Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sukhveer Kaur vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 October, 2020
Bench: Sangeet Lodha, Rameshwar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 277/2020
1. Sukhveer Kaur D/o Sh. Harneek Singh, aged about 38
Years, R/o 10 KSD Mokhmwala, Tehsil Raisinghnagar,
District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
2. Bhagwanti D/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad, aged about 37 Years,
R/o Village 2 DWM, PO Birmana, Tehsil Suratgarh, District
Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
----Appellants
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary to the
Government, Department of Women and Child
Development, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board through its Chairman,
State Institute of Agriculture Management Premises,
Durgapura, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Director, Women and Child Development
Department, Sri - Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.S.Sandhu
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S.Singhvi, Advocate General
with Mr. K.S.Lodha, Mr. Vinit
Sanadhya
Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG
Mr. Mahendra Vishnoi
Mr. Ram Niwas Choudhary for
applicants
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS Judgment 12th October, 2020 (Downloaded on 12/10/2020 at 08:51:31 PM) (2 of 21) [SAW-277/2020] Per Hon'ble Mr. Sangeet Lodha,J.
REPORTABLE
1. This intra court appeal is directed against order dated 3.3.20 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellants challenging the revised result declared by the respondent-Rajasthan Staff Selection Board ('the Selection Board') for appointment to the post of Supervisor (Women) (Aanganwadi Workers Quota), has been dismissed. Applications (IA No.1/20 & 2/20)
2. The applicants Rajwant Kaur & others and Sudesh Kanwar & Another have preferred two applications (IA No.1/20 & IA No.2/20) for impleading them as party respondents in the appeal.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicants Rajwant Kaur and others submitted that pursuant to the written examination conducted, the applicants were included in the merit list of selected candidates for appointment to the post of Supervisor (Women) (Aanganwadi Workers Quota) in the original result published as also in the revised result and thus, if on account of alleged irregularity, the entire written examination is set at naught by this Court then obviously, the right of the applicants shall be affected.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicants Sudesh Kanwar and another submitted that the applicants have been declared successful in the written examination and therefore, at this stage, if the process of recruitment is interfered with by this Court, the rights of the applicants are bound to be adversely affected and therefore, they deserve to be extended an opportunity of hearing. (Downloaded on 12/10/2020 at 08:51:31 PM)
(3 of 21) [SAW-277/2020] On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants were selected for appointment to the post of Supervisor (Women) in the result of the written examination originally declared, however, the Selection Board on its own proceeded to revise the result acting in most perfunctory manner and therefore, the appellants who stood excluded from the select list on account of the revised result being declared, were well within their right in challenging the action of the Selection Board in revising the result and they were not under an obligation to implead the applicants or anybody else as party respondents and therefore, the applications preferred deserve to be dismissed. Further, the applicants were not party to the writ proceedings before the learned Single Judge. If their rights were likely to be affected by the decision of the writ petition preferred by the appellants herein, nothing prevented them from filing the application seeking impleadment before the learned Single Judge.
Indisputably, the writ petition was filed by the appellants affected by the action of the Selection Board in publishing the revised result while re-allocating the marks to the various questions set out in the question paper after the examination was over and the result was once declared and thus, in the writ petition filed, affected by the revised result, the appellants were not required to implead the applicants as party respondents. But, since the decision of the present appeal may adversely affect the selection of the applicants as well, this Court consider it appropriate to allow them to intervene in the matter so as to extend them an opportunity of hearing.
Accordingly, the applicants Rajwant Kaur & others and Sudesh Kanwar & another are permitted to intervene in the (Downloaded on 12/10/2020 at 08:51:31 PM) (4 of 21) [SAW-277/2020] matter. The applications (IA Nos.1/20 & 2/20) are disposed of accordingly.
