JUDGMENT
Y.P. Nargotra, J.
1. The dispute in this batch of writ petitions relates to the Combined Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2005, conducted by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission for short listing of candidates for the Main Examination for making selection in respect of the posts in combined services of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
2. The State Government referred 132 posts for the combined services to the Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) for making selection of candidates for direct recruitment on the basis of Combined Competitive Examination. Procedure for conducting the Combined Competitive Examination is governed by the rules framed under SRQ 161 dated 17 July 1995. The rules envisage Combined Competitive Examination consist of two successive stages.
1. Combined Services (Preliminary) Examination (objective type) for the selection of candidates for the main examination; and
2. Combined services (Main) Examination (Written and interview) for the selection of candidates for the various services and posts.
3. The Preliminary Examination consists of two papers – (i) compulsory paper of General Studies and (ii) optional subject to be opted by the candidates out of 22 specified subjects set out in Appendix-IX of the rules. This examination is meant to serve only as a screening test and the marks obtained by the candidates in the Preliminary Examination, who are declared qualified for the Main Examination, are not to be counted for determining their final order of merit. The number of candidates to be admitted to the Main Examination is not to be more than 1:13 times the total approximate number of vacancies to be filled in various services and posts. It is also provided in the rules that only those candidates who obtain such maximum marks in the Preliminary Examination, as may be fixed by the Commission at its discretion, are to be declared by the Commission to have qualified in the Preliminary Examination in a year, provided they are otherwise eligible for admission to the Main Examination.
4. The Main Examination consists of written examination and an interview test. The written examination consists of papers of conventional essay type, out of which one paper is to be of qualifying nature only, in the subjects set out in Appendix-IX and as per the detailed syllabus in Appendix-IB. The candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in written part of the Main Examination, as may be fixed by the Commission in any or all the papers at their discretion, would be entitled to be summoned for an interview.
5. The Commission vide its notification No. PSC/EXM-05/27 dated 1.4.2005 invited applications from the candidates for the Preliminary Examination of J&K Combined Competitive Examination. 2005. In response, 17116 candidates applied. The Preliminary Examination was conducted by the Commission simultaneously at Jammu and Srinagar on 3.7.2005 at 24 centers/sub-centers, in which 15293 candidates appeared. The compulsory paper in the General Studies subject carried 150 marks for 120 questions, each question containing 1.25 marks, whereas the optional paper out of 22 subjects was carrying 300 marks for 120 questions, each question having 2.5 marks. After the Preliminary Examination, a large number of complaints came to be made by the candidates in the media pointing out mistakes/errors in the question papers.
6. In the face of complaints, the Commission on 6 July 2005 made a public announcement that the general grievance of the candidates would be given due consideration by it while evaluating the answer scripts. The Commission considered the issue in its meetings held on 7 July 2005, which was attended by its Chairman, Mr. M. S. Pandit and four members, namely, M/S M. S. Khan, C. L. Banal, Ch. Bashir Ahmed and Dr. N. A. Jan; the 5th member Prof. B. K. Tiku was not available on the said date. The Commission received the representations of aggrieved candidates up to 10.7.2005. For Combined Services (Main) Examination, the Commission based on the result of Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination fixed 50% and 40% of aggregate marks for the general category and reserved category candidates respectively as the minimum qualifying marks for short-listing in the ratio of 1:13.
7. The Commission unanimously decided that such of the reported questions, as were admittedly wrong, would be deleted and the marks of such deleted questions would be added pro-rata to rest of the questions. While deciding about the modus operandi to deal with the wrong questions, the Commission kept in view the manner in which such like situation was being dealt with by other examination conducting bodies like Union Public Service Commission.
8. The Commission deleted such questions from the question papers, which according to it were admittedly wrong or had major printing errors. The marks of excluded questions were added to the remaining questions. On 11 July 2005, an extra-ordinary meeting was called by the Commission, in which it was decided to prepare the result of candidates who appeared in the examination, indicating the marks separately obtained in General Studies and Optional paper. It was also decided that thereafter the result would be formally brought before the Commission for its approval, before the same is notified for general public. This meeting was attended by Mr. M. S. Pandit, Chairman and the Members, namely, Mr. C. L. Banal, Mr. B. K. Tiku, Ch. Bashir Ahmed and Dr. N. A. Jan. On 12 July 2005, the Full Commission in an extra-ordinary meeting approved the result of J&K Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2005. Pursuant to such approval, the result was declared and notified on the same date.
9. Consequent upon the declaration of result, the private respondents have been declared qualified for the Main Examination, whereas, the writ petitioners being unsuccessful could not find berth in the select list. Being aggrieved of their exclusion from the competition, they have filed the present writ petitions.
10. The case of petitioners put broadly is that the two papers, i.e., General Studies and the other relating to optional subjects were containing incorrect questions, which besides wasting the time of candidates in understanding the same, put them in a disadvantageous position and they have been made to suffer without any fault attributable to them. It is also the case of petitioners that while conducting the Preliminary Examination, the Commission violated the examination rules and, therefore, whole of the examination process is bad in law.
11. The stand of Commission in short is that the rules for conducting the examination were strictly followed and the wrong questions have been deleted while evaluating the answer sheets of the candidates. Further, the marks of deleted questions have been distributed to the correct questions of each concerned paper on pro-rata basis, therefore, no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to the candidates, especially the petitioners herein.
12. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of Commission as well.
13. The first question arising for consideration is as to whether there was any violation of examination rules for conducting the Preliminary Examination. The ground of violation of examination rules has specifically been raised in OWP No. 150/2006. In the said petition two Members of the Commission, namely, Prof. B. K. Tiku and Dr. N. A. Jan have been impleaded as respondents and they have also filed their personal affidavits.
14. For determination of the controversy, it would be beneficial to note the following few averments made in the writ petition:
2. That whole of the proceedings held by the Commission are against the provisions of JKPSC (Business & Procedure) Rules, 1980. It is only the Chairman of Commission who acted in utter disgrace and flagrant violation of said Rules and not only confirmed various proceedings of Commission pertaining to said selection on its own without having approval or consent of other members.
The Commission consists of three members namely,
1. Professor B.K. Tiku
2. Dr. N.A. Jan and
3. Shri Bashir Ahmad Choudhry
Besides the aforesaid three members, the Chairman, namely, Mohd. Shafi Pandit has to act as per the consent of said three members. As per Rule 5 of JKPSC (Business & Procedure) Rules, 1980, the Chairman or a member of Commission is not supposed to participate in selection for reasons of his close kinship with candidate. Shri Bashir Ahmed Chaudhary, one of the Members of Commission was not entitled to participate in the selection process. As per Rule 9 of said Rules, the decision at the meeting of Commission could be taken in keeping with view of majority of members thereof. The Chairman can cast vote in the case of tie only.
