Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(i) if the structure of the question is wrong;
(ii) out of the options given as answers, if more than one options are correct.
(iii) if no option is correct.
(iv) if there is difference in Hindi and English translation of any question because of which different meaning is drawn from both and one correct answer could not be ascertained.
(v) if any other printing mistake is there because of which correct answer is not ascertainable or more than one option is correct.

The Supreme Court also approved the decision of the Board in re-evaluating the answer scripts based on the correct answer keys by holding thus:-

"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 & K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and others, (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."

However, the Supreme Court did not approve of the directions given by the High Court to hold a fresh selection, rather it was laid down that in such circumstances, the most natural and logical way to correct the mistakes was to get the answer scripts re-evaluated on the basis of correct answer key. It has been observed thus:-

"19........ 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."
(a) The Commission shall re-evaluate the answer scripts of the preliminary examination of all the candidates by (i) deleting questions no.25, 66 and 92; and (ii) giving full marks for question no.44 to candidates who have exercised option (b) or (c).
(b) The candidates who are found to have qualified the preliminary examination as a result of re-evaluation, shall become entitled to appear in the main written examination. In respect of such candidates, the Commission will hold the main written examination at the earliest possible.