3. The facts relevant are that the appellants herein applied for appointment to the post of Supervisor (Women) (Aanganwadi Workers Quota) pursuant to advertisement dated 1.10.18 issued by the respondent-Board under the Rajasthan Women and Child Development Service Rules, 1998 (for short "the Rules of 1998"). As per proviso to Rule 23 of the Rules of 1998, the posts of Supervisor are filled in by direct recruitment through written examination conducted by Appointed Authority or Selection Board, as the case may be, in accordance with the Scheme and Syllabus specified in Schedule III. The scheme of examination as set out in Clause II of Schedule III of the Rules of 1998, reads as under:
"II. Scheme of Examination: Separate examination shall be conducted for direct recruitment from open market and from Anganwadi Worker by the Appointing Authority/Board. The paper will be of objective type (Multiple choice). Paper will be of 200 marks and duration of the paper will be 3 hours.
Syllabus:
(i) The paper will be of Graduation standard. (with special focus on nutrition, health early childcare and education)
(ii) The syllabus and scope of paper for the written examination will be as prescribed by the Appointing Authority/Board, from time to time and will be intimated to the candidates within the stipulated time, in the manner as the Appointing Authority/Board deems fit."
4. The committee constituted by the Selection Board for prescribing the syllabus for written examination for appointment on the post of Supervisor (Women) from amongst the Aanganwadi Workers having ten years experience, determined the allocation of marks for question paper of different subjects as under: (Downloaded on 12/10/2020 at 08:51:31 PM)
(5 of 21) [SAW-277/2020]
"fyf[kr ijh{kk dk ikB~;Øe
i;Zos{kd & lh/kh HkrhZ ¼vkaxuckMh dk;ZdrkZvksa ls½ ¼dqy vad 200½
izFke [k.M
Ø-la- fo"k; mi fo"k; vad&100
¼d½ Hkk"kk Kku] rdZ 'kfDr ,oa lkekU; Kku
1 lkekU; fgUnh 50
2 lkekU; vaxzsth 25
3 xf.kr ,oa lkekU; rdZ 'kfDr 25
f}rh; [k.M
Ø-la- fo"k; mi fo"k; vad&100
¼d½ iks"k.k o LokLF; dk Kku rFkk ;kstuk,a
1 iks"k.k larqfyr vkgkj] eSØks ,oa ekbØks 10
U;wfVª,.Vl ¼dSyksjh] izksVªhu] foVkfeu]
lw{e [kfut rRo tSls & vk;ksMhu]
foVkfeu ,] vk;ju] ftad foVkfeUl rFkk
dSfYl;e½ dh deh ls gksus okyh
chekfj;ka ,oa mudh jksdFkke
2 thou dh fofHkUu voLFkkvksa fd"kksjkoLFkk] xHkkZoLFkk] /kk=h ekrk,a] 08
esa iks"k.k dk egRo uotkr] f"k"kqq] ckY;koLFkk] o;Ld
3 xHkZorh dh ns[kHkky xHkkZoLFkk esa otu dh fuxjkuh] ekr` 08
f"k"kq j{kk] xHkkZoLFkk esa [krjksa ls cpko] xHkkZoLFkk esa izlo iwoZ LokLF; tkap 4 Vhdkdj.k jk"Vªh; Vhdkdj.k ds vUrxZr yxus okys 08 Vhds] Vhdkdj.k dk egRo] Vhdkdj.k u gksus dk nq"izHkko 5 LokLF; ,oa iks"k.k ds fofHkUu ,uvkj,p,e ,oa vkbZlhMh,l vUrxZr 15 dk;ZØe lapkfyr ;kstukvksa ds lkFk lesfdr cky fodkl lsokvksa dk ifjp;] ,sfrgkfld i`"BHkwfe ,oa mís";] lesfdr cky fodkl lsokvksa ds vUrxZr iznRr lsok,a ,oa lapkfyr ;kstuk,a 6 dqiks"k.k tUe ls iwoZ&dkj.k ,oa lja{k.k ds mik; 08 tUe ds ckn&dkj.k ,ao lja{k.k ds mik;
7 lkekU; chekfj;ksa dh nLr] mYVh] vka[kksa ,oa uky dk laØe.k] 08 tkudkjh [kljk] xy?kksVw] fVVusl] dkyh[kkalh] Vhch] fueksfu;k ¼[k½ f"k"kq dh izkjfEHkd ns[kHkky ,oa f"k{kk 1 cky fodkl dk ifjp; cqfu;knh vo/kkj.kk,a] o`f) ,oa fodkl 17 dks ifjyf{kr djus okys fla)kUr] fodkl ds egRoiw.kZ pj.k] vuqokaf'kdrk vkSj i;kZoj.k dk cky fodkl ij izHkko] fiz&usVy fodkl] izFke rhu o"kZ esa fodkl] 3 ls 6 o"kZ ds e/; fodkl 2 'kkyk iwoZ f"k{kk ifjp; 'kkyk iwoZ f"k{kk& vo/kkj.kk ,oa vkSfpR;] vk;q 18 vuq:i lh[kus dh Jsf.k;ka vkSj Lrj] cPps ds lh[kus dh izfØ;k vkSj ekufld {kerk,a] 'kkjhfjd ,oa xR;kRed fodkl] laKkukRed fodkl] Hkk"kk fodkl] lkekftd ,oa HkkoukRed fodkl] l`tukRed ,oa lkSUn;Z cks/k dk fodkl (Downloaded on 12/10/2020 at 08:51:31 PM) (6 of 21) [SAW-277/2020]
