Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sagar Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 8 March, 2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A.No.3697/2017
With
O.A. No.556/2018
M.A. No.552/2018
Order reserved on 28th February 2018
Order pronounced on 08th March 2018
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Permod Kohli, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)
O.A. No.3697/2017
1. Sagar Singh, age 27 years
s/o Shri Surender Singh
r/o 2325, Gali No.12
Wazirabad Village
Delhi - 110 084
2. Suyash Tripathi, age 31 years
s/o Shri Kailash Pati Tripathi
r/o 192, Block-C, 3rd Floor
Gandhi Vihar, Mukharjee Nagar
Delhi - 110 009
3. Satish Kumar, age 31 years
s/o Shri Prabhu Nath
r/o Room No.306E
Brahmputra Hostel, JNU
New Delhi - 110 067
..Applicants
(Mr. Sumit Kishore and Mr. Raj Kamal, Advocates)
Versus
Union Public Service Commission
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi - 110 069
Through Secretary
..Respondent
(Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal, Advocate)
O.A. No.556/2018
1. Samipya Pratap Chand, age 31 years
Son of Shri Dharmendra Pratap Chand
2
r/o Neberg Engineering Limited
A 38H Sector 64, Noida
Uttar Pradesh - 201301
2. Govind Tiwari, age 30 years
Son of Shri Raj Kumar Tiwari
r/o 2548, 4th Crossing Jlm Ka Rasta
Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur
Rajasthan - 302001
3. Mukesh Kumar Meghvansi, age 37 years
Son of Shir Mangi Ram Meghvansi
r/o P-79/6, First Floor, Scientist Hostel
Raksha Vihar, Opp. Capt. Roop Singh Stadium
Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh - 474002
4. Balajee Karthick S, age 31 years
Son of Shri N. Subramanian
r/o Flat No.16 Coconut Grove Apartments
12th Street, Tansi Nagar Velachery
Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600 042
5. Ajay Krishna S, age 29 years
s/o Surendra Purushothaman
179 1st Circular Street
Secretariat Colony, Okkiamthoraipakam
Chennai - 600 097, Tamil Nadu
6. Rohan Behari Mathur, age 32 years
s/o S.B. Mathur
M 173 South City 1, Gurgaon 122001
7. Ram Singh, age 34 years
s/o Surjeet Singh
opposite to Tehcil, Near Vikas Public School
Sadulshahar, District, Sriganganagar, Pin - 335062
Rajasthan
..Applicants
(Mr. Sumit Kishore and Mr. Raj Kamal, Advocates)
Versus
Union Public Service Commission
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi - 110 069
Through Secretary
..Respondent
(Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal, Advocate)
3
ORDER
Mr. K N Shrivastava:
Since common issues of facts and laws are involved, it was decided to dispose of these two O.As. by this common order.O.A. No.3697/2017
The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) issued Annexure A-2 Notification dated 22.02.2017 inviting applications for Civil Services Examination (CSE), 2017. The Scheme of CSE 2017 envisaged three stages, namely, preliminary examination, main examination and interview. The preliminary examination was only a qualifying examination. The candidates clearing the preliminary examination were entitled for appearing in the main examination and the candidates, who cleared the main examination, were to be called for interview. The final merit list was to be prepared adding the marks of the main examination and interview of the candidates.
The applicants applied for CSE 2017. The preliminary examination of CSE 2017 was conducted on 18.06.2017, in which about 4,62,000 candidates had participated. The result of the preliminary examination was announced on 27.07.2017 whereby 13000 - 14000 candidates were declared eligible for writing the main examination. The applicants failed to qualify the preliminary examination.
2. The UPSC brought out a Press Note dated 27.07.2017 after the preliminary examination results were declared, in which, inter alia, it was stated as under:-
4
"The candidature of these candidates is provisional. In accordance with the Rules of the Examination, all these candidates have to apply again in the Detailed Application Form, DAF (CSM), for Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2017, which would be available on the website of the Union Public Service Commission www.upsc.gov.in. All the qualified candidates are advised to fill up the DAF (CSM) online and submit the same ONLINE for admission to the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2017 to be held from Saturday, the 28th October, 2017. The DAF (CSM) will be available on the website of the Commission from 17th August, 2017 to 31st August, 2017 till 6.00 P.M. Important instructions for filling up of the DAF (CSM) and for submitting the completely filled application form ONLINE, to the Commission, would also be available on the website. The candidates who have been declared successful have to first get themselves registered on the relevant page of the website before filling up the ONLINE DAF. The qualified candidates are further advised to refer to the Rules of the Civil Services Examination, 2017 published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) of Department of Personnel and Training Notification dated 22.02.2017."
3. The grievance of the applicants is that some of the objective type questions in the preliminary examination were ambiguous and were prone to more than one correct answers. In this regard, in paragraph 4.8 of the O.A., they have mentioned question Nos. 69, 19, 86 & 2. They have thus contended that due to these questions, their prospects of qualifying the preliminary examination have been severely prejudiced. Accordingly, they have filed the instant O.A. seeking the following reliefs:-
"i. To disclose the answer key of the Civil Services Preliminary Examination 2017 to the Hon'ble Court and as well as the standing of the applicants in the merit list of the Civil Services preliminary examination, 2017.
ii. To prepare fresh merit list of preliminary examination after removing the questions which have ambiguous answers.
iii. To establish a grievance redressal mechanism."5 O.A. No.556/2018
4. M.A. No.552/2018 seeking joining together in a single petition is allowed.
5. The applicants in this O.A. had also participated in the preliminary examination of CSE 2017 and had failed to qualify it. They have also stated that question Nos. 69, 19, 86 & 2 were ambiguous and susceptible to more than one correct answers and due to this reason, their prospects of qualifying the preliminary examination have got jeopardized. Through the medium of this O.A., the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:
"(a) Summon the original records of the case;
(b) Pass an appropriate order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent /UPSC to disclose the answer key of the Civil Services Preliminary Examination 2017 to the Hon'ble Court and as well as the standing order of the applicants in the merit list of the Civil Services preliminary examination, 2017.
(c) Pass an appropriate order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the Respondent/ UPSC to permit the applicants, who have last attempt for Civil Services Preliminary Examination, to attempt the examination in the nest year i.e. in June, 2018 subject to the outcome of the present Original Application.
(d) Pass such other further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
6. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties were heard on 28.02.2018.
7. Mr. Sumit Kishore along with Mr. Raj Kumar, learned counsel, argued that the ambiguity involved in the answers of question Nos.69, 19, 86 & 2 has caused undue hardship to the applicants and their constitutional 6 rights enshrined under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution have been violated. He stated that the applicants should not be made to suffer on account of mistakes made by the UPSC and that the Commission was obliged to make fair disclosure of answer keys and justify that the answers of these questions are not ambiguous or incorrect. He placed reliance on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
i) Kanpur University & others v. Samir Gupta & others, (1983) 4 SCC 309, wherein it has been held as follows:-
"....We agree that the key-answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct...."
Para 16 "..If this were a case of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong..."
Para 17 "...We confirm the directions given by the High Court in regard to the reassessment of the particular questions and the admission of the respondents to the M.B.B.S. course."
Para 20
ii) Pankaj Sharma v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & others, (2008) 4 SCC 273 wherein it has been held as under:-
"....From whatever angle we look at the issue, only one conclusion we can reasonably reach is that all the questions, which have spelling errors, must be treated as wrong questions and, therefore, should also be deleted."
Para 49 7 "In our judgment, the learned single Judge considered the controversy in its proper perspective, and in the light of mistakes/ errors/ inaccuracies, issued certain directions which benefited the student-community. As mentioned by us in the earlier part of the judgment, the said exercise had been undertaken by the Commission and merit list was redrawn...."
Para 52
iii) Manish Ujwal v. Mahrishi Dayanand Saraswati University, (2005) 13 SCC 744, wherein it has been held as under:-
"Regarding the key answers in respect whereof the matter, is beyond the realm of doubt, this. Court has held that it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong. There is No dispute about the aforesaid six key answers being demonstrably wrong and this fact has rightly not been questioned by the learned counsel for the University. In this view, students cannot be made to suffer for the fault and negligence of the University....."
Para 9
iv) Rajesh Kumar & others etc. v. State of Bihar & others etc., (2013) 4 SCC 690, in which it has been held as under:-
"In the circumstances, while inter-se merit position may be relevant for the appellants, the ouster of the latter need not be an inevitable and inexorable consequence of such a re-evaluation. The re-evaluation process may additionally benefit those who have lost the hope of an appointment on the basis of a wrong key applied for evaluating the answer scripts. Such of those candidates as may be ultimately found to be entitled to issue of appointment letters on the basis of their merit shall benefit by such re- evaluation and shall pick up their appointments on that basis according to their inter se position on the merit list."
Para 18
v) Union Public Service Commission etc v. Angesh Kumar & others etc. (Civil Appeal Nos. 6159-6162 of 2013) decided on 20.02.2018. 8
"Weighing the need for transparency and accountability on the one hand and requirement of optimum use of fiscal resources and confidentiality of sensitive information on the other, we are of the view that information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically. Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing. Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above which will not be in public interest. However, if a case is made out where the Court finds that public interest requires furnishing of information, the Court is certainly entitled to so require in a given fact situation. If rules or practice so require, certainly such rule or practice can be enforced. In the present case, direction has been issued without considering these parameters ."
Para 10
8. Concluding his arguments, the learned counsel prayed for grant of reliefs claimed.
9. Per contra, Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the main relief of the revision of result after deletion of the so-called ambiguity in questions is hit by principle of res judicata, in view of the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court:
i) Ashita Chawla v. Union Public Service Commission (Writ Petition (Civil) No.564/2017 decided on 01.08.2017, wherein it has been observed as under:-
"Heard Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing for the Union Public Service Commission and Ms. Binu Tamta, learned counsel who was requested to assist the Court.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not perceive any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed."9
ii) Vishal Rathi & others v. Union Public Service Commission (Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.933/2017) decided on 13.10.2017, wherein it has been observed as under:-
"Heard.
We are not inclined to entertain this petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."
10. Mr. Aggarwal further argued that this Tribunal has decided O.A. No.2972/2017 titled Dr. Yamini Bohra v. Union Public Service Commission vide order dated 12.10.2017 placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashita Chawla (supra).
11. In regard to an observation made by the Tribunal in its interlocutory order dated 02.02.2018 that "We fail to understand why the Union Public Service Commission should not disclose the answer key after the conclusion of the preliminary test", the learned counsel submitted that the main relief already stands decided against the applicants, hence no fruitful purpose would be served by producing the records before the Tribunal.
12. Mr. Aggarwal submitted that the applicants have not prayed for disclosure of answer keys to them, and hence no relief to this effect can be given to them. In this regard, placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manohar Lal (dead) By Lrs. v. Ugrasen (dead) By Lrs. & others, (2010) 11 SCC 557, he stated that it is well settled law that no relief beyond the pleadings can be granted.
10
13. Continuing with his arguments, Mr. Aggarwal submitted that it is the policy of the UPSC to upload the answer keys of the preliminary examination on its website only after conclusion of the entire process. The said policy has been made known through the Press Note dated 27.07.2017 published by the UPSC. The said Press Note has also not been challenged in the present O.As. and in the absence of the same, the relief for disclosure of the answer keys cannot be granted.
14. Mr. Aggarwal further submitted that the CSE 2017 comprised of three tiers, namely, preliminary examination, main examination and interview. The examination process is stated to be over only after the conclusion of the interview and declaration of the final result. A candidate can seek disclosure of the answer keys only after the conclusion of examination process. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC 781.
15. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the pleadings. It is not in dispute that the UPSC, vide its Annexure A-2 Notification dated 22.02.2017 in regard to CSE 2017, had notified the entire scheme of the examination. The Press Note issued by the Commission on 27.07.2017 after the result of preliminary examination was announced, had informed the candidates that the marks, cut-off marks and answer keys of screening test held through preliminary examination will be published on the website only after the entire process of the examination is over, i.e., after declaration of the final result of CSE 2017. The applicants have not challenged Annexure A-2 Notification as well as the Press Note 11 dated 27.07.2017 in these two O.As. The judgments referred to by learned counsel for applicants do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present cases. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh & others v. State of U.P. & others, (2018) 2 SCC 357 has ruled that the Courts should not order re-evaluation of the answer sheets unless the rules provide for it. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:-
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re- evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re- evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; (iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate - it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate."
16. From the reliefs claimed by the applicants, it is quite clear that they are virtually seeking re-evaluation of their answer sheets on the ground of ambiguity in the aforesaid four questions in the preliminary examination. The Rules for CSE 2017, as notified by the UPSC, do not provide for such re-evaluation / reconsideration. The Press Note dated 27.07.2017 of UPSC has clearly mentioned that the answer keys of the screening test held during the preliminary examination would be uploaded on its website only after the declaration of the final result of CSE 2017. The procedure being 12 followed by the UPSC has been endorsed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashita Chawla (supra) and Vishal Rathi (supra).
17. In view of it and placing reliance on the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra), we do not find any merit in these O.As. Accordingly, both these O.As. are dismissed. No order as to costs.
( K.N. Shrivastava ) ( Justice Permod Kohli ) Member (A) Chairman /sunil/