Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In a recent judgment in Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Etc. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. Etc., Civil Appeal Nos.2525-2516/2013 decided on 13.3.2013, the Supreme Court upheld judgment of Patna High Court observing that 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. The Single Bench of the High Court based on the report of two experts held that 41 model answers out of 100 were wrong. While 2 questions were wrong, 2 other questions were repeated. The single bench thus held that the entire examination stood vitiated, therefore, directed that the same be cancelled and so also the appointment made on that basis. The division bench of the High Court, however, while partly allowing the appeal held that the entire examination need not be cancelled because there was no allegation of any corrupt motive or malpractice in regard to the other question papers. A fresh examination in Civil Engineering Paper only was, according to the division bench, sufficient to rectify the defect and prevent injustice to any candidate. The division bench further held that while those appointed on the basis of the impugned selection shall be allowed to continue until publication of the fresh result, anyone of them who failed to make the grade on the basis of the fresh examination shall be given a chance to appear in another examination to be conducted by the Staff Selection Commission. In those facts, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under:

16. 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.