Re-evaluation Will Change Merit List Leading To Retraction Of Appointments Made: Bombay HC Rejects MPSC Candidates' Plea

The Court said that there would be a change in the select list, thereby resulting in retracting/cancelling the appointment orders already issued.

The Division Bench of Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice YG Khobragade held, “The answer key (answer option No.3), is the right answer to Question No.40. By following this option, there is no requirement for re-evaluation. If re-evaluation is done, it would not only lead to modifying the marks of each candidate but would also change the merit list, thereby resulting in retracting/ canceling the appointment orders already issued to 77 candidates. (b) These affected candidates are not before the Court. (c) Taking into view the huge burden that would be cast on the Commission, if we opt for any other option leading to re- evaluation, change in the select list and cause cancellation of few appointment orders. (d) Therefore, we are of the view that the conclusion of the Honourable Supreme Court in clause No.30.4 of the Ran Vijay Singh (supra), would cause least upheaval in the calculations of marks, the merit list and the appointment orders of the candidates, since, the results already declared, would remain unchanged."

Advocate Mukul S. Kulkarni appeared for the Petitioner, whereas AGP V.M. Kagne appeared for the Respondents.

Two writ petitions were filed; the first one was filed by the Commission, and the second was filed by the Respondents in the Original Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’).

The recruitment process for the posts of Sub Registrar/Stamp Inspector (Grade I) involved the issue regarding Question No. 40 in Set 'C' of the preliminary examination. The original applicant, belonging to the Economically Weaker Section ('EWS'), submitted that two out of the four options for Question No. 40 were correct, while the model answer key listed only one correct answer. This confusion affected the marking, leading the applicant to raise the issue before the Tribunal, claiming a discrepancy in the allotment of marks. Despite assurances given by the Presiding Officer to the Tribunal that no appointments would be made, the State Government accepted and acted on the Commission's recommendations for appointments following the publication of the main examination results, in defiance of the Tribunal's order.

The issue before the Court was whether the Tribunal had wrongly restricted recounting of the marks scored by the candidates only to the extent of the seats reserved for the EWS category in the main examination by excluding the marks awarded to Question No.40 in question paper Set C and for the same question in question paper Sets A, B and D, with the further direction to prepare the select list afresh in order of merit for the said category and issue orders of appointments.

The Court placed its reliance on the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh and others vs State of UP and others (2018) and said, “With regard to the scope of this Court in directing re-evaluation or scrutiny of answer sheets, Shri Kulkarni has rightly stated that though the Court may order re-evaluation, it would foist an onerous task on the Commission of conducting re- evaluation of all those students who were posed with Question No.40, keeping in view that it had two correct answers and, therefore, the second set of examinees as illustrated in paragraph No.15 above, would be benefited as their answers (option No.1) would also be deemed to be a correct answer, which would fetch them two marks for the correct answer and restore the half mark deducted for an incorrect answer.”

The Court observed that in such situations, the Court should presume the correctness of the answer key and proceed on that presumption since the benefit would go to the Examination Authority rather than to the candidates; however, any other option is also available if it casts a lesser burden on the Commission.

The Court also added that they would have to adopt the option which would foist minimal burden on the Commission and result in altering the results, which in turn may cause retraction of the appointment orders already issued to 77 candidates.

The Court adopted the option given in the Apex Court’s judgment, i.e. presuming the correctness of the answer key.

“In view of our conclusion as above, we do not find that the learned Tribunal was justified in directing that the results of only those candidates belonging to the EWS category, who had applied for the post of Sub Registrar/ Stamp Inspector (Grade I) for the said reserved EWS category, alone, should be reviewed with the direction to recount their marks by excluding Question No.40 in question paper sets A to D. This would tantamount to being discriminatory and would lead to an unfair situation. Such a direction to be made applicable selectively for the candidates who applied through the EWS category, is not in consonance with the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra)”

The Court also adverted to the grievance voiced by one of the Counsels. He had submitted that the MPSC/Commissions must seriously consider only competent persons as subject experts. The first answer key Set had several mistakes. When grievances were received by the Commission, the subject experts had to again prepare a corrected second answer key Set, which was the issue before the Court. According to the Counsel, several mistakes again crept into the second answer key Set. The Court said he was justified in submitting that this was not expected from the subject experts when the Commission spends a huge amount on their remuneration.

“The least that can be said is that the subject experts cannot repeatedly commit mistakes. We join the learned Advocate Shri Deshpande in his astonishment, on repeated mistakes being committed by the subject experts and we deem it appropriate to direct the Commission to ensure that, only such persons should be nominated as subject experts, who would seriously embark upon the task of preparing flawless answer key Sets.”, the Court remarked.

Accordingly, the Court allowed both the writ petitions and set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal.

Cause Title: Maharashtra Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others and connected matter. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AUG:21522-DB)

Appearances:

Petitioners: Advocates Mukul S. Kulkarni, V.D. Salunke, Ajay S. Deshpande and Mayur V. Salunke.

Respondents: AGP V.M. Kagne, Advocates Mukul S. Kulkarni, V.D. Salunke, Ajay S. Deshpande, Mayur V. Salunke and R.J. Nirmal.

Click here to read/download the Order