“3. It is submitted that after having considered the irregularities, mistakes and errors contained in question paper of General Studies and other optional subjects, out of 3 Members of J. K. Public Service Commission (herein after referred as Commission) Prof. B. K. Tiku and Dr. N. A. Jan refused to sign the proceedings as well as result of preliminary examination of Commission. Shri N. A. Jan in his dissenting note stated as under:
Therefore, I was not in agreement with the modus operandi adopted therein, during the process. In actual practice, those examiners, who have set these papers, should have been called, along with Local Senior Experts, in the subject not less than a Professor in the University and these should have been given a free hand, to go through these documents. No reference books were provided to the Experts, as you cannot expect an expert to be well versed in all relevant disciplines in a particular subject. Without having a text book/reference books at his disposal, besides spelling mistakes, were not mostly taken into consideration and due to confused questions, a lot of time was wasted with the result candidates have complained regarding the loss of time and loss of concentration and most of the candidates suffered on this account, with no fault of theirs and have not been sufficiently compensated thereof.
Similarly, in separate dissenting note, Prof. B.K. Tiku (Member Commission) raised the following objections.
It appears that in the present set up the style of functioning of the Hon’ble Chairman smacks of authoritarianism and apparently it appears that a multi-dimensional Commission is leading towards one-man Commission. Now, under the present circumstances, it would be befitting that the Chairman may look himself after the business normally assigned to Member establishment as well with immediate effect. It is pertinent to point out the orders for the appointment of Members Establishment were hesitantly issued after a long gap for the reasons best known to Hon’ble Chairman. This has been in contravention to the practice of appointing the senior most member of the Commission to this position immediately after the vacancy would arise. But in this case a record was set up where it took a very long period to decide whether to follow this constitutional obligation or not.
“4. It is submitted that here that out of 3 members of Commission, as mentioned above, two Members namely, Prof. B.K. Tiku and Dr. N.A. Jan refused to sign the proceedings and result. The third member namely Shri Bashir Ahmed Choudhrty, who was incompetent to participate in the selection process, as his son Sh. Suleman Chauhary was one of the aspirants.
Shri Bashir Ahmed Chaudhary, one of the Members of Commission at the insistence of Chairman of Commission, Shri Mohd. Shafi Pandit signed all the proceedings of selection and the result, and the result of preliminary examination was approved and declared by the signature of Shri Bashir Ahmed Choudhary alone, who was incompetent to participate in the selection process.
Thus out of three members of Commission, two refused to approve and sign the proceedings and the result of preliminary examination, and third member was incompetent for participating in the selection process on account of his son, who was also an aspirant in the said selection. Thus the Commission declared the result of preliminary examination on the direction of Chairman only.
15. From the above averments of the petition, the ground for challenging the examination process has been built upon the edifice that the Commission consisted of Chairman and three Members, namely, Dr. N. A. Jan, Choudhary Bashir Ahmed and Professor B. K. Tiku. The two Members, namely, Dr. N. A. Jan and Shri B. K. Tiku dissented, whereas the third Member, Ch. Bashir Ahmed was incompetent to sign the proceedings and the result of Preliminary Examination. The decisions taken by the Commission, therefore, can only be deemed to be the decisions of Chairman and not of the Commission.
16. It may be curious to note that the two Members, namely, Shri B. K. Tiku and Dr. N. A. Jan. who have been arrayed as respondents, instead of supporting the decisions of Commission, of which they were the Members, have filed their personal affidavits supporting the case of petitioners. At this stage, it would be apt to refer to the relevant portions of their reply affidavits. The relevant averments made by Prof. B. K. Tiku are as follows.
2. That it is unfortunate that immediately after the conduct of the above preliminary examinations, the procedure and process undertaken by the Commission was griped in a serious controversy in that series of complaints were raised, regarding wrong questions, wrong answers, doubtful keys vis-a-vis the questions, printing errors etc. etc by the candidates both in the press as also the electronic media.”
“As submitted above consequent to the conduct of the preliminary examination on 3.7.2005, large number of complaints came to be expressed by the candidates in the media, pointing out mistakes/errors in the question papers. In the face of said complaints, the matter as well was considered by the Commission in the meeting held on 7th and 14th July, 2005. In the said meetings, the Members of the Commission discussed the procedure being adopted by the Commission for making necessary corrections/deletions in the questions papers, keeping in view the wrong questions, wrong answers and doubtful keys. In fact the answering respondent immediately after examination was over on 3rd July 2005, had been raising the issue that the entire process regarding the matter was not in accordance with the laid down procedure/norms. Notwithstanding the fact that he had not been associated in the matter of selection of paper setters and formulation of question papers, the answering respondent possessed with experience of 35 years as a Teacher and as an expert examiner for number of Universities in the Country for nearly two decades, had suggested during the above meetings that in the face of the aforesaid complaints of the candidates, the Commission ought to follow the well settled practice, to invite the paper setters concerned along with local senior experts in the subject in the rank of not less than a Professor in the university. The answering respondent had also suggested that the paper setters and such senior expert should be given a free hand to go through the question papers for examining the objections regarding misprints, wrong answers, defective keys and out of syllabus questions as also the confused questions, before finalization of the results. The answering respondent also emphasized the necessity to opt for cancellation of the examination and holding of fresh examination atleast vis-‘-vis those papers, where large scale defects had been pointed out. This according to the answering respondent was warranted in the interests of fairness, so as to enable the candidates to display their talent and merit more effectively.
3. That it is submitted that the Commission besides the answering respondent is comprised of three members, which also include the Chairman, with other members being Dr. N. A. Jan and Sh. Chowdhary Bashir Ahmed. The said member, Chowdhary Bashir Ahmed though disabled to participate for the reason of one of his close relations being a candidate, however, also associated in the meetings aforementioned. It is submitted that the above suggestions made by the answering respondent though supported by the other member, Dr. N.A. Jan, have failed to earn the agreement of the Hon’ble Chairman. It was in this process that the complaints received by the Commission pursuant to the public notice dated 6.7.2005 were examined by the Commission without associating the answering respondent and other Hon’ble Member Dr. N.A. Jan, leading both, the answering respondent and the said member to record their dissent in approving the results of the preliminary examination, which however, was declared by the Commission in-spite of the disagreement. It is significant to mention that besides recording his dissent, the answering respondent as well has not signed the results drawn for the said preliminary examinations.” Respondent No. 5, Dr. N. A. Jan, taking the identical stand as taken by Prof. B. K. Tiku, respondent No. 4, in his reply/affidavit, further stated:
5. That, in the above back drop, the answering respondent over whelmed by his constitutional obligations deems it proper to state and submit that the examination process and procedure adopted by the Commission in the matter of conduct of preliminary examinations aforementioned, has not been in accordance with the mandate of law, but is deeply infested with serious and fatal errors, denuding the same of its sanctity. The process and procedure obviously is not fair and just.