5. Ignoring the syllabus and allocation of marks for different subjects and sub-subjects as aforesaid, the examiner set the question paper for recruitment in question containing 150 questions, 30 questions each from five subjects carrying equal marks. Apparently, the paper set by the examiner was not in conformity with the Scheme of Examination approved by the Selection Board as per the recommendations made by the committee constituted for the purpose.
6. Certain candidates who appeared in the examination preferred writ petitions (S.B.C.Writ Petition No.6722/19 & 6058/19) before this Court challenging the paper set by the Selection Board on the ground that the Scheme of Examination required that the written paper would contain question bearing 50, 25, 25, 65 & 35 marks respectively from subjects General Hindi, General English, Mathematics & Reasoning, Nutrition, Health & Schemes and Early Child Care and Education whereas, the question paper given during the examination contained 150 questions of equal marks-30 questions from each five subjects.
7. On 28.5.19, after hearing the rival submissions, in the aforesaid writ petitions, the learned Single Judge passed an order as under:
"Learned counsel appearing on caveat, on instructions, submitted that the grievances raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition are being looked into by the respondent- Board and an appropriate decision in this regard shall be taken by them.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that in similar nature writ petition being Asha Mishra v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No.6773/2019, by order dated 22.05.2019, the Bench at Jaipur has ordered that the result of the examination conducted by the respondents pursuant to the advertisement dated 01.10.2018 for appointment for the (Downloaded on 12/10/2020 at 08:51:31 PM) (7 of 21) [SAW-277/2020] post of Supervisor (female) (Aanganwadi Worker Quota) shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent and the learned counsel for the petitioner, list the writ petitions on 11.07.2019.
In the meanwhile as directed in the case of Asha Mishra (supra), the result of the examination shall remain subject to the outcome of the present writ petitions also."
8. Later, vide order dated 7.1.20, the Selection Board was directed to place the original record relating to examination conducted for perusal of the Court. On 10.1.20, counsel appearing for the Selection Board had given a suggestion to remove the anomaly which has crept in the selection process in question. On that day, the Deputy Secretary of the Board present in the court accepted the inadvertent error on the part of the paper setter and said that due to inadvertence, equal marks for each questions have been fixed and the subject paper contained equal questions for all the subjects i.e. Hindi, English, Mathematics & Reasoning, Nutrition, Health & Schemes and Early Child Care and Education. That apart, it was proposed on behalf of the respondents therein that they intend to revise the result while giving proportionate weightage to the questions of each subject in such a manner that total marks of such subjects would be equal to the marks fixed in the Scheme of Examination.
9. On 19.1.20, an additional affidavit was filed by the Selection Board inter alia indicating that the result has been revised on 16.1.20. The Selection Board while revising the result, made allocation of the marks for each question of different subjects as under:
(Downloaded on 12/10/2020 at 08:51:31 PM)
(8 of 21) [SAW-277/2020]
S.No. Paper Weightage Question Weightage of Weightage of
per question per question
as per
scheme
1 Hindi 50 30 1.33 1.66
2 English 25 30 1.33 .833
3 Maths 25 30 1.33 .833
4 Nutrition and 65 30 1.33 2.166
Health & Schemes
5 Early Child Care 35 30 1.33 1.166
and Education
10. On 16.1.20, while declaring the revised result, it was indicated that the result has been revised as directed by this Court whereafter, the Selection Board issued a revised order on 11.2.20 indicating therein that revision of the result was not done pursuant to the directions issued by this Court and the same was done in light of arguments/submissions made during the course of proceedings.
11. Taking note of the revision of result as aforesaid, the writ petition Nos.6722/19 and 6058/19 were disposed of by the learned Single Judge with the observations and directions as under:
"11. Without making any comment or observation on the correctness or proprietory of the respondents' action in revising the result and so also about the legality or accuracy of weightage so given, these writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the respondent-Selection Board to disclose marks obtained by all the candidates, including petitioners on its website, within a period of seven days from today.
12. Petitioners or any other candidates will naturally have liberty to lay challenge to the above referred criteria/weightage adopted by the Selection Board, in accordance with law."
12. Aggrieved by the revised result, the appellants herein preferred the Writ Petition (No.2257/20) before this Court, which (Downloaded on 12/10/2020 at 08:51:31 PM) (9 of 21) [SAW-277/2020] has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order impugned. Hence, this appeal.
13. The learned Single Judge observed that the marks of the appellant no.1 and 2 herein have been increased from 108 to 114 and 107 to 109 respectively and thus, they have been benefited due to revision of result, which indicates that the Selection Board has rightly revised/rationalised result while giving appropriate weightage to the questions relating to individual subject so as to bring the same in sync with the Scheme of Examination. The learned Single Judge observed that merely because the appellants have been scooped out of the select list, as a consequence of revision of result and corresponding upward movement of the cut off, they cannot challenge such revision. Dealing with the argument of the appellants that the respondent cannot change the rules of the games after the game was played, the learned Single Judge observed:
"19. The rules of examination or the rules of game-as branded by the petitioners, refers to the scheme of examination, according to which, each subject was to carry different total marks given therein. Admittedly, due to inadvertence, the examiner who set the paper lost sight of the fact that each subject did not carry equal marks and he had framed 30 questions each from all the five subjects for a paper comprising of 200 marks.
20. It may be relevant to take stock of the backdrop facts. The result was firstly prepared by allocating 1.33 marks to each question. A writ petition came to be filed by Anupama & Ors (CWP No.6722/2019), in which the respondent-Board candidly accepted the fault. During the course of hearing the Selection Board came up with a solution to deal with such anomaly. Without making any observation, the Board was permitted to declare the result.
21. In considered opinion of this Court, the revision of marks and allocation of higher or lower weightage to the questions in such process does not amount to changing rules of the game, particularly in the present factual matrix.(Downloaded on 12/10/2020 at 08:51:31 PM)
(10 of 21) [SAW-277/2020]
22. Neither the total number of questions have been changed, nor the questions have been deleted. What has been done is that number/weightage qua each of the question with respect to individual subject has been rationalised in such a manner that total numbers in each subject become equal to the numbers fixed in the scheme of examination, as indicated in the table above.
23. If such, rationalisation is not accepted, and any interference is made- it would lead to accepting/upholding previous method/result. It would then, permit an apparent, rather admitted illegality to perpetuate.
24. Had the rationalisation not been done, or if earlier result was to be examined, there could have been no course left, except to quash the entire examination and to order for a fresh examination.
25. This Court does not find any palpable or manifest irregularity warranting interference so far as the result impugned is concerned. The petition is thus dismissed."
14. Mr. B.S. Sandhu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in holding that as a consequence of the revision of result and upward movement of the cut off, the exclusion of the appellants from select list, cannot be a ground for challenging such revision. Learned counsel submitted that the manner in which the result is revised, is ex facie illegal and arbitrary and thus, the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the respondents while giving appropriate weightage to the questions relating to the individual subject, has rationalised the result. Learned counsel submitted that the appellants attempted the questions as per the instructions that all questions carry equal marks; had it been known to the appellants and their likes that some questions set out in the paper carry higher marks, giving priority, they would have attempted the questions accordingly. Learned counsel submitted that when the questions set out were of equal level and were accordingly allocated equal marks, then (Downloaded on 12/10/2020 at 08:51:31 PM) (11 of 21) [SAW-277/2020] subsequently, the respondents cannot be permitted to allocate higher marks to any individual question on the premise that the allocation of marks for particular subjects was not made as per the Scheme of Examination approved by the Selection Board. Learned counsel submitted that the enhancement of the marks allocated to questions relating to individual subject has given unfair advantage to the certain candidates, which cannot be permitted by this Court. Learned counsel submitted that the rules of the game cannot be changed once it is played and therefore, the respondents are now estopped from interfering with the allocation of marks set out in the question paper. Learned counsel submitted that when the questions set out in the examination papers were of equal level, the question of allocating different marks for the questions of the different subjects i.e. 0.833, 1.666, 2.166, does not arise. Learned counsel submitted that the result of examination was declared and even documents verification was made and thus, at that advanced stage, affecting the rights of the selected candidates, the result already declared keeping in view the allocation of marks made in the question paper could not have been revised. Learned counsel submitted that the premise on which the revision of the result proceeds is grossly unjust, unfair, unreasonable and irrational and thus, the revised result deserves to be quashed.
15. On the other hand, learned Advocate General Mr. M.S. Singhvi submitted that apparently, the questions set and the marks allocated in the question paper were not in conformity with the Scheme of Examination inasmuch as, the paper was supposed to be in two parts comprising of 100 marks each to be bifurcated proportionately as per the Scheme of Examination notified by the (Downloaded on 12/10/2020 at 08:51:31 PM) (12 of 21) [SAW-277/2020] Selection Board. Learned AG submitted that keeping in view the observations of the Court during the course of hearing of S.B.C.Writ Petition No.6722/19 and 6058/19, an inadvertent error on the part of the question setter was rectified and accordingly while giving proportionate weightage to the questions of each subject in such manner, that the total marks of such subject would be equal to the marks fixed in the Scheme of Examination, the revised result was declared. Learned AG submitted that merely on account of declaration of the result and inclusion of the names in the select list, no right is created in favour of the appellants so as to preclude the respondents from even rectifying the error crept in. Learned AG submitted that this Court should be extremely reluctant in interfering with the revised result where all the candidates have suffered equally and not put to disadvantageous position. Learned AG submitted that there must be finality to the result of public examination and thus, once keeping in view the directions of the Court when the respondents have amended the allocation of the marks so as to bring the same in conformity with the Scheme of Examination and the revised result has been declared, there is absolutely no reason as to why the same should be interfered with by this Court in exercise of intra court appeal jurisdiction. In support of the contention, learned AG relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in V.Lavanya & Ors. vs. State of Tamilnadu : (2017) 1 SCC 322, Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.: (2018) 2 SCC 357 and Anupal Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh: (2020) 2 SCC 173. However, it is fairly not disputed by the Advocate General before this Court that 150 questions set up in the question paper were of (Downloaded on 12/10/2020 at 08:51:31 PM) (13 of 21) [SAW-277/2020] equal level and accordingly, equal marks were allocated to each question.
16. Learned counsel appearing for interveners submitted that the revision of the result made by the Selection Board keeping in view the observation of the learned Single Judge during the hearing of writ petitions Nos.6722/19 & 6058/19, is based on rational criteria and, therefore, the order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the revised result does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of intra court appeal jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that in any case on account of some error crept in setting up of the question paper, the entire examination conducted pursuant to the advertisement issued cannot be set at naught and, therefore, if the revised result is not approved by this Court, the result originally declared should be restored.
17. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
18. Indisputably, as per the Scheme of Examination set out in Clause (ii) of Schedule III of the Rules of 1988, the recruitment to the post of Supervisor from open market and from Aanganwadi Workers Quota is required to be made on the basis of separate written examinations conducted. The paper of examination is mandated to be of objective type (Multiple choice) carrying 200 marks and 3 hours duration. The question paper is required to be of Graduation standard with special focus on nutrition, health, early child care and education. The syllabus and scope of the paper for written examination is envisaged to be as prescribed by the Appointing Authority/Selection Board.
(Downloaded on 12/10/2020 at 08:51:31 PM)
(14 of 21) [SAW-277/2020]
19. The record produced by the respondents during the course of hearing for perusal of this Court revealed that the Selection Board constituted a committee for prescribing the Syllabus for written examination to be conducted for the post of Supervisor (Women) pursuant to the advertisement issued as aforesaid. In conformity with the Scheme of Examination noticed above, the committee proposed the syllabus and the allocation of marks for each subject which was approved by the Selection Board.
20. A perusal of the Syllabus of Examination determined as aforesaid, reveals that a single question paper containing objective type questions (Multiple choice) was to be divided in two parts : first part, covering General Hindi, General English, Mathematics & Reasoning carrying 50, 25 and 25 marks respectively and second part, covering Nutrition, Health & Schemes and Early Child Care and Education, carrying 65 and 35 marks respectively. In part second, subjects Nutrition, Health & Schemes and Early Child Care and Education were proposed to be further divided in different sub-subjects related to the main subjects and the allocation of marks was required to be made accordingly. In this regard, the syllabus in the chart form as prescribed by the Selection Board on the recommendation of the Committee reproduced in para 4 of this order, is self explanatory.
21. Admittedly the number of questions from each topic/subject/ part to be included in the question paper as per the weightage mentioned in the Syllabus of examination. As per the instructions issued total 150 questions carrying equal marks were to be included from five different parts/subjects. Thus the number of questions for each part/subject to be included in the question paper were required to be in proportion to the maximum marks (Downloaded on 12/10/2020 at 08:51:31 PM) (15 of 21) [SAW-277/2020] allocated to each part/subject in the Syllabus of the examination. It is not disputed that the examiner set up the question paper containing 150 questions of equal marks - 30 questions from each of the five subjects, which was apparently not in conformity with the allocation of marks in the Syllabus and the Scheme of Examination approved by the Selection Board as per the recommendation made by the Committee constituted for the purpose.
22. It is true that the writ petition was preferred by certain candidates who were not selected in the result originally published by the Selection Board, challenging the paper set up for the examination conducted on the ground that the same was not in conformity with the Scheme of Examination set out in Clause (II) of Schedule III as also the syllabus of examination as prescribed by the Selection Board pursuant to the recommendation made by the Committee constituted for the purpose. But then, the various orders passed by the learned Single Judge including the final order dated 12.2.20 passed in the said writ petition, reveal that the respondents on their own made a suggestion to remove the anomaly crept in the selection process in question and later suggested new weightage to be given to each question of different subjects instead of equal marks (1.33) for each question. The fresh allocation of marks for each question of different subjects suggested before the Court and adopted in declaring the revised result has already been reproduced in para no.9 of this order in a chart form. Suffice it to say that the revised result adopting the allocation of marks as aforesaid was published by the Selection Board on the basis of the decision taken at its end and not pursuant to any directions issued by the learned Single Judge and (Downloaded on 12/10/2020 at 08:51:31 PM) (16 of 21) [SAW-277/2020] it is for this reason that while disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge specifically observed that the revision of result was not done pursuant to the directions issued by the Court and the same was done in light of arguments and submissions made during the proceedings on 10.1.20 and accordingly, it was observed that the writ petitioners or any other candidate shall be at liberty to lay challenge to the fresh criteria/weightage adopted by the Selection Board. Thus, the stand sought to be taken by the learned Advocate General before this Court that the result was revised pursuant to the directions of the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition, does not appear to be correct.
23. This takes us to consider the core question as to whether the Selection Board was justified in revising the result of the examination by allocating revised weightage or marks to the questions of different subjects included in the question paper, allegedly so as to bring the same in sync with the Scheme of the Examination.
24. It is not in dispute that ignoring the maximum marks allotted to different topics/subjects/parts as prescribed in the Syllabus, the paper setter proceeded to set the paper containing 30 multiple choice questions taken from each of the five subjects. Apparently if total number of questions were to be restricted to 150, then the number of questions to be included from each of the subjects could not have been the same rather the number of questions to be included from each subjects or part thereof were required to be restricted proportionately taking into consideration the maximum marks allocated. Be that as it may, the candidates appearing in the examination were called upon to solve 150 questions of equal marks-30 questions from each of five subjects. It is pertinent to (Downloaded on 12/10/2020 at 08:51:32 PM) (17 of 21) [SAW-277/2020] note that the candidates were not required to secure minimum pass marks in each of the subjects for inclusion of their names in the select list. The time allowed to solve the question paper was three hours and since all questions were carrying equal marks, if the candidates were not in position to solve all the questions, they were not required to bother as to which question they have been able to solve and which question is left out. For example, if a candidate proceeds to solve the questions ad seriatim and while doing so he was able to solve only 120 questions out of 150 questions and could not attempt 30 questions relating to the subjects in the part second, but he secures requisite number of marks for inclusion of his name in the merit list, obviously he would be selected for appointment to the post. As noticed above, on account of change of weightage of the questions relating to the different subjects/topics/parts by the Selection Board the weightage of the questions of subjects, English and Maths has reduced from '1.33' to '0.833' whereas, weightage of the questions relating to the subjects, Hindi, Nutrition & Health Scheme and Initial Care & Education of Child, has increased from '1.33' to '1.66', '2.166' & '2.166' respectively. Had it be known to the candidates before attempting the questions during the examination that some of the questions relating to specific subjects carry higher marks undoubtedly, acting prudently, they would have attempted the questions relating to the subjects carrying higher marks, in preference to the questions of the subjects carrying comparatively lesser marks.
25. The instructions issued by the Selection Board placed before us during the course of hearing also reveal that the specific instructions were issued to include 150 multiple choice questions (Downloaded on 12/10/2020 at 08:51:32 PM) (18 of 21) [SAW-277/2020] carrying equal marks taken from five different subjects/parts keeping in view the maximum marks allocated part-wise as indicated in the syllabus. It is also not disputed before us that all the questions of multiple choice set in the question paper were of equal standard/level and accordingly the same were allocated equal marks. In this view of the matter, after the examination is over, if the allocation of marks for the question of different subjects are altered; marks allotted for the questions of some of the subjects are reduced and the same are increased for a few other subjects, apparently, it will create a fortuitous circumstance where the persons attempting the questions allocated higher marks relating to some specific subjects correctly, would be put in advantageous position whereas the standard/level of the questions, allotted higher marks remains the same. In our considered opinion the action of the respondent- Selection Board in revising the allocation of marks to the questions of equal level/standard set in the question paper originally adopted and declared at the time of examination certainly amounts to change of rules of the game after the game is over, which is not permissible under the law. More so because on account of change of the allocation of marks in perfunctory manner the candidates who are already selected on the basis of the evaluation made originally are put to disadvantageous position.
