Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • Rajesh Balia, C.J
  • Barin Ghosh, J.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • Rajesh Balia, C.J
  • Barin Ghosh, J.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Court's Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Advertisement dated 14.8.2006 sought recruitment for 2,268 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil). A selection process was held comprising two written papers of 100 marks each: General Knowledge and Civil Engineering (objective paper with 100 objective questions). From the advertised posts, 210 candidates were selected and 186 joined.

Some unsuccessful candidates filed writ petitions challenging the results on the ground that numerous model answers for the Civil Engineering objective paper were incorrect; as a result, candidates who had answered correctly were denied credit. The Court directed production of answer books (on deposit) and, after preliminary examination, directed the Staff Selection Commission to investigate the correctness of model answers.

The Commission's expert report ultimately found that 41 model answers out of 100 were wrong, two questions were wrongly set and two were repetitions — amounting to 45 defective questions affecting 45 marks (45% of the Civil Engineering paper). The learned Single Judge cancelled the examination (Advertisement No. 1406 of 2006) and directed a fresh examination and cancellation of appointments made pursuant to the defective examination, subject to hearing.

Several appeals and letters patent appeals were filed. The Court heard counsel for the parties and considered submissions both by those who had not cleared the exam and by those already appointed/selected who challenged cancellation of appointments and the scope of relief granted by the Single Judge.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the defective model answers in the Civil Engineering paper (45% of the paper) justified cancellation of that paper and related remedial measures.
  2. Whether the entire examination (both papers) and appointments made pursuant to it should be set aside, or whether a more limited remedy (cancellation of only the Civil Engineering paper) should be ordered.
  3. What interim and consequential arrangements should be made for candidates already appointed pursuant to the cancelled examination (e.g., continuation in service, seniority, entitlement for period of service).
  4. Whether the General Knowledge paper results — which were not challenged — should be retained and how they should be treated in any fresh examination or result compilation.
  5. How subsequent related examinations (conducted after the original but pending result) should be sequenced in light of the remedial steps ordered for the defective examination.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners (unsuccessful candidates who challenged the result)

  • Alleged that a large number of model answers in the Civil Engineering objective paper were incorrect, and therefore many candidates who had answered correctly were denied credit, adversely affecting the results.
  • Provided particulars of specific questions they had attempted correctly but for which model answers were wrong.

Successful candidates (those already selected and joined)

  • Contended that despite the defect in the Civil Engineering paper, cancellation of the entire examination or cancellation of appointments of those already selected was not justified.
  • Argued that they would be deprived of employment through no fault of theirs, particularly given a large number of vacancies (2,268) and the relatively few selected (about 180 admitted/joined).
  • Requested an alternative remedy: prepare a fresh result by deleting the defective part of the Civil Engineering answers rather than cancelling the entire examination or appointments.

Staff Selection Commission / State

  • The Commission's own expert inquiry conceded serious defects: in an initial sample 26 of 28 referred questions were found incorrect; the final report identified 41 incorrect model answers, 2 wrongly set questions and 2 repetitions (45 defective questions in all).
  • Consequently, the Commission/State did not file an appeal against the Single Judge's cancellation order.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeded from factual findings established by the Commission's expert report: 45 out of 100 questions (45%) in the Civil Engineering paper were erroneous (incorrect model answers, wrongly set or repeated questions). Given the magnitude of the defect (affecting a substantial portion of the paper) and the number of candidates whose evaluation and ultimate selection would be affected, the Court found it "well nigh impossible" to determine precisely how the defective model answers impacted each candidate's final result and merit position.

Based on these findings the Court agreed with the learned Single Judge that the defective Civil Engineering paper could not fairly stand as part of the selection process. However, the Court modified the Single Judge's order to mitigate equities and to balance fairness to both unsuccessful candidates and those already appointed:

  • It was unnecessary and unjustified to set aside the General Knowledge paper results because no challenge was made to that paper; therefore, General Knowledge marks were to be retained.
  • The cancellation should be limited to the Civil Engineering paper only; a fresh Civil Engineering examination must be held, but only candidates who were originally admitted to the first examination will be eligible to sit in the fresh Civil Engineering paper (so no fresh applications or a new pool of candidates are required).
  • Interim protection for already appointed candidates: those appointed pursuant to the cancelled examination may continue in service until publication of the fresh examination result, but they are not entitled to any advantage (e.g., service benefit or seniority) arising from the period served under the cancelled examination unless reappointed after succeeding in the fresh examination.
  • If a candidate who was appointed pursuant to the cancelled examination fails the fresh Civil Engineering paper, that candidate would be granted a second opportunity (a supplementary attempt). That second attempt would be treated as part of the original examination conducted in pursuance of the advertisement.
  • Results of any subsequent examination(s) conducted after the original examination but pending because of this litigation must await finalization of the re-examination and selection pursuant to the directions in this case. In short, sequencing is required so that vacancies and selections arising from the original advertisement are resolved before declaring results of subsequent related examinations.
  • The remainder of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge were maintained, and the Court left open administrative and disciplinary action against persons responsible for setting incorrect questions/model answers (directions previously given but not the subject of present proceedings).

