Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The written examinations were held on 11.11.2016 and 13.11.2016. On each day, exam was conducted for 2 papers. In all 4,98,448 candidates appeared in the examinations. As per the procedure evolved, based on the performance, candidates are short listed in the ratio of 1:3 for verification of eligibility and the relevant certificates. On completing the said verification, the candidates are short listed to conduct interviews. Based on the PNR,J WP 18834_18 & batch performance in the written examination and interview the final merit list will be drawn. On 01.12.2016 preliminary key of answers was published, and objections were invited. It appears, PSC has received several objections. After taking opinion from experts, on 10.01.2017 final key was published. The notification indicated that there would no further consideration of objections on the final key. However, PSC entertained further objections and published revised final key by notification dated 13.04.2017. It appears, there is variation in the answers chosen by the PSC in the preliminary key, in the final key and in the revised final key. Based on the revised final key the OMR sheets of candidates were evaluated and results were announced. PSC short listed candidates in the ratio of 1:3. At this stage, these writ petitions are filed.

13. According to learned counsel, initially preliminary key was issued, objections were received and on consideration by experts final key was issued. 2½ months after release of final key, it appears certain objections were received and considered and revised final key was issued without further notice calling for objections. In earlier recruitments, this system was never followed. In both final and revised final key, it was mentioned that 'no further objections would be considered'. Considering further objections lead to stretching the time schedule; Merit list was notified on 01.06.2017; Revised merit list was notified on 14.4.2018. Due to revision of final list there were multiple answers and some questions were deleted. When key answers were changed some candidates benefited and some were deprived. Thus, this whole process is illegal.

14. According to learned counsel, total 37 questions were affected due to final key and revised final key. In 14 questions multiple choices were shown as correct answers; for 7 questions answers were changed; 17 questions were deleted. She has taken through various averments to emphasize how illegal exercise was undertaken. According to learned counsel, as the illegality is all pervasive, independent body of experts in the relative field be constituted to examine the reasons for changes made between final key and revised final key.

36. At the threshold, it is pertinent to note that PSC has not put in place mechanism to determine final answer to a question based on which marks are awarded. Material on record would disclose that questions are formulated by experts in a concerned field or subject along with answer. The PSC prepares question bank from out of which questions are selected and finalized. After the examination is over, it publishes a preliminary key and calls for objections. After receiving the objections, PSC constitutes committees of experts to consider those objections. Experts evaluate the questions and answers and suggest change of answer wherever necessary. This may vary from provisional key. Based on the recommendations of the experts, final key is published. On the basis of final key the answers of candidates are evaluated. This appears to be the standard procedure followed. In the instant recruitment process, after publication of final key also PSC received objections. PSC referred those objections to experts, re-evaluated the final key and published revised final key. Based on revised final key the OMR sheets were evaluated. It is appropriate to note that by the time revised final key exercise was undertaken and finalized the key answers, the evaluation of answer scripts were not taken up.