17. From the above averments, the stand of Mr. Tiku and Mr. Jan, the Members of the Commission, respondents No. 4 and 5 herein, appears to be that the suggestions made by them about the manner in which the issue relating to the questions with the discrepancies should be dealt with, were not given heed to by the Chairman while deciding about the modus operandi to be adopted and for approving the result. One Member, namely, Ch. Bashir Ahmed was disabled to participate in the meeting in view of his ward being one of the candidates. Their further stand is that the complaints of the candidates were examined without associating them in the process.
18. The stand of Commission is that the issue for evolving the modus operandi in dealing with the situation was taken in its meeting held on 7 July 2005. The meeting was attended by the Chairman, Mr. M. S. Pandit and the members, namely, M/S M. S. Khan, C. L. Banal, Ch. Bashir Ahmed and Dr. N. A. Jan, in which it was unanimously decided that such of the reported questions as were admittedly wrong, would be deleted and the marks of such deleted questions would be added pro-rata to rest of the questions so that no prejudice is caused to any of the candidates. Relevant extract of the decision reads as follows:
The KAS/Combined Services Competitive Examination, 2005 was held at 24 centers and many more sub centers spread over cities of Jammu and Srinagar on 3rd July 2005. During the course of Examination a number of candidates/aspirants represented that both in General Studies paper as well as in optional papers there were a number of in corrections in the form of wrong questions, directionless questions, repetition of questions and so on. Through a press release the candidates for the aforesaid examination were assured that their representations will be considered in consultation with subject matter specialists and necessary adjustments will be made in the evaluation of response sheets and awards there.
Accordingly, based on the representations received so far, experts/heads of the departments from various institutions/universities were requested to go through General Studies and optional papers concerned. Based on their scrutiny and recommendations adjustments were made in the number of questions and consequential awards out of the permissible maximum marks of the question papers. The Commission approved the modus operandi for making necessary adjustments based on such representations.
19. It is also the stand of Commission that it examined all such representations as were received upto 10 July 2005, in consultation with the experts as well as the examiners concerned in the relevant subjects. Based on such examination, the Commission decided to exclude from evaluation such of the questions as were admittedly wrong or had major printing errors (which printing errors remained from being corrected through timely announcements in the examination halls). The marks of the excluded questions were added to the remaining questions. In its reply it has also been submitted by the Commission that after the preparation of result on the above lines and before notifying the same, it was placed before the Full Commission in its extra-ordinary meeting held on 11 July 2005, wherein it was decided that the result of all the candidates, who appeared in the examination, be prepared by separately indicating the marks obtained in General Studies and optional papers. It was further decided that the result would be formally brought before the Commission for approval, before notifying the same for general information.
20. It is the further stand of Commission that on 12 July 2005, the Commission in its extra ordinary meeting separately approved the result of J&K Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2005. The extra ordinary meeting was attended by Shri M. S. Pandit, Chairman and the Members, namely, M/S M. S. Khan, C. L. Banal, Prof. B. K. Tiku, Ch. Bashir Ahmed and Dr. N. A. Jan. After the Commission approved the result, it was declared on 12 July 2005, separately indicating the marks obtained by the candidates in General Studies and optional papers.
21. Mr. Bhim Singh, while reiterating the stand taken in the writ petition in the light of affidavits of respondents No. 4 and 5, in his inimitable style argued that the Preliminary Examination conducted by the Commission was nothing but a fraud on the constitutional rights of the petitioners, resulting into their ouster from the competition.
22. The basic assumption, on the basis of which the decision of the Commission taken for evolving the methodology for dealing with admittedly wrong questions is being called in question, is factually misconceived. The Commission did not consist of the Chairman and three Members as is being urged by the petitioners, but indisputably at the relevant time it was consisting of a Chairman and five Members, namely, Mr. M. S. Khan, Prof. B. K. Tiku, Mr. C. L. Banal, Ch. Bashir Ahmed and Dr. N. A. Jan. The decision for evolving the methodology was taken by the Commission in its 10th meeting held on 7 July 2005. As per the stand of Commission, the 10th meeting was attended by the Chairman, Sh. M. S. Pandit and the Members, namely, M/S M. S. Khan, Mr. C. L. Banal, Ch. Bashsir Ahmed and Dr. N. A. Jan. Respondent No. 4, Sh. B. K. Tiku did not participate. According to Mr. Raina, learned Counsel for PSC, Mr. B. K. Tiku could not participate because on that date he was not available. In his affidavit, Prof. B. K. Tiku has not stated anywhere that he was available in the Commission but was not called for the meeting. Be it so, the fact remains that the meeting was attended by the Chairman and four Members, in which the modus operandi for dealing with the situation was evolved.
23. From the minutes of 10th meeting, dated 7.7.2005, produced by the Commission, it is revealed that all the Members attending the meeting had unanimously resolved for adopting the said modus-operandi for dealing with the wrong questions appearing in the question papers. The minutes were recorded by the Secretary of the Commission.
24. Pursuant to the above decision, the Commission decided to delete the admittedly wrong questions of various subject-papers. This decision bears the signatures of all the participants including Dr. N. A. Jan. Thereafter, the Commission again met on 11.7.2005, in which besides the Chairman, all the Members including Prof. B. K. Tiku and Dr. N. A. Jan participated, in which the following resolution was passed:
…These representations were scrutinized in consultation with the examiners of relevant subjects and subject experts. Necessary action to be taken in the matter on the lines previously discussed in the Commission was approved.
It was also decided that the result for all the candidates who appeared at the examination be prepared indicating separately the marks obtained in General Studies and Optional papers. The result will be brought formally for the approval by the Commission before the same is notified for general information. After this is done, the candidates in various categories to be called to appear at the Main Examination will be short listed.
25. Before notifying the result, another meeting was held by the Commission on 12.7.2005, in which it was again unanimously decided that the result be notified. This meeting was attended by the Chairman and all the Members.
26. The decisions taken in the 10th meeting, dated 7.7.2005 were confirmed by the Full Commission in its meeting held on 14.7.2005, which read as under:
Confirmation of minutes of the 10th meeting of the Commission held on 07.07.05:
The minutes were confirmed with the observation from the Hon’ble Member Dr. N. A. Jan that although he had agreed to the deletions of various questions brought up before the Commission, his reservations regarding the procedure followed for dealing with the representations received from the candidates in respect of various papers set for the J&K Combined Services Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2005 be placed on record. He was joined in this regard by Prof. B. K. Tiku. The specific objection that they had to the procedure adopted was not mentioned by them.
