Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Shri Rao would submit that the decision of the respondent Board to re-evaluate the answer scripts in the absence of any statutory provisions for the same and subsequent publication of a revised merit list cancelling the appointment of the appellants is arbitrary and has caused prejudice to the appellants. He would further submit that Clause 14 of the Rules providing for procedure to be adopted in respect of erroneous objective questions is of a wider ambit and includes 38 of 74 exigencies such as model answers to examination questions being incorrect and therefore, the respondent Board instead of directing re-evaluation of answer scripts ought to have acted in compliance with the said statutory provision.

12. Per contra, Shri Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the re-evaluation of answer scripts affected three genre of objective questions: firstly, the eight questions in Paper II which were found incorrect; secondly, the eight questions in Paper II answers to which were found to be incorrect in the model answers key and thirdly, the questions in Paper I to which no model answers were provided for prior to the appointment of the Expert Committee. He would submit that the first set of eight questions was deleted and marks were awarded on a pro rata basis in accordance with Clause 14 of the Rules. The second set of eight questions were re-evaluated on the basis of corrected model answers key and the third set of questions in Paper I, all being objective type, were re- evaluated with the aid of model answers key prepared by the Expert Committee.

14. In these appeals what falls for our consideration is whether the decision of the respondent Board in directing re-evaluation of the answer scripts has caused any prejudice to the appellants appointed qua the first merit list, dated 8-4-2008?

18. 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 39 of 74 stage of evaluation process is found. 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 characterised as arbitrary. Undue prejudice indeed would have been caused had there been re- evaluation of subjective answers, which is not the case herein.

(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.