Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"17. To the same effect, this Court in Guru Nanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg, had directed the University to revaluate the answers of 8 questions with reference to key answers provided by CBSE. This Court also disapproved the course adopted by the University which has given the marks to all the students who had participated in the entrance test irrespective of whether someone had answered questions or not.

18. Another judgment which is referred to is Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, where this Court had occasion to consider the case pertaining to erroneous evaluation (38 of 61) [CW-2253/2022] using the wrong answer key. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission invited applications against the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil). Selection process comprised of a written objective type examination. Unsuccessful candidates assailed the selection. The Single Judge of the High Court referred the "model answer key" to experts. Based on the report of the experts, the Single Judge held that 41 model answers out of 100 are wrong. The Single Judge held that the entire examination was liable to be cancelled and so also the appointments so made on the basis thereof. The letters patent appeal was filed by certain candidates which was partly allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench modified the order passed by the Single Judge and declared that the entire examination need not be cancelled. The order of the Division Bench was challenged wherein this Court in para 19 has held:(SCC p.697) "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."