27. From the minutes of the meetings referred above, it is quite evident that the decisions taken by the Commission in these meetings were majority or unanimous decisions. The two Members, namely, Prof. B. K. Tiku and Dr. N. A. Jan though had expressed their reservations to the modus operandi, but their opinion did not persuade the other Members to join with them, so they also ultimately went with the majority. Assuming that they had not joined the majority, even then their dissent per se does not in any manner invalidate the decision of Commission on the ground of procedural impropriety.
28. As per Rule 6 of Business & Procedure Rules, Examination Rules. 2005_, the necessary quorum of the meeting was:
Where the number of members is even, one half of the number with the addition of one shall constitute quorum for meeting. Where the number is odd the quorum shall be such number as may exceed half the total number of Members.
In none of the above meetings, the quorum was deficient. Rule 9 provides:
Decision at the meeting of the Commission shall be taken in keeping with the views of the majority of members thereof. The Chairman shall have casting vote in case of tie. Where a case is circulated and a difference of opinion exists, the case shall be again referred to the dissenting Member(s). In case the Member(s) stick(s) to the views already expressed by him/them, the case shall be put up at a meeting of the Commission for a final decision.
And Rule 11 provides:
All decisions of the Commission taken at its meeting shall be recorded by the Secretary. The draft of the minutes shall be put up by the Secretary to the Chairman for approval; thereafter the minutes shall be circulated to Members and subsequently brought up for formal confirmation at the next meeting of the Commission.
29. The decisions of the Commission being majority decisions, which were duly confirmed in the next meetings, do not in any manner suffer from the procedural impropriety or invalidity.
30. As regards the participation of Choudhary Bashir Ahmed, Member in the meetings of the Commission, the contention of petitioners is that he was disabled because his ward was appearing in the examination. The contention is without any merit. The question of his disability could arise only in case of his participation at such stage of selection where the merit of his ward was to be judged. He was not debarred from participating in the meetings in which general policy decisions were required to be taken. Thus, there is no valid ground to hold that there was any infraction of Examination Rules.
31. Now I would deal with the principal ground of challenge to the validity of Preliminary Examination relating to the questions of question papers having discrepancies.
32. The case of petitioners is that in all there were 229 wrong questions in General Studies paper and 13 optional subject-papers; namely, Agriculture, Botany, Chemistry, Geography, Geology, Indian History, Law, Mechanical Engineering, Mathematics, Physics, Political Science, Sociology and Zoology; whereas the stand of Commission is not that there was no discrepancy at all in any of the question papers. The Commission’s admitted stand is that there were discrepancies in 64 questions of General Studies and some optional subject-papers, which include 37 questions of Animal Husbandry subject-paper, and the same have been deleted and their marks distributed on pro-rata basis to the remaining correct questions of respective subjects, while evaluating the answer sheets.
33. Before the methodology adopted by the Commission for dealing with the marks of deleted questions is put to judicial scrutiny, it would be appropriate to determine how many questions of the question papers can be treated as wrong questions, because there is a dispute between the parties to the number of such questions. The Preliminary Examination consisted of two papers, i.e., one compulsory paper of General Studies and the other in optional subject out of 22 given subjects.
COMPULSORY PAPER OF GENERAL STUDIES
34. The paper was having 120 questions carrying 150 marks, with each question having 1.25 marks. The question papers in every subject were set in four series, i.e., A, B, C & D; meaning thereby that the same questions appeared at different serial numbers in each of the series. I would be dealing with ‘A’ series of the paper. It is the admitted stand of Commission that out of 120 questions of General Studies paper, only 7 questions bearing Nos. 2, 26, 33, 41, 42, 93 and 107 were found to be wrong, so those were deleted. According to petitioners, there were 13 questions and not 7 questions with discrepancies. The petitioners’ objection relates to question Nos. 2, 6, 10, 26, 33, 41, 42, 55, 72, 93, 94, 96 & 107. Thus, the dispute is with regard to question Nos. 6, 10, 55, 72, 94 & 96, whereas the remaining questions pointed out by the petitioners have been admitted by the Commission to be wrong and, as such, have been deleted and their marks adjusted on pro-rata basis. The text of wrong questions objected to by the petitioners, stand of the Commission and the key answers read as under:
—————————————————————————————–
Q. No. Text Objection of Stand of the Key
petitioners Commission answer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What is the International Date No correct The question
Line? option given. stands
(a) It is the equator deleted.
(b) It is the 0 degree longitude
(c) It is the 90 degree east
longitude
(d) It is the 189 degree
longitude
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. What is the length of India's Two option b Question is "C"
coastline? & c are OK.
(a) 7100 km correct.
(b) 7500 km
(c) 6100 km
(d) 5100 km
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Which State in India has more None of the Question is "B"
than 90 percent of its area States has OK.
under forest? ninety
(a) Nagaland percent forest
(b) Arunachal Pradesh cover. The
(c) Tripura highest being
(d) Mizoram 86% in
Mizoram.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. Iron articles rust because of The question
the formation of No correct stands deleted
(a) Ferrous chloride option given.
(b) Ferric sulphate
(c) Ferric chloride
(d) A mixture of ferrous and
ferric chloride
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. B is 10 km north-east of A and No correct The question
10 km south-east of C. How far option. stands
is C from A? deleted.
(a) 8 km
(b) 10 km
(c) 12 km
(d) 10/2 km
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. Which Lok Sabha had two Two options a The question
Speakers'? & d are stands
(a) First correct. deleted.
(b) Second
(c) Third
(d) Fifth
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. Which Constitutional No correct The question
Amendment in India made option given. stands
primary education a deleted.
fundamental right?
(a) 80th
(b) 81st
(c) 82nd
(d) 83rd
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
55. The New Economic Policy Two options a i. No repre- "D"
launched in 1991 consisted of & d are sentation was
(a) Stabilization policy correct. received up to
(b) Import control policy 10/7/2005.
(c) Deficit financing ii. Question is
(d) Structural adjustment policy OK.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
72. How many times Kumbha Kumb Mela Question is "C"
Mela is held in twelve years? not specified OK.
(a) 1 time whether
(b) 2 times Mahakumb or
(c) 4 times Ardh Kumb
(d) 6 times
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
93. "Kresset" is the name of the i. No correct The question
Parliament of option given. stands
(a) Ukraine ii. Spelling deleted.
(b) Afghanistan mistake in
(c) Israel the word
(d) Georgia 'Kresset' in
the question
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
94. Who started the Home Rule i. Two options Question is "B"
League in 1916? a & b are O.K.
(a) Tilak correct.
(b) Besant ii. Incomplete
(c) Gokhale question.
(d) Pal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
96. The Anusilan Samiti was No correct Question is "B"
started in Dacca by option given. O.K.
(a) Cbittaranjan Das
(b) Bipin Chandra Pal
(c) Rash Behari Ghose
(d) Aurobindo Ghose
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
107. Who was the first Muslim No correct The question
President of the Indian option given. stands
National Congress? deleted.
(a) Ajmal Khan
(b) M. A. Jinnah
(c) Maulana Azad
(d) Rahimulla Sayani
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. From the above table, first thing which is conspicuous, is that the objection of petitioners to question numbers 6, 41, 55 & 94 is that there are two correct answer options, whereas the Commission has deleted Q. No. 41 alone, while regarding other questions its simplicitor stand is that the questions are ‘OK’. It has not been specifically stated as to whether the objection of petitioners is factually correct or incorrect in the light of any expert’s opinion. The Commission ought to have taken a specific stand after obtaining the opinion of expert on the validity of disputed questions, the same being in the realm of experts. In the absence of expert’s opinion, the reply of Commission can only be treated as evasive, therefore, under law deserves to be rejected, and it is to be accepted that the Commission impliedly admits the objection of petitioners being factually correct. As such, there can be no justification for not deleting Q. Nos. 6, 55 & 94, when on the same objection the Commission has deleted Q. No. 41. Likewise, for the same reason, Q. Nos. 10 & 96 ought to have been deleted, because the Commission has deleted Q. Nos. 2, 26, 33, 42 & 107 with identical objection and there is no factual denial to the objection in the light of any expert’s opinion.
36. So far as question No. 72 is concerned, the question refers to Kumbh and not the Ardh Kumbh. There is sharp distinction between the two. The question cannot be said to be misleading.
37. Thus, from the above, it comes out that the Commission ought to have deleted 12 questions instead of seven.
OPTIONAL PAPERS
38. At the time of filling up the application forms, each candidate at his option was entitled to choose one subject out of 22 given subjects. The second paper in optional subjects carried 300 marks for 120 questions, each question having 2.5 marks. As per the stand of petitioners, there were large number of wrong questions in the option papers of 13 subjects out of 22 given subjects. For test check, I am taking the optional subject-paper of Sociology with ‘A’ series. The following is the text of questions, objections of petitioners, stand of the Commission and the key answers:
————————————————————————————————————————–
Q. No. Text Objection of Stand of the Key
petitioners commission answer
————————————————————————————————————————–
1. People who have similar or Error not Error not "D"
alike in other ways such as specified. specified, as
age, occupation and education per expert
are sociologically known as: opinion, the
(a) Primary groups question is OK.
(b) Tertiary groups
(c) Secondary groups
(d) Social classes
————————————————————————————————————————–
2 A group which does not allow i. Error not Error not "B"
to similar other groups at one specified specified, as
and the same time is called ii. No correct per expert
(a) Out group option given. opinion, the
(b) Congregate group question is O.K.
(c) In group
(d) Closed group
————————————————————————————————————————–
3 Who among the following gave No correct As per expert "A"
the concept of "primordial option. opinion, the
primary" group? question is OK.
(a) Edward Shils
(b) C. H. Cooley
(c) R. K. Merton
(d) Max Weber
————————————————————————————————————————–
6 The gap between real and ideal Question was As per expert "B"
culture tends to be subjective in opinion, the
(a) Wider in traditional folk nature, which question is OK.
societies than in modern was open to
societies various
(b) Wider in modern societies interpretations.
than in traditional folk societies
(c) Wide in types of society
(d) Narrow in all societies
————————————————————————————————————————–
12 Folkways are i. Question was As per expert "A"
(a) Most popular usages subjective in opinion, the
(b) Sanctioned and obligatory nature, which question is OK.
usages was open to
(c) Usages acceptable to the various
whole society interpretations.
(d) Most useful usages ii. More than
one correct
option.
————————————————————————————————————————–
13 Those cultural complexes Question was As per expert "D"
which develop quickly subjective in opinion, the
(a) Are condemned by the nature, which question is OK.
society was open to
(b) Are not needed by the various
society interpretations.
(c) Are less influential than
others
(d) Are more influential than
others
————————————————————————————————————————–
17 Who spoke of 'eidos' and ethos' Spelling Minor spelling "C"
as two aspects of culture? mistake in mistakes-
(a) Tylor option b. intelligible to
(b) Kulckhonn the candidate
(c) Kroeber having
(d) Linton knowledge of
the subject.
————————————————————————————————————————–
18 Race is built around i. All options As per expert "B"
(a) Cultural differences given are opinion, the
(b) Physiological differences ambiguous. question is O.K.
(c) Economic differences ii. Question
(d) Political differences. was subjective
in nature,
which was
open to various
interpretations.
————————————————————————————————————————–
19 The term race is applied to a group of i. No correct option As per expert ! "A" i I
people (a) Speaking same language i(b) given. ii. Question was opinion, the
Professing same religion (c) Having subjective in nature, question is O.K.
faith in particular mode of worship which was open to
(d) Having same living standard various
interpretations.
————————————————————————————————————————–
25 According to Summer what are the needs Question was subjective As per expert "A"
of an in-group? (a) Peace, accord and in nature, which was opinion, the
cohesoin (b) Caste-bias (c) open to various question is OK.
Maintaining differences (d) interpretations.
Recognition of all the members
————————————————————————————————————————–
28 According to Maciver 'out-group' Question was subjective As per expert "B"
attitudes are marked by (a) A sense of in nature, which was opinion, the
difference (b) Mutual difference (c) open to various question is OK.
Some degree of differences (d) interpretations.
Prejudicial attitude
————————————————————————————————————————–
30 The group which a person adopts as his No correct option As per expert "B"
standard for fashioning his behaviour given. opinion, the
is called a (a) Primary group (b) question is OK.
Preference group (c) Religious group
(d) Secondary group
————————————————————————————————————————–
35 In sociology, characteristic of Question was subjective As per expert ! "A"
dysfunction is that (a) It is in nature, which was opinion, the
objective (b) It is subjective (c) It open to various question is OK.
is partly objective and partly interpretations.
subjective (d) It is neither objective
nor subjective
————————————————————————————————————————–
37 Match the following pairs I with II Wrong spelling in Minor printing "A"
and mark the right answer PAIR-I (A) "Durkhein". error.
Durkhein (B) Spencer (C) Malinowski 'Durkheim'.
(d) Merton PAIR-II 1. Social theory Intelligible to
and social structure 2. Biological, candidates
instrumental and symbolic needs 3. having knowledge
Social Darwanism 4. Social fact (a) A- of the subject.
