Petitioners challenged the deletion of 9 erroneous questions in the Assistant Prosecution Officers examination conducted by BPSC. The Court rejected the claim of prejudice, holding that evaluation based on remaining questions is fair, and dismissed the writ applications as devoid of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23550 of 2012
====================================================== 1. Vagish Upadhyay, son of Late Vachaspati Upadhyay, resident of VillageKhirouli, Police Station- Dumraon, District- Buxar. 2. Sunil Kumar Shukla, son of Late Baij Nath Prasad Shukla, resident of Village- Bairiya, P.O.- Ramkola, District- Kushi Nagar (U.P.). 3. Ram Shakal Kumar, son of Sri Shambhu Prasad, resident of VillageApsadh, P.O. Apsadh, District- Nawadah. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bihar, Patna. 6. The Deputy Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bihar, Patna. 7. The Examination Controller-cum-Additional Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bihar, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23046 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Satya Narayan Yadav, Advocate, Katihar Civil Court, S/O Late Hari Har Prasad Yadav, resident of Mohalla- Barmasia, Ward No. 7, Brahmchari, Road, Katihar, P.S- Katihar Town, District- Katihar (Bihar).
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Law Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna. 4. The Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.23550 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate Mr. A K Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Kunal Tiwary Mr. Mukesh, AC to GA 8 (In CWJC No.23046 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghvendra Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr.Advocate Mr. Satyabir Bharti Ms. Divya Verma, AC to AAG 3
Patna High Court CWJC No.23550 of 2012 (6) dt.17-01-2014
2 / 5
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER
6 17-01-2014
The two writ applications have been heard together because petitioners of both the writ applications have common grievance. They are aggrieved because the Commission chose to delete 9 questions out of 250 questions and carried out the evaluation, which has created a kind of prejudice, if not adverse situation for them, in the process of selection on the post of Assistant Prosecution Officers.
The reason for eliminating nine questions has now emerged from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent BPSC. They do accept that a large number of students made representations pointing out infirmities in some of the questions relating to Law and General studies. There were 150 objective type questions in Law paper and another 100 in General studies. Four questions in Law paper have been found to be incorrect in terms of the option given as answers. Similarly 5 questions in General studies were wrongfully framed as all answers were wrong. It was in this background that to give an equitable opportunity to all the students, those questions were totally deleted and evaluation was carried out on the basis of left over questions in both these papers.
Patna High Court CWJC No.23550 of 2012 (6) dt.17-01-2014
3 / 5
Stand of the counsel for the petitioners is that there are some more questions which are erroneous or wrong. The process of such selection, obviously, is not objective or fair and it is creating problems for genuine students, who have sat for such selection and examination. They would like to be granted as many marks in relation to those questions, to be given across the board, to all the students and in support thereof they rely on a decision rendered by a Division Bench in the case of Akshey Lal Pandit Vs. The State of Bihar, 2011 (3) PLJR 258, w hich was a case relating to examination of judicial service.
This Court was confronted with a similar situation when the Bihar Public Service Commission conducted examinations for 52nd to 55th Batch. There also large number of questions were found to be erroneous which was accepted by the BPSC and they agreed to delete those number of questions for carrying out the evaluation of the answer sheets. In that case as well, reliance was placed on the decision rendered in the case of Akhey Lal Pandit (supra). The Court examined the matter in detail after hearing counsel for the parties to the dispute and rendered its opinion that such a selection can only be held to be fair and equitable provided the wrong questions are deleted and evaluation is made on the basis of left over questions across the board. The rationale and
Patna High Court CWJC No.23550 of 2012 (6) dt.17-01-2014
4 / 5
reasoning given by the Court came to be upheld by a Division Bench, which did approve the distinguishing feature of the previous ratio rendered in Akhey Lal Pandit’s case. It may be a coincidence that it was the same Division Bench which considered the matter and did approve the decision which was rendered in the case of Manoj Kumar vs. State of Bihar, 2012(1) PLJR 578.
The above decision of Manoj Kumar has already been upheld by the Hon`ble Apex Court when the SLP of those petitioners stood dismissed on 20th April, 2012 in S.L.A.(Civil) No.11265 of 2012.
If the ratio of Manoj Kumar is applied to the present set of fact, this Court can only come to the same conclusion that the evaluation for selection on the post on the basis of the examination held will have to be carried out after eliminating the wrong questions, which have been done in the present case. Any other contention urged at the bar cannot be said to be a fair modality.
In the opinion of the Court, no prejudice is going to be caused if evaluation is done on lesser number of questions instead of granting marks for even those questions which admittedly have been held to be wrong.
In the situation noted above, coupled with the legal position
Patna High Court CWJC No.23550 of 2012 (6) dt.17-01-2014
5 / 5
which has emerged and has been talked about and noticed in the earlier part of the order , the Court does not agree with the counsels for the petitioners that any kind of directive is required for adopting any other modality for evaluation or declaration of results.
The respondent authorities will proceed on the basis of the deleted questions. The result declared shall form the basis for holding the mains examination as the present dispute relates to preliminary examination.
Writ applications have no merit. They are dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)
R.K.Pathak/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Bihar Public Service Commission's decision to delete erroneous examination questions and evaluate based on remaining ones causes prejudice to candidates.
Whether the Court should direct a different evaluation modality or declare results based on the existing evaluation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Akshey Lal Pandit Vs. The State of BiharRelied on¶15
Akshey Lal Pandit Vs. The State of Bihar, 2011 (3) PLJR 258
Manoj Kumar vs. State of BiharExplained¶19
Manoj Kumar vs. State of Bihar, 2012(1) PLJR 578
Vagish Upadhyay
Sunil Kumar Shukla
Ram Shakal Kumar
State of Bihar
Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration, Bihar
Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission
Ajay Kumar Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