The Court emphasized equity and practicability: because the defect was substantial and its impact on individual merit could not be reliably quantified, complete reliance on the original Civil Engineering answers would be unfair; yet, retaining unchallenged parts of the process (General Knowledge) and limiting the re-examination to original candidates avoids unnecessary re‑opening and prejudice to candidates overall.

Holding and Implications

CORE RULING: The appeals were disposed of with modification of the Single Judge's order and directions as set out by the Court.

The specific operative directions and direct effects on the parties are:

  1. The Civil Engineering paper is cancelled; a fresh Civil Engineering examination shall be conducted.
  2. Only those candidates who were originally admitted to the examination shall be permitted to participate in the fresh Civil Engineering examination; no fresh applications will be invited.
  3. Marks obtained by each candidate in the General Knowledge paper shall be retained unaltered.
  4. The fresh Civil Engineering paper shall be conducted within eight weeks from receipt/production of the copy of the Court's order before the Commission.
  5. Persons already appointed pursuant to the cancelled examination are allowed to continue in service until publication of the fresh examination result.
  6. Those continuing in service under the cancelled examination are not entitled to any advantage for the period of service spent under the cancelled examination.
  7. If such persons are selected again in the fresh examination, they may be reappointed with seniority in the order of merit as per the fresh final result, where their General Knowledge marks will be combined with marks obtained in the fresh Civil Engineering paper.
  8. Candidates who were selected under the cancelled examination but fail the fresh examination will be given a second opportunity; that second attempt will be considered part of the examination conducted pursuant to the original advertisement.
  9. Results of any subsequent examinations (conducted after the original but pending) shall not be declared until selection pursuant to the first (original) examination is complete; subsequent results shall be declared along with any supplementary results as required.
  10. All other directions given by the learned Single Judge are maintained; the Court also endorsed directions to take appropriate action against those responsible for the incorrect questions/model answers (though disciplinary action is not further addressed in this opinion).

Consequence: the immediate practical effect is that the Civil Engineering paper is re‑conducted for the original cohort, General Knowledge marks are preserved, certain administrative sequencing of results is mandated, and incumbents continue provisionally without entitlement to service benefits arising from the period served under the cancelled examination unless re‑selected. The appeals are disposed of in accordance with these directions. The Court ordered no costs.

The opinion does not state that it establishes any new legal precedent beyond the directions tailored to the facts and equities of this case.

Disposition: Appeals disposed of in terms of the directions; No costs.

Show full summary ...

    Ajay Kumar & Ors. (In 63) v. Bihar Subordinate Engineer'S Association & Ors. (In 71)

    1. Heard counsel for the parses.

    2. These all appeals have come for consideration in a peculiar circumstances affecting all those persons who had participated in the selection process held for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in pursuance of Advertisement issued on 14.8.2006 in which 2268 posts were advertised. Against the advertised posts 210 candidates were selected and of them 186 joined. The selection process required taking written text in two papers of 100 marks each. One paper was about General Knowledge and the other is about Civil Engineering. The controversy relates to defects in conduct of Civil Engineering paper of 100 marks having 100 objective questions. Candidates were to attempt as many as they could within the fixed period. Each question is to be answered. Correctness of the answer is to be tallied with set of model or key answers.

    3. Some of the candidates who had not cleared the examination vide five separate writ petitions challenged the correctness of result alleging that the question paper of Civil Engineering which was in the form of objective questions had model answers with which the answers given by the candidates were to be tallied. The model answers were incorrectly stated in large number affecting adversely all those who had answered such questions correctly but because of error in model answers their result was affected adversely.

    4. In the writ petitions candidates have given different number of such questions which they have attempted, according to them, correctly but because of the wrong model answers they could not get the credit of correct answer.

    5. The Court directed production of answer books of some of the candidates on deposit of rupees ten thousand and thereafter on production, question papers in Civil Engineering, General Knowledge and model answers, the Court, finding some substance in the allegation made about the correctness of model answers in Civil Engineering papers, vide order dated 16.5.2007 directed the Commission to look into the matter and make a report on 13.11.2007

    6. Learned counsel for the Staff Selection Commission filed a supplementary affidavit stating that out of twenty eight questions, referred for examination to the expert the model answers in respect of 26 questions were found to be incorrect.

    7. Considering this aspect, the Court directed on 13.11.2007 that the Commission should obtain a report of the expert about the correctness of all the model answers.

    8. In pursuance of this direction, ultimately the Commission produced a report, according to which, as many as 41 model answers out of 100 were wrong, two questions were wrongly set and two were repetition of questions already stated elsewhere. Thus, in all, out of possible 100 marks of 100 questions the question paper with model set of answers in respect of 45 questions affecting 45 marks was erroneous.

    9. Considering that the substantial part of the model answer (45%) in Civil Engineering were defective and had affected large number of candidates in their performance evaluation and the selection process, the Court directed to cancel the examination conducted by the Commission in pursuance of Advertisement No. 1406 of 2006 for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in Water Resources Department and to hold fresh examination. Those who have been appointed pursuant to the advertisement, their appointment were directed to be cancelled after giving an opportunity of hearing to them within three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order for which notice to be served on them through their appointing authority and the fresh examination in the light of the order to be conducted at the earliest, in any case within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order of learned Single Judge.

    10. Further directions were given to take appropriate action against those who were responsible for setting up incorrect questions and for providing incorrect model answers with which we are not presently concerned.

    11. One Letters Patent Appeal was filed in C.W.J.C No. 885 of 2007* (Ajay Kumar v. State of Bihar) which is L.P.A No. 63 of 2008. The other appeals have been filed by those candidates who had been declared successful and joined in pursuance of their selection, with applications for grant of leave to appeal. Leave to appeal in such cases is granted.

    12. Commission or State has not filed any appeal for the obvious reason that according to Commission's own report exami-nation of Civil Engineering was seriously defective.

    13. There is no contention about defective nature of question paper and incorrect model answers. However, both the set of appellants contend that notwithstanding such a substantial defect in one of the papers, the entire examinations ought not to have been cancelled. While learned counsel for the successful candidates contend that since they have been selected after following a selection process against 2268 vacancies and they are only 180 in number therefore, cancellation of their appointment would serve no purpose. They will be deprived of their employment for no fault of theirs, the learned counsel appearing on their behalf of petitioners has on the other hand prayed that a fresh result should be prepared after deleting the defective part of questior answers rather than cancelling the examination itself.

    14. Having heard counsel for the parties and considering that almost 45% of question answer of Civil Engineering paper was defective and thus has affected the result of very large number of candidates. It is well nigh impossible to find out to what extent result of each candidate has been affected affecting the final outcome of the selection, We are in agreement with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the extent that fresh examination should be conducted and selection made on the basis of such defective examination which has affected large number of candidates not only in the matter of getting selection but also in the matter of securing appropriate place in merit amongst the selected candidates. Had the paper been rightly set, it would not have caused sufferance to those candidates who attempted such questions in large number but remained unsuccessful, because of wrong model answers.

    15. However, the directions need to be modified to settle the equities which is just and fair to all concerned. Since no challenge has been made about the conduct of examination of the General Knowledge, setting aside the result of the General Knowledge paper was not justified. Moreover, there is no justification for holding fresh examination by inviting fresh application to the examinations whose results have been cancelled by the learned Single Judge, as well as of those who had appeared at the examination to take both, papers by paying application and examination fees on second time for cancelled examination. Since candidature has already been accepted for the vacancies selection for which the examination had been conducted.

    16. We are further informed that keeping in view the large number of existing vacancies subsequent advertisement was also issued and examination had also been conducted but result of which had not been announced so far because of this pending litigation and initial direction issued by learned Single Judge.

    17. In the fitness of things, firstly the result of examination in question be finalized and only thereafter the result of subsequent examination be ???inalized keeping in view the availability of vacancies after culmination of such examination in question.

    18. In all the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it just and proper to direct in modification of the order of learned Single Judge by substituting following directions—

    1. The examination of Civil Engineering paper be cancelled,

    2. The examination of Civil Engineering paper, be conducted freshly in which only those candidates shall participate who had been admitted in the examination originally held.

    3. Number secured by each candidate in General Knowledge paper shall be retained unaltered as no challenge has been made to conduct of General Knowledge paper,

    4. The fresh examination for Civil Engineering paper shall be conducted within eight weeks from the date of receipl/production of copy of this order before the Commission,

    5. Persons who had already been given appointment in pursuance of the cancelled examination, shall be allowed to continue in service until publication of result of the fresh examination.

    6. The candidates so continuing in service shall not be entitled to any advantage of the period of service spent under the cancelled examination.

    7. If they are selected under the fresh examination once again, they may be given fresh appointment with the seniority in order of merit obtained as per final result of the fresh examination by taking their marks obtained in General Knowledge paper together.

    8. If the case of such candidate who were selected under the cancelled examination but they failed to pass the fresh examination conducted under the directions of this Court, they may be given a chance to appear in the second examination which may be considered to be a part of the examination conducted in pursuance of the advertisement dated 29.11.2006

    19. Such examination will be restricted to those candidates only who have already been selected and joined but who has failed on their re-appearance in the fresh examination held under the direction of this Court. The result of the second attempt shall be considered as a part of the examination conducted in pursuance of the advertisement no. 1906 of 2006.

    9. Result of the selection examination conducted in pursuance of the advertisement of November, 2006 shall not be declared until the selection in pursuance of 1st examination as per the aforesaid direction is complete.

    10. The result of the succeeding examination shall be declared alongwith the supplementary examination, if required to be held in pursuance of above direction for those candidates who have been successful in the cancelled examination but has failed in the earlier examination.

    11. Rest of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge are maintained.

    20. These appeals are disposed of in terms of aforesaid directions.

    21. No costs.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Ajay Kumar & Ors. (In 63) v. Bihar Subordinate Engineer'S Association & Ors. (In 71)
    (Feb 1, 2008)