4, B-3.C-2, D-1 (b)A-3, B-2, C-4, D-1
(c)A-1, B-2, C-3, D-4 (d)A-4, B-2, C-
1, D-3
————————————————————————————————————————–
43 I When the deviants have strongly Question was subjective As per expert "C" ,
internalised both the cultural goals in nature, which was opinion, the
and the institutionalised means, yet open to various question is OK.
they become unable to achieve success, interpretations.
merton calls it (a) Innovation (b)
Ritualism (c) Retreatism (d) Rebellion
————————————————————————————————————————–
46 In tribal societies the "age-sets" are i. Wrong spelling in 'Minor printing "A"
considered as one of the bases of "Stratigication". ii. error.
social (a) Allocation (b) No correct option given 'Stratification'
Differentiation (c) Enumeration (d) Stratigication. Intelligible
Stratigication to candidates
having knowledge
of the subject.
————————————————————————————————————————–
49 The role of a person is reflected in More than one correct Candidate has to "B"
(a) The work he does (b) The set of option. choose the most
legitimate expectations from him (c) appropriate
The attributes he has (d) His social option.
behaviours
————————————————————————————————————————–
53 As per the 2001 census of India, the Wrong spelling in Minor printing "A"
State with the highest rural "Behar". error. 'Bihar',
population is (a) Uttar Pradesh (b) Intelligible
Himachal Pradesh (c) Jammu and Kashmir to candidates
(d) Behar having knowledge
of the subject.
————————————————————————————————————————–
56 The rise and fall in social scale No correct option The question
within a person's own life time is given. stands deleted
known as (a) Intergenerational
vertical mobility (b) Intergeneralised
vertical mobility (c)
Intergenerational horizontal mobility
(d) Intergenerationalised horizontal
mobility
————————————————————————————————————————–
59 In which of the following tribes Correct option not As per expert "A"
touching of the plough is taboo for given. opinion, the
women? (a) Khasia (b) Khasa (c) question is OK.
Santhal (d) Bhils
————————————————————————————————————————–
60 Totern is a belief in (a) An object i. Question was i. As per expert "A"
vested with spirit and power (b) An subjective in nature, opinion, the
object vested with power and piety (c) which was open to question is OK.
An object vested with a spirit and various ii. Minor
mind (d) A deity vested with power and interpretations, ii. printing error.
spirit Incorrect spelling in 'Totem'.
'Totern'. Intelligible to
candidates
having knowledge
of the subject.
————————————————————————————————————————–
61 The belief that a magical practice Question was subjective As per expert "C"
performed on one object can have an in nature, which was opinion, the
effect upon a. another is called (a) open to various question is OK.
Repetitive magic (b) Black magic (c) interpretations.
Sympathetic magic (d) While magic
————————————————————————————————————————–
65 For a person an adopted son is 1 (a) Question was subjective As per expert "B"
A consanguineous kin (b) An affinal in nature, which was opinion, the
kin (c) Neither an affinal nor open to various question is OK.
consanguineous (d) An affinal kin as interpretations.
well as a consanguineou skin
————————————————————————————————————————–
70 Which one of the following is Question was As per expert "D"
correct statement? subjective in opinion, the
(a) The term clan indicates the nature, which question is OK.
two divisions of a tribe was open to
(b) Clan indicates totemic various
origin of segments of a tribe interpretations.
(c) Exogamy is the only
function of a clan
(d) Clan controls the laws of
inheritance of a tribe
————————————————————————————————————————–
72 Whereas Westernisation is a Incorrect Minor printing "B"
heterogenetic change in India, spelling in error.
Sanskritisation is 'Othogenetic'. Orthogenetic'.
(a) A cementic change Intelligible to
(b) An othogenetic change candidates
(c) A heterogentic change having
(d) A revolutionary change knowledge of
the subject.
————————————————————————————————————————–
73 Of the following which is Wrong spelling Minor printing "D"
asymmetrical form of exchange in error.
marriage? "Matrilaterla". 'Matrilateral'.
(a) Patrilateral cross-cousin Intelligible to
marriage candidates
(b) Levirate marriage having
(c) Sororate marriage knowledge of
(d) Matrilaterla cross-cousin the subject.
marriage
————————————————————————————————————————–
83 The term 'Little Community' Wrong spelling Minor printing "D"
was introduced by in "MC Kin error. 'Me Kim
(a) Robert Redfield Marriot". Marriot'.
(b) Malinowski Intelligible to
(c) Mead candidates
(d) McKin Marriot i having
knowledge of
the subject.
————————————————————————————————————————–
85 Which of the following is a feature of i. The question has As per expert "C"
an industrial society? (a) Subsistence been wrongly set. ii. opinion, the
economy (b) Barter economy (c) No correct option. question is O.K.
Mechanical solidarity (d) Strong
family/kinship ties
————————————————————————————————————————–
86 Which one of the following is not a Question was As per expert "C"
characteristics feature of the subjective in nature, opinion, the
bureaucratic authority? (a) Line which was open to question is OK.
organisation (b) Democratisation (c) various
Role compartmentalisation (d) interpretations.
Hierarchy
————————————————————————————————————————–
93 Among the Ho tribes marriage by Incorrect spelling in Minor printing "C"
capture is called as (a) Poiothur (b) 'Oporipi'. error.
Anader (c) Oporipi (d) Daiva 'Oporitipi'.
Intelligible to
candidates
having knowledge
of the subject.
————————————————————————————————————————–
94 Which one of the following types of More than one correct As per expert "A"
marriage is being practiced by the option. opinion, the
Todas of India? (a) Adelphic polyandry question is OK.
(b) Non-fraternal polyandry (c) Group
marriage (d) Polygamy
————————————————————————————————————————–
97 The youngest daughter in a Khasi Incorrect spelling Minor printing "B"
family, who is incharge of the lions error in 'Kakhadduh'. error.
share of the family property is called 'Khudduh'.
as (a) Noknja (b) Kakhadduh (c) Heir Intelligible to
apparent (d) Dellingson candidates
having knowledge
of the subject.
————————————————————————————————————————–
98 Who among the following made the Incorrect spelling in Minor printing "C"
distinction between family of 'Wasner'. error. 'Warner'.
orientation and family of procreation? Intelligible to
(a) Murdock (b) Maclver (c) Wasner (d) candidates
Morgan having knowledge
of the subject.
————————————————————————————————————————–
99 According to studies available, which Question was subjective As per expert "D"
one of the following has remained the in nature, which was opinion, the
most effective factor of social change open to various question is OK.
among the Dalits? (a) Reservation (b) interpretations.
