता है। क दोषी है।

Ans  1. हतया

2. आपरािधक मानववध

3. (अ) और (ब) दोनो

4. उपरोकत मे से कोई नही

The aforesaid question was deleted by the Experts. Reading of Question No.1 would show that English version was defective as “A schools Z” was a mistake which should have been ‘A’ shoots ‘Z’. Then in the next sentence, the words A is quality of have been used which should have been A is guilty of. Therefore, the question is deleted for all the candidates. Whereas in Hindi Version, no mistake was found. But since there was defect in English the entire question was rightly deleted. The principle is that there cannot be different versions of Hindi & English.

18. Question No.2 of English version equivalent to question No.2 Hindi version :

Q.1 ‘A’ imports in to India, or exports therefrom, any counter feit coin knowing, the same to be counter feet is, quality under section — of I.P.C.

Ans. 1. 236

2. 237

3. 235

4. 234

Q.2 जो कोई िकसी कू रकृत िसकके को यह जानते हुये िक वह कू रकृ त है भारत मे आयात करेगा वह भा.द.िव. की धारा ­ के अंनतगरत दोषी है।

Ans 1. 234

  1. 236
  2. 237
  3. 235

In this question, the word ‘quality’ has been used which should have been ‘guilty’. Then after the word ‘counter’ word ‘feet’ has been used showing ‘counter feet’ in the second part which is also wrong as it should have ‘counterfeit’

Likewise, in Hindi, the word ‘Kurkrit’ ( कूरकृत) has been used. Since both these questions of English and Hindi versions were having wrong spelling and meaning, a candidate has to draw a presumption before answering or has to read questions in both the versions to compare which is correct. Therefore, the entire exercise to answer a question would be against the scheme of examination. Meaning thereby Hindi or English version of question should be correct distinctly and be correct in isolation.

……………………………………………………………………..

……………………………………………………………………..

……………………………………………………………………..

……………………………………………………………………..

Read PDF Copy of Judgment for Question Wise Analysis

60. The examination of the aforesaid questions and answers would show that minor mistakes were found in 8 questions which are shown at Para 21(Question No. 9 of English equivalent to Question No. 9 of Hindi); Para 22 (Question No. 10 of English equivalent to Question No. 14 of Hindi); Para 27 (Question No.19 of English equivalent to Question No. 20 of Hindi), Para 33 (Question No.32 of English equivalent to Question No. 31 of Hindi); Para 34 (Question No. 33 of English equivalent to Question No.33 of Hindi); Para-46 (Question No.58 of English equivalent to Question No. 58 of Hindi), Para-59 (Question No. 100 of English equivalent to Question No. 93 of Hindi). Though minor mistakes appeared in these questions but the mistake changes the meaning of question or made it meaningless.

61. Likewise, the Expert Committee deleted 12 questions, out of which 11 were found rightly deleted. Those are described at Para 17 (Question No. 1 of English equivalent to Question No. 1 of Hindi); Para 24 (Question No. 12 of English equivalent to Question No. 13 of Hindi); Para 29 (Question No.26 of English equivalent to Question No.29 of Hindi); Para-41 (Question No.43 of English equivalent to Question No. 43 of Hindi); Para 43 (Question No.50 of English equivalent to Question No. 48 of Hindi); Para 44 (Question No. 53 of English equivalent to Question No.54 of Hindi); Para 48 (Question No. 63 of English equivalent to Question No.59 of Hindi); Para 49 (Question No. 78 of English equivalent to Question No. 79 of Hindi); Para 50 (Question No.80 of English equivalent to Question No. 82 of Hindi); Para 56 (Question No.96 of English equivalent to Question No.98 of Hindi) and Para 58 (Question No. 99 of English equivalent to Question No. 96 of Hindi). However, one question which is described at Para 54 e., Question No. 93 of English equivalent to Question No. 95 of Hindi) was wrongly deleted.

62. On perusal of questions as cited above in different Paras, this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that out of total objected questions, other 20 questions remained in the list should have been deleted apart from the questions deleted by the Expert Committee for the reasons stated in the foregoing paras. The questions shown at Para 18 (Question No.2 of English equivalent to Question No.2 of Hindi); Para-19 (Question No. 3 of English equivalent to Question No. 3 of Hindi); Para 20 (Question No. 8 of English equivalent to Question No.8 of Hindi); Para 23 (Question No. 11 of English equivalent to Question No. 16 of Hindi); Para 25 (Question No.15 of English equivalent to Question No. 10 of Hindi); Para 30 (Question No.27 of English equivalent to Question No.29 of Hindi), Para 31 (Question No.29 of English equivalent to Question No. 25 of Hindi); Para 32 (Question No. 31 of English equivalent to Question No.36 of Hindi); Para 35 (Question No. 35 of English equivalent to Question No. 35 of Hindi), Para 36 (Question No.36 of English equivalent to Question No. 34 of Hindi), Para 37 (Question No. 38 of English equivalent to Question No.37 of Hindi), Para 38 (Question No.39 of English equivalent to Question No. 38 of Hindi), Para 39 (Question No.48 of English equivalent to Question No. 42 of Hindi), Para 42 (Question No. 45 of English equivalent to Question No.44 of Hindi); Para 45 (Question No. 57 of English equivalent to Question No.57 of Hindi); Para 47 (Question No.60 of English equivalent to Question No. 63 of Hindi); Para 51(Question No. 81 of English equivalent to Question No.80 of Hindi); Para 53 (Question No.84 of English equivalent to Question No. 84 of Hindi); Para 55 (Question No.95 of English equivalent to Question No.100 of Hindi) and Para 57 (Question No. 97 of English equivalent to Question No.94 of Hindi) should have been dropped for the reasons which are cited above.

