Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

and ended on 10.12.2018. It is an admitted fact that the preliminary examination consisted of 150 multiple choice questions from (1) General Knowledge, (2) General Science and Mathematics, and (3) Comprehension/Reasoning/Mental Ability. The result of the examination was published on 14.02.2020, in which 63739 candidates were declared successful against 13120 vacancies.

6. There is pleading in the writ application that the Commission did not upload the model key answers on the website before or at the time of publication of result, as had been the past practice of the Commission. The petitioners have relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court, in case of Md. Nafis Nawaz Khan and Another vs. The State of Bihar and Others, reported in (2016) 1 PLJR 667, to contend that in the light of Patna High Court CWJC No.7949 of 2020 dt. 01-12-2020 direction issued in paragraph 40 therein, it was incumbent upon the Commission to have published the model keys answers and given the candidates an opportunity to raise objection, if any, to such model key answers. It has been averred in the writ application that they had approached the Public Information Officer of the Commission under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and had also filed appeal under the said Act for supply of OMR sheets, model key answers and marks secured by the petitioners and category-wise cut off marks.

13. It is accordingly the petitioners' case that the Commission has history of preparing wrong model answers, which causes delay in finalization of results. It has been pleaded that the Commission, instead of giving the petitioners an opportunity of remedying the wrong, has decided to do away with the remedy itself, contrary to the observations made by the Supreme Court in case of Samir Gupta (supra). It has been stated that BPSC follows the procedure of uploading model answer keys and inviting objections from the aspirants in Multiple Choice question (MCQ) objective type tests. Reliance has also been placed on another Division Bench decision of this Court, rendered in case of Ashutosh Kumar Jha and Others vs. The State of Bihar and Others dated 04.10.2016 in L.P.A. No. 1235 of 2016 and other analogous matters, in which case, this Court, upon noticing the fact that after publication of model answers, since objections were invited and were scrutinized by the experts, in consonance with the Patna High Court CWJC No.7949 of 2020 dt. 01-12-2020 decision issued by the Division Bench of this Court, in case of Md. Nafis Nawaz Khan and Others (supra), recorded that there was no scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

17. I have carefully examined the pleadings on record and submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. There is no gainsaying that this Court, in a proceeding of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot substitute its opinion in place of the opinion of an expert body, particularly when it comes to determination of correctness or otherwise of key- answers prepared by experts for the questions set up in multiple choice objective type test. The opinion of the experts will have to be given finality unless such opinion verges on palpable absurdity. The only question, which the present proceeding involves, is as to whether in order to maintain transparency and fairness in the process of selection, the Commission ought to have made known to the candidates the answer keys prepared by the Commission and Patna High Court CWJC No.7949 of 2020 dt. 01-12-2020 whether it ought to have invited objections from the candidates before finalizing the result, after scrutinizing the said objections by a body of experts.

18. I have referred to the Supreme Court's decision, in case of Samir Gupta (supra), at the very outset, which is apparently the first on this and lucidly states as to what procedure should be adopted to ensure fairness and transparency in a test, which is multiple choice objective type. The expression, in paragraph 15 of the judgment, that 'if the answer keys were kept secret, remedy would have been worse than the disease', cannot be conveniently ignored by the institutions/bodies conducting such tests.