Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

As indicated above, there is a revision of marks of RTET as well selection test for the post of Teacher Gr III affecting their merit position. Total number of such candidates are 287 on the post of Teacher Gr III (Level-I) and 2455 candidates on the post of Teacher Gr III (Level-II). The revision of result based on expert opinion is challenged but not pressed as otherwise this court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere in the expert opinion.

In view of above, the only question for my consideration is as to whether termination can be effected on revision of result either due to deletion of certain questions or correction of answer. The issue aforesaid was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar & ors (supra). The correction in the answer script and revaluation was allowed and held to be just and legal. A direction for fresh selection in view of application of improper answer key was not accepted. The revaluation of answer key and the result was held to be a good option to do justice to those who suffered on account of erroneous key. It was held that such evaluation need not necessarily result in ousting of appellants found below cut off marks based on revised list. Paras 17 to 19 are quoted hereunder for ready reference -

In the case of Vikas Pratap Singh & ors (supra) the issue again came up before the Apex Court. Therein, revision of result was due to revaluation of answer script where 8 questions of Paper-II were found to be incorrect. Due to revaluation, 26 appellants could not find place in the merit, accordingly their appointments were cancelled. Para 16 to 20 and 25 to 28 of the above judgment are quoted hereunder for ready reference -

16. In respect of the Respondent-Board's propriety in taking the decision of re-evaluation of answer scripts, we are of the considered view that the Respondent-Board is an independent body entrusted with the duty of proper conduct of competitive examinations to reach accurate results in fair and proper manner with the help of Experts and is empowered to decide upon re-evaluation of answer sheets in the absence of any specific provision in that regard, if any irregularity at any stage of evaluation process is found. (See: Chairman, J and K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and Ors. (2000) 3 SCC 59 and Sahiti and Ors. v. The Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 599). It is settled law that if the irregularities in evaluation could be noticed and corrected specifically and undeserving select candidates be identified and in their place deserving candidates be included in select list, then no illegality would be said to have crept in the process of re-evaluation. The Respondent-Board thus identified the irregularities which had crept in the evaluation procedure and corrected the same by employing the method of re-evaluation in respect of the eight questions answers to which were incorrect and by deletion of the eight incorrect questions and allotment of their marks on pro-rata basis. The said decision cannot be characterized as arbitrary. Undue prejudice indeed would have been caused had there been re-evaluation of subjective answers, which is not the case herein.

27. Accordingly, we direct the Respondent-State to appoint the Appellants in the revised merit list placing them at the bottom of the said list. The candidates who have crossed the minimum statutory age for appointment shall be accommodated with suitable age relaxation.

28. We clarify that their appointment shall for all intents and purpose be fresh appointment which would not entitle the Appellants to any back wages, seniority or any other benefit based on their earlier appointment.

The perusal of the paras quoted above reveals that so far as revaluation of the answers and revision of the result is concerned, no illegality exist therein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further considered the issue as to whether revaluation should oust the candidates earlier appointed.

The issue aforesaid is required to be viewed from two aspects. First is as to whether there can be re-valuation of the answer script so as to ignore incorrect answers or to correct the answers given in the key. It is held permissible by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments and specially the judgments (supra), thus one proposition becomes clear that there can be change in the answer script so as to correct the questions and answers.

The question further comes as to for whose advantage, it needs to be corrected? The obvious answer is that those who had given correct answer of a question but could not obtain marks because of erroneous setting of answer key of a particular question or questions and, at the same time, benefited those who had given incorrect answer, yet secured marks due to the reasons stated above. If incorrect answer key is allowed to remains as it is, it would be to the benefit of those who had given incorrect answer and taken benefit of the default of the respondents in setting erroneous answer key and secured marks over and above meritorious candidates. Thus, it becomes clear that revaluation of answer script is to benefit meritorious candidates.