63. Two objections were rightly over-ruled by the Expert Committee which are at Para 26, (Question No. 16 of English equivalent to Question No.12 of Hindi) and Para 28 (Question No.22 of English equivalent to Question No. 22 of Hindi). The Expert Committee has wrongly changed the answer for the questions shown at Para 40 e., Question No.42 of English equivalent to Question No. 45 of Hindi) and the wrong answer was arrived at.

64. In view of the above discussion, the 11 questions were rightly deleted by the Expert Committee and further more 8 questions having a minor mistakes as shown above along-with 20 questions which were completely wrong for the reasons stated above in the foregoing paragraphs should have been dropped. Therefore, 11 questions + 28 questions i.e., total 39 questions were wrongly framed either on account of spelling mistakes or on account of wrong interpretation or application of law as discussed above. The Expert Committee has wrongly deleted one question and wrongly changed the answer of one question, as such, the number of defective/wrong questions would be further increased from 39 to 41 (39 + 1 + 1), as such, total 41 questions were wrongly framed or their answers were wrongly made.

65. The Supreme Court in recent decision in Civil Appeal No. 7306/2019 Shri Rang Wagmare vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) has emphasized the significance of the post of a Judge. Therefore, when a candidate passes through the process of selection, the said process should be in conformity with no-fault procedure. When these facts are brought to the notice of the Court and the Court observes the silence despite going through the faults in the questions and answers, it would amount to enforcement of silence for the wrong by the Court itself. The Court will do well to remember the right of a candidate who is going to be a Civil judge and what would be the duty after he is selected to the principal part of the judicial office. If a person who passes such examination which contains the number of defective questions and to answer the same, a presumption has to be drawn, then the candidate who is selected subsequently would carry an impression at the inception that while passing a judgment, any inference can be drawn and casual non- serious approach would be a normal attitude. Apart from that, when the defective procedure of selection is carried forward and is perpetuated, then a Judge who deliver the judgment will also carry forward the impression in his mind that the deliberate human mistakes would be common and can be allowed to be precipitated in routine in judgment. The Selected Judge should not be allowed to carry the ignorance of presumption and thereafter pass the judgments/orders ignoring the right of parties which the Judge is invested with.

66. The case laws relied upon by the Public Service Commission do not deal with the appointment of Civil Judge. The Supreme Court time and again has placed the Post of Judge into a different category in a separate compartment, therefore, it cannot be compared at par with the other civil posts. Mostly in case laws which are relied on by the respondent have dealt with judicial restraint over the answers dealt by the Expert Committee. In the cases in hand, the questions framed and the answers given are in respect of the law. These are not so complicated or require intricated interpretation of law and the answer is available in statute book and the dictums laid down by the Supreme Court and the High Court. Therefore, the answers given by the experts in respect of law can always be tested by the High Court and it can certainly look into correctness of it and if found wrong, it cannot shut its eyes on the ground that the answers given by the expert is The nature of questions does not show that the questions & answers are so tough that the Courts cannot understand. The questions framed by the PSC are the basic fundamental questions which can always be tested by application of open book procedure of statute. The Expert Committee appears to have dealt with the issue little casually and should have taken it more seriously as it pertains to appointment of Civil Judges, who would be the future Judges and would hold the high office in the judiciary.

67. It is trite that presumption of either fact or law or both can only be drawn by the authority, if the authority cloths with the power embodied in any statutes. The maxim “omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta” e., all acts are presumed to have been rightly and regularly done, is chiefly applied to judicial and officials acts as per Section 114 (e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, being statutory body, has in its official act, conducted the examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior division), therefore, in view of the law of presumption, it will be presumed that the questions written on the question paper are rightly written and asked unless otherwise brought to the notice of the concerned.

By no stretch of imagination, it can be presumed that an examinee is supposed to presume that what has been written in the question paper may be wrong and he has to draw inference of his own and understand the question by a process of probable and logical reasoning as per his own knowledge, ability and perception and answer accordingly. The power under Article 226 is extraordinary, discretionary and equitable and is required to be exercised in the larger interest of justice. Once a wrong is brought to the notice of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it can look into all the aspects of the lis. In view of the above settled position of law, this Court can look into the correctness of the questions asked in the question paper though not objected by any of the examinee.

68. Considering the degree and percentage of defects in the question papers which according to this Court as much as 41 wrong questions/answers have been found out of 100, the percentage of it would certainly dilute the module of selection process and the Court cannot observe the silence. The Court after the examination cannot allow it as one horse-race but would accept the steep challenge with an idea of reform. Serving certain problems requires multi prolonged approach and reform and they will persist if we view through narrow lens and the carelessness will always have a price. Consequently the way in which the entire examination was conducted cannot be allowed to sustain.

69. In the result, the final result of the preliminary examination conducted by the P.S.C. on 02.07.2019 pursuant to the advertisement dated 06.02.2019 is hereby quashed. The P.S.C., is directed to conduct a fresh preliminary examination on the basis of advertisement dated 06.02.2019 to all those candidates who had appeared in the examination and filled up the forms. No separate examination fee shall be charged for the subsequent examination, which is ordered herein. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand allowed to the extent as directed here-in-above.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Corporate Law

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *