Candidate Unsuccessful In Public Examination Requires Time To Deal With Immediate Failure; Not Expected To Rush To Courts Seeking Legal Remedies: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has observed that any candidate who is unsuccessful in a public examination requires time to deal with the failure and is not expected to rush to Courts to seeking legal remedies.
The Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) to appoint the Petitioner, a candidate for the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination 2018, after finding that an error in totaling marks had wrongfully excluded her from the selection. “In the backdrop of the presumption that exists with the favour of all actions performed by the State Government and UPPSC and the inexperience in life that must be attributed to the petitioner, a margin of time must be given to her,” the Bench remarked.
A Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that “the petitioner was entitled to be selected and recommended for appointment at the time of declaration of the final result itself, on the strength of cut-off marks obtained by her. Considering the fact, she is the eldest of the first three candidates recommended under the Reserved Category - (Scheduled Caste) belonging to female category, against equal marks achieved by her, the petitioner's name should have been recommended first under that category as may have allowed her natural seniority in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division). That relief and status was denied to the petitioner for no fault. Therefore, she is found entitled to relief.”
Advocate Siddharth Khare appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate G.K. Singh represented the Respondents.
The Petitioner, who appeared for the UPPCS (J) 2018 examination under the Scheduled Caste female category, was awarded 473 marks in the final result, falling short of the cut-off by two marks. She later discovered, through inspection of her answer sheet, that her total marks in the English Language paper were incorrectly recorded as 21 instead of the 23 marks she had earned.
The discrepancy arose due to the examiner’s failure to correctly total the marks awarded on her answer sheet. Despite her repeated efforts, the error remained uncorrected, leading her to file a writ petition in 2021 seeking rectification and inclusion in the final select list.
The High Court noted, “The UPPSC admits it's mistake, yet learned senior counsel for the Commission would submit, the UPPSC is helpless at this stage. Not only recommendations were made pursuant to completion of the selection process for the UPPCS (J) 2018, two more examinations have been conducted in 2020 and 2022.”
“Having weighed the fact submissions, in the first place, it is noticed that the petitioner is not at fault, at all. She, a citizen was always protected under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. She was fully entitled to believe that a completely fair, equal and transparent opportunity of equal participation would be maintained by the state authorities. That right of a citizen is supreme. Therefore, the petitioner had no reason to suspect and she had no cause of action - to approach the Court at the stage when final result was declared by the Commission, on 20.07.2019,” the Bench remarked.
Consequently, the Court observed, “It is equally true that any candidate unsuccessful at any public examination requires time to deal with the sense of the immediate failure that may visit them. Also, in their capacity as a candidate and a young citizen, it is not expected that a person such as the petitioner would be able to collect all relevant information and to rush to Courts to seek legal remedies, rationalize it immediately upon such injury being caused. In the backdrop of the presumption that exists with the favour of all actions performed by the State Government and UPPSC and the inexperience in life that must be attributed to the petitioner, a margin of time must be given to her.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Janhvi v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:190814-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Siddharth Khare and Sanjay Kumar Singh
Respondents: Senior Advocate G.K. Singh; Advocate M.N. Singh; ACSC Kritika Singh;