26. We find ourselves unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that since due to revision of result the marks of the petitioners have increased, they are benefited by the same. In our considered opinion on account of revision of weightage of the questions of different subjects the result of each of the candidates is bound to vary, some may secure higher marks than (Downloaded on 12/10/2020 at 08:51:32 PM) (19 of 21) [SAW-277/2020] the marks originally secured and the marks of the some of the candidates may be reduced. But then, the increase or reduction in the marks of individual candidate cannot be a basis from pronouncing that as a result of revision of the weightage of the questions he is put to advantageous or disadvantageous position. If a candidate is selected for appointment to the post pursuant to the result originally declared, is ousted from the select list on account of revision of the result by allocating different marks to the questions of different subjects after the examination is over, apparently on account of revision of result he is put to disadvantageous position.
27. We are not agreeable to the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the Selection Board has rightly revised/rationalised the result, while giving appropriate weightage to the questions relating to individual subject, so as to bring the same in sync with the Scheme of the Examination. If as per the instructions issued by the Selection Board total 150 questions were to be taken from five different parts/subjects carrying equal marks then so as to bring the question paper in sync with the Scheme of the examination, the number of questions for each subjects should have been included keeping in view part-wise maximum marks indicated in the syllabus. The mistake crept in on account of negligence on the part of the paper setter/Selection Board cannot be rectified in the manner suggested i.e. by revising the weightage of the questions of different subjects included in the question paper and allotting higher marks to the questions of specific subjects/parts, keeping in view the maximum marks allocated to such subjects/parts in the syllabus whereas the questions set in the question paper were admittedly of equal level/ (Downloaded on 12/10/2020 at 08:51:32 PM) (20 of 21) [SAW-277/2020] standard, carrying equal marks. To say the least the result of the examination conducted for recruitment to any post cannot be permitted to be varied in such a manner so as to put the candidates in advantageous or disadvantageous position on the basis of fortuitous circumstances. Thus, the action of the respondent- Selection Board in revising the result by allocating revised weightage to the questions of different subjects included in the question paper is avowedly arbitrary, irrational and cuts at the very root of fairness of the examination conducted, which cannot be countenanced by this Court.
28. It is true that as per the Scheme of the examination the paper set for examination to be conducted for recruitment to the post of Supervisor was required to be of Graduation standard with special focus on Nutrition, Health, Early Child Care & Education and accordingly in the syllabus notified 100 marks were allocated to the first part containing three subjects viz. General Hindi, General English, and Maths & Reasoning and similarly 100 marks were allocated to second part of the question paper containing the subjects Nutrition Health and Scheme and Early Care & Education of Child. But in the question paper set by the examiner 120 marks were allocated to the first part of question paper as against 100 marks. Similarly, second part of question paper was allocated 80 marks as against 100 marks. The subjects of the first part i.e. General Hindi, General English and Mathematics & Reasoning were allocated 40 marks each as against the marks allocated in the syllabus 50, 25 and 25 respectively and in the second part two main subjects were allocated 40 marks each ignoring the further bifurcation of marks to sub-subjects as prescribed in the syllabus. Thus apparently the question paper as framed was not in (Downloaded on 12/10/2020 at 08:51:32 PM) (21 of 21) [SAW-277/2020] consonance with the Scheme of the Examination. But the fact remains that the questions included in the question paper were of equal level and were carrying equal marks and, therefore, while attempting the question paper all the candidates were in similar position, and thus apparently no prejudice has been caused to any candidate and thus, so as to save the recruitment process already completed, it would be just and proper that the result originally declared is restored.
29. For the aforementioned reasons, the special appeal deserves to be allowed and the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.
30. Accordingly, the special appeal is allowed. The order under appeal dated 03.03.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ petition preferred by the appellants is allowed. The revised result declared by the Selection Board by revising the weightage of the questions of different subjects set by the examiner in the question paper is set aside. The result of the written examination originally declared by the Selection Board shall stand restored. No order as to costs.
(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
Aditya-DJ/-
(Downloaded on 12/10/2020 at 08:51:32 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)