Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

33. .............................
34.............................
35. ............................
36. ............................
37. Award of marks by an examiner has to be fair and considering the fact that re-evaluation is not permissible under the Statute at the instance of candidate, the examiner has to be careful, cautious and has the duty to ensure that the answers are properly evaluated. Therefore, where the authorities find that award of marks by an examiner is not fair or that the examiner was not careful in evaluating the answer scripts re-evaluation may be found necessary.
"19. The submissions made by Mr. Rao are not without merit. Given the nature of the defect in the answer key the most natural and logical way of correcting the evaluation of the scripts was to correct the key and get the answer scripts re-evaluated on the basis thereof. There was, in the circumstances, no compelling reason for directing a fresh examination to be held by the Commission especially when there was no allegation about any malpractice, fraud or corrupt motives that could possibly vitiate the earlier examination to call for a fresh attempt by all concerned. The process of re-evaluation of the answer scripts with reference to the correct key will in addition be less expensive apart from being quicker. The process would also not give any unfair advantage to anyone of the candidates on account of the time lag between the examination earlier held and the one that may have been held pursuant to the direction of the High Court. Suffice it to say that the re-evaluation was and is a better option, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

25. We have carefully gone through the provisions of the Rules of 2005 and the Rules of 2008 but do not find any specific prohibition which puts a clog on the powers of the appellant to correct the erroneous model answer key and re-evaluate the papers. We are not impressed by the argument of Mr. Azhar Ul Amin, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that the impugned process undertaken by the appellant does not amount to re- evaluation. The moment, the model answer key is corrected, its necessary fallout is re-evaluation of the answer scripts. As we have already held in the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court that the examination body, the Public Service Commission in this case, has inherent power to correct the errors, be it in question papers or the model answer keys and re-evaluate the answer scripts, unless there is specific prohibition in the Statute, Rules or Regulations. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 25, however, could not point out any such prohibition contained either in the Rules of 2008 or in the Rules of 2005. The contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 25 that the correction of model answer keys by the appellant and consequently re-evaluation of the answer scripts was beyond the jurisdiction of the appellant is, therefore, misconceived and cannot be accepted in the face of settled legal position.

27. With a view to find out the facts and circumstances which led the appellant to undertake the exercise of re-verification of the model answer keys and then re-evaluate the answer scripts of the concerned subjects, we meticulously went through the original record produced by the Commission. From a bare perusal of the record, particularly representations made by some of the candidates pointing out errors in the model answer keys, it transpires that in response to applications moved by such candidates under Right to Information Act, not only the answer scripts but the model answer keys were also made available by the officials of the appellant. It is because of this reason only the candidates could point out the errors in the model answer keys. In their representations, such candidates are very specific about the errors in various answers given in the model answer keys. From the perusal of record, it further transpires that the appellant taking note of the various representations submitted by the candidates, media reports and the public opinion, undertook the exercise of re-verification of the model answer keys. This was apparently done by the appellant to instill faith of the public in fairness and impartiality of the appellant, it had been losing due to its failure to ensure that the answers contained in the model answer keys are correct and the candidates are correctly evaluated. Accordingly, the Chairman of the appellant vide its letter No.PSC/Chamn/01/2017 dated 14.06.2017 approached the vice Chancellors of Jammu/Kashmir Universities, SKUAST, Jammu and Srinagar and NIT, Srinagar for verification of 23 answer keys. Vide another order issued on 28.06.2017 two different Committees were constituted to examine the opinions of the experts of the aforesaid institutions for reporting variance, if any, and suggest further action to be taken in the matter. The aforesaid two Committees, one headed by a member of the Commission, Sh. Lal Chand and another headed by Sh. Jai Pal Singh, tallied/checked the answer keys of the different subjects and submitted their reports on 05.07.2017. The Committees found some of the allegations made by the candidates in the representations substantiated by the opinion of the experts of the aforesaid institutions. Since with respect to certain answers there was difference of opinion between the experts of two Institutes, the appellant decided to refer variations to the third party experts. This is how the services of outside experts were requisitioned. The appellant in its meeting held on 26.07.2017 and 27.07.2017 analyzed the discrepancies in the model answer keys received from experts of different institutions and decided to correct the answer keys and accordingly, re-evaluate the answer scripts.