Social Reforms (c) Industrialisation
(d) Collective action
————————————————————————————————————————–
102 An essential condition of Hindu Question was subjective As per expert "A"
marriage is (a) Upnayan (b) Saptapadi in nature, which was opinion, the
(c) Khitwa (d) Kulluka open to various question is OK.
interpretations .
————————————————————————————————————————–
105 The Nayar family of Kerela comes under Two option a & b are As per expert "B"
(a) Extended family (b) Consanguine correct. opinion, the
family (c) Expanded family (d) question is OK.
Conjugal family
————————————————————————————————————————–
110 The following diagram depicts a type Question was subjective As per expert "B"
of family, mark the correct type given in nature, which opinion, the
below was open to various question is OK
= interpretations.
|
|
Father | O Mother
-------------------------------------
| | |
Son O Daughter
-------------------------------------
|
Grandson = O Grand daughter
(a) Affinal family
(b) Consanguinal family
(c) Fictional family
(d) Matrilineal
family
————————————————————————————————————————–
113. The Kwekiuti Indians of North American Wrong spelling in The question
Pacific coast use the 'Potlatch' to "Kwekiuti". stands deleted.
express (a) War of blood (b) War of
prestige (c) War of power (d) War of
poverty
————————————————————————————————————————–
116 The Article in the Constitution of No correct option As per expert "D"
India which provides for the given. opinion, the
appointment of a Special Officer for question is O.K.
scheduled castes and scheduled tribes
by the President of India is (a)
Article 164 (b) Article 341 (c)
Article 342 (d) Article 338
————————————————————————————————————————–
118 A musician singing at a concert is an Question was subjective As per expert "C"
example of (a) Act (b) Action (c) in nature, which was opinion, the
Process (d) Collective behaviour open to various question is OK.
interpretations.
————————————————————————————————————————–
39. From the above table it is manifest that by and large the objections of petitioners to the questions fall in one or more of the following categories:
a. Printing errors either in the questions or in answer options.
b. Questions carry no correct answer option or have more than one correct answer option.
c. Questions are subjective in nature and open to various interpretations.
40. These objections relate to 40 questions, out of which the Commission has already deleted two questions and, thus, the dispute relates to 38 questions. I would deal with the objections category-wise.
PRINTING ERRORS/SPELLING MISTAKES:
41. The Commission does not dispute the fact that there were printing errors/spelling mistakes in the undeleted questions or in answer options.
42. According to Mr. Raina, learned senior counsel for the Commission, the objection of petitioners is untenable because of the remedial steps taken by the Commission. He submits that firstly the printing errors were so minor that the candidates having knowledge of the subject could have very well interpreted as to what was being asked from them in the question. The mistakes being negligible would not have misled the candidates having knowledge of the subject. Secondly, he submits that during the course of examination when the candidates brought such printing errors to the notice of supervisory staff, the staff in turn through phone conveyed those errors to the Control Room, specially set up by the Commission, where the Chairman and the Controller of Examination opened the original manuscripts of the papers and tallied those with the printed booklets. Thereafter, they conveyed the clarifications to the concerned Supervisors for making necessary announcements, which, accordingly, were made in the examination centres, where the candidates were taking the examination in those subject papers having printing errors.
43. To the contrary, the contention of Mr. Sethi, supported by other learned Counsel for the writ petitioners, is that the questions with printing errors could be intelligible or not is without any relevance. According to him, the paper was not oral but was a written paper, so a candidate was to understand the questions as they were in the paper and reply the same keeping in view the given answer options. A question with printing error/spelling mistakes cannot be said to be a correct question. HP submits that no announcements for correcting the errors were ever made in the examination halls. Assuming that those were made, even then going by the magnitude of errors, it cannot be reasonably accepted that all the candidates could have made the corrections in the question papers accurately in view of their being in a strenuous state of mind. He further submits that the duration of paper was two hours and in that short spell it was humanly impossible for the Commission to complete the exercise of making verifications, then conveying the correct spellings to the Supervisors for making announcements in the examination halls, when the spelling mistakes not related to one paper but related to about 13 papers.
44. It is not being disputed by the Commission that in nine optional subject-papers there were spelling mistakes in the questions and in answer options of the questions. When a candidate is made to appear in a written paper, he is supposed to take the paper as it is for selecting an answer. It cannot reasonably be accepted that a candidate, who possesses the knowledge of the subject in which he was taking the paper, should have firstly understood the correct meaning of a wrongly spelled question and himself corrected the mistake and then selected the correct answer option. The capability/merit of such a candidate was not to be judged on the basis of his proficiency in correcting the spellings of misspelled words, but was to be judged on the basis of his given answer option, which he would have chosen for answering the question as it was. I, therefore, cannot agree with Mr. Raina that as the spelling errors in the questions could be intelligible to the candidates possessing knowledge of the subject, the same would not effect the correctness of the questions. The spelling mistake in a question of a written question paper invalidates the question itself.
45. The further contention of Mr. Raina that remedial measures were taken by the Commission by identifying the mistakes in the spellings of questions and rectifying the same by way of announcements made in the examination centres, is equally untenable for the reason that no affidavit of any supervisor of any of such centres, in which the candidates were taking subject question papers having spelling errors, has been filed to say that those announcements were actually made by him in the examination centres.
46. In this behalf, I have perused the record of Commission. From the record nothing is available to point out as to which were those questions, the spellings of which were sought to be clarified by the supervisory staff of any Examination Centre, and which were the questions actually verified by the Commission and conveyed to the respective Supervisors for making the announcements. In the absence of such record, it cannot be accepted that the printing errors/spelling mistakes in the question papers were duly rectified by actual announcements in the Examination Centres. Therefore, all the questions, which have wrong spellings of the words used therein have to be treated as wrong questions. In all, there are 12 such questions in Sociology paper, i.e., Q. Nos. 17, 37, 46, 53, 60, 72, 73, 83, 93, 97, 98 and 113 with printing errors/spelling mistakes. Out of these questions, the Commission itself has deleted Q. No. 113. In Q. No. 113 there was printing error in the word ‘Kwekiuti’.
47. The stand of Commission that the questions having only major printing errors or those which had not been corrected by announcements were deleted is equally unacceptable. There is no record available to show the questions which were actually corrected by announcements. Therefore, neither it can be said nor it has been shown by the Commission which were those questions having printing errors and deserved correction, but had not been corrected through announcements in the Examination Centres. Moreover, there is no policy decision shown to have been taken by the Commission for defining which printing errors would be considered as major printing errors and which printing errors would be deemed to be minor printing errors. In the absence of such policy decision, the Commission could not have validly made any distinction between the questions with major printing errors and the questions with minor printing errors for the purposes of making deletion of questions from the question papers. If the Commission in its wisdom deleted Q. No. 113 from the question paper because of printing error, then on the same principle the Commission ought to have deleted all the questions which were having printing errors in the paper of Sociology. The action of Commission regarding deletion of only one question out of the questions having printing errors/spellings mistakes suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and unreasonableness. Therefore, all the said 11 questions also deserved deletion on the analogy of Q. No. 113 from the question paper of Sociology.
48. Further, let us assume that announcements were made in the examination centres for correcting the spellings of wrong questions. For instance, take the paper of Sociology, in which admittedly there were 12 questions with spelling mistakes/printing errors. Some time must have been consumed by the Supervisors of the concerned centres to register the objections of the candidates, then for conveying the same to the Control Room set up by the Commission. In the Control Room also some time must have been consumed by the Chairman and the Controller of Examination to verify the correct spellings from the original manuscripts of the said questions and, thereafter, conveying the same to the supervisory staff. Thereafter, the supervisory staff would also have taken some time for making the announcements for correcting the spellings of 12 mis-spelled questions. In all probability, each question must have taken at least one minute for being corrected. In this way, atleast 12 minutes out of total two hours must have been wasted. It is not the case of Commission that the time fixed for completion of such papers was ever extended. The non-extension of time also suggests that in the examination centres announcements for correction of spelling mistakes may not have been actually made at all. From whatever angle we look at the issue, only one conclusion we can reasonably reach is that all the questions, which have spelling errors, must be treated as wrong questions and, therefore, should also be deleted.
49. Likewise, the petitioners objected 8 questions of Zoology subject-paper; 11 questions of Geology; 9 questions of Geography; 8 questions of Chemistry; 6 questions of Agriculture; 6 questions of Mathematics; 2 questions of Mechanical Engineering and 1 question of Law, on the ground of being invalid because of spelling mistakes/printing errors, According to the Commission, these 55 questions of above-said eight subjects have not been deleted, as the same were also got corrected through announcements made in the Examination Halls and the mistakes were intelligible to the candidates having knowledge of the subject. For the reasons already given, the stand of Commission in this regard cannot be accepted and, therefore, the above-referred 55 questions, in addition to 11 pointed out questions of Sociology subject-paper, in all also deserved to be deleted, besides the already deleted questions.
QUESTIONS CARRYING NO CORRECT OPTION/CARRYING MORE THAN ONE CORRECT OPTION:
50. The Commission has deleted some of the questions out of the questions pointed out by the petitioners having no correct option or with more than one correct option. The stand of Commission is that the questions objected to by the petitioners were got checked up by the experts, including independent experts, and going by the experts’ opinion it deleted the wrong questions.
51. I have perused the record of the Commission maintained in this behalf. I am referring to Sociology subject. The petitioners have objected to 14 questions being Q. Nos. 2, 3, 12, 18, 19, 30, 46, 49, 56, 59, 85, 94, 105 & 116. The Commission has deleted Q. No. 56 alone. From the perusal of record, it appears that the Commission forwarded the representations of the candidates to the expert other than the paper-setter for his opinion. The expert has rendered two opinions dated 11.7.2005 and 14.7.2005. The first one reads:
I have gone through the representations made by some of the candidates of J&K Combined Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2005 relating to the optional paper “Sociology”. In my view the following questions need to be ignored/deleted as there appears to be some printing error in the options shown against these questions. Series ‘B’ Question Nos. 26 and 83.
Question Nos. 26 & 83 of B series correspond to Q. Nos. 56 and 113 of A series.
Second opinion of the same expert reads:
I have gone through the question paper prepared by an expert. The questions in the question paper are of good standard. It has given fairly good representation to all the topics which are considered important in the Indian Social Ethics. The paper setter has given clear options for the candidates. I have also gone through the key prepared by the examiner and found it correct. However, in the case of some questions there may be difference of opinion among the Sociologists, which is normal in the case of objective type questions relating to the sociological knowledge and its characterization.
52. The above opinion of the expert though is general in character, but over rules the objection of petitioners. Unless contrary is established by authentic material, the opinion of the expert cannot be allowed to be questioned and must be respected by the Court. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioners seek to refer to various text books on the subject, but this is not the area where the Court should tread upon, the same being in the realm of experts.
53. It has also been urged by the learned Counsel for petitioners that the questions in issue should be referred to an independent expert appointed by the Court. However, in my view it is not necessary, because the necessity of appointing another expert can arise only in case for some valid reason the opinion of the expert is seen as doubtful. Simply because the petitioners are doubting the correctness of the opinion of expert appointed by the Commission, it does not mean the opinion rendered by the expert has become doubtful. The opinion or the credibility of an expert does not stand impeached simply because the expert has been appointed by the Commission on its own. The Commission being not a private person but being a constitutional body, all its actions, howsoever illegal may be, are to be presumed to be free from malice. There is nothing available on record on which any malice towards the petitioners can be inferred. In view of the expert’s opinion dated 14.7.2005, the objection of petitioners on the above said ground does not merit to be entertained. Identical is the position with regard to the objections on the above said ground relating to some of the questions of other subject papers.
QUESTIONS ARE SUBJECTIVE IN NATURE AND OPEN TO VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS.
54. The objections in this regard are also not tenable. Note 4 appended to the paper reads:
This Test Booklet contains 120 items (questions). Each item comprises four responses (answers). You will select one response which you want to mark on the Response Sheet. In case you feel that there is more than one correct response, mark the response which you consider the best. In any case, choose ONLY ONE response for each item.
The paper was not essay type. It was objective type, therefore, the candidates were required to choose the best answer option out of the given options.
55. In some of the subject-papers the petitioners have objected the questions which have been repeated. As the key answers are the same, therefore, a question, which has been repeated, cannot be said to be a wrong question. Objection has also been raised to certain questions of some subject-papers on the ground that those are out of syllabus. The opinion of the examiner obtained by the Commission refutes the correctness of the objection. The Court cannot act as an expert to make such an exercise to find out whether the objected questions are within the syllabus or outside the same. The opinion of the examiner can be accepted in this behalf.
56. This apart, the petitioners have questioned the correctness of some questions of optional papers, in regard to which the Commission has not taken any stand whatsoever. For instance, Q. Nos. 28, 56 & 67 of Chemistry paper in “A” series were objected to on the ground that there was no correct functional group given in the option or there was no correct option, but the Commission has not taken any stand so as to say whether the correct functional group was given in Q. No. 56 or whether Q. Nos. 28 & 67 had one of the correct options. In the absence of specific stand of the Commission as regard the correctness of these questions, it is to be assumed that the Commission impliedly admits that these questions are wrong. Likewise, for the same reason Q. Nos. 101 & 110 of Law, Q. No. 43 of Political Science and Q. No. 89 of Zoology subject-papers in “A” series, and Q