Allahabad HC Declares UPPCS(J), 2022 Candidate As Successful After Giving Two Marks In Questions That Were Missed During Evaluation

The Court noted that the examiner failed to evaluate two questions which were answered correctly and were direct.

The Court is hearing a writ of mandamus directing respondents to produce the petitioner’s Answer Book of the General Knowledge Paper from the U.P. Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination 2022 and registration number. Additionally, the petitioner requested placement in the final list after awarding 6 marks.

The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh observed, “…let petitioner be declared successful and appropriate appointment letter be issued as expeditiously as possible...”

Brief Facts-

The petitioner applied for the UPPCS(J) 2022 and passed the preliminary and written examinations, as well as the interview. However, he was not successful in the final results. Upon inspecting his General Knowledge answer sheet the petitioner found that he was incorrectly awarded zero marks for 2 questions despite answering them correctly. He claims he should have received three additional marks, which would have met the general category cut-off of 590 marks, thus securing his selection.

The Court observed that by way of principle, it must be acknowledged that the Courts may not "judge" the correctness of the answer and also not intervene with the scale of marks awarded as those are well-recognized functions of the examiners who are experts for examination of answer responses and award of marks.

However, the Court said where the examiner may have failed to evaluate an answer response, and the Court offers correction for the same, it may not be equated to "judging" the correctness of an answer response.

While observing that the rule of fairness may remain non-negotiable and may be always enforced on the Commission to maintain fairness, public trust and transparency at public examinations the Court said, “If the Court were to refrain from offering this necessary correction, it would only create permission for negligence and even open the door open for corrupt practices to develop. Therefore whereever the expert such as the Commission may have erred in not evaluating an answer response, the Court may always offer measured but necessary correction.”

The Court further observed that it is also another recognized principle that marks awarded may not be justifiable. However, according to the Court where arithmetical errors or plain errors are seen to exist, that principle may not apply.

Accordingly, the Court awarded 2 more marks to the petitioner for the paper General Knowledge. Consequently, the total marks awarded to him for the examination would meet the cut-off mark 590.

Finally, the Court allowed the Writ Petition.