Suryansh Tiwari v. State of Uttarakhand and another

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that, in accordance with the opinion rendered by the Subject Experts, the answer provided by the Commission in respect of Question No. 129 of Set ‘A’ is incorrect, inasmuch as, none of the four options are correct and hence, the objection raised by the candidate was found to be correct. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon Mulla’s Principles of Mahomedan Law, 21st Edition.

12. This Court, in its discretion, deemed it appropriate to request the presence of the Secretary, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, to assist the Court in the proper adjudication of the matter. In compliance with the said direction, Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, Secretary, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, joined the proceedings through video conferencing and rendered his assistance to the Court on the issues under consideration.

13. Learned counsel respondent, with commendable fairness, concedes that since there were two correct answers to Question No. 158 of Set ‘A’, the said question ought to have been deleted by the Commission during the process of evaluation, in conformity with established principles governing the conduct of competitive examinations and the settled position of law that no candidate should be prejudiced on account of an error or ambiguity attributable to the examining authority.

14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanpur University, through Vice Chancellor & others Vs. Samir Gupta & others, reported in (1983) 4 SCC 309 and, in subsequent decisions, has 13 held that where the key answer is demonstrably wrong or a question admits of more than one correct answer, the Court may direct that such questions be excluded from evaluation and marks be awarded accordingly, rather than substituting its own key. The rationale is that evaluation must rest on clear and objectively verifiable questions; a faulty or confusing question undermines equal treatment of candidates and offends Article 14 of the Constitution. This principle has been consistently followed where examining bodies themselves, on receiving expert input, delete defective questions and award proportionate marks to all candidates.

15. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, through its Chairman and another Vs. Rahul Singh and another, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 254, has observed that the Constitution Courts must exercise great restraint in matters regarding public examination and should be reluctant to entertain the plea challenging the correctness of the key answers.

16. In the case in hand, the Regulations of 2022 clearly states that where the question is structurally defective, such a question shall be excluded from the question paper and the for remaining questions shall then be increased proportionately so that the total maximum marks remain unchanged.

17. Learned counsel for the Commission fairly conceded that the option provided by the Subject Experts with regard to Question No. 145 of Set ‘A’ is apparently incorrect. This Court is of the view that since question no.145 pertains to house 14 breaking and its definition is specifically explained Illustration (a) appended to Section 445 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, the correct answer would be Option ‘c’. Illustration (a) appended to Section 445 of the Indian Penal Code is reproduced below: “(a) A commits house-trespass by making a hole through the wall of Z’s house, and putting his hand through the aperture. This is house-breaking.”

18. In view of the above factual and legal position, this Court is constrained to hold that there were two correct answers to Question No. 158 of Set ‘A’ of the Uttarakhand Judicial Services Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination-2023. The Commission ought to have deleted this question as provided under Regulation 9(iv) of the Regulations of 2022. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the Commission has himself admitted that there were two correct answers to Question No. 158 of Set ‘A’, therefore, the said question ought to have been deleted by the Commission.

19. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. This Court, upon due consideration of the submissions advanced and the material placed on record, holds that Question No.129 does not specifically indicate as to whether it relates to Shia Law or Sunni Law, therefore, the Commission has rightly deleted this question. Further, the answer furnished by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission in respect of Question No. 132 of Set ‘A’ of the aforesaid Preliminary Examination is correct in law and does not warrant any interference by this Court. However, it is further held that the answer provided by the Commission in relation to Question No. 145 of Set ‘A’ is erroneous, as the correct answer ought to have been Option (c), 15 in view of the statutory position and the illustration appended to Section 445 of the Indian Penal Code. This Court further declares that answer to Question No. 120 of Set ‘A’ to be option (d). This Court further declares that since there were two correct answers to Question No. 158 of Set ‘A’, rendering it incapable for the candidates to give a definite or legally sustainable answer, therefore, the said question shall stand deleted from the process of evaluation.

20. The Uttarakhand Public Service Commission is, therefore, directed to re–compute the result of the aforesaid Preliminary Examination by deleting Question No.158 of Set ‘A’ and also consider and treat Option (c) as the correct answer for Question No. 145 and also treat option (d) as the correct answer for Question No.120, while re-evaluating the responses of all candidates and publish the merit list as per the provisions contained in the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Regulations, 2022. (Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c048536544 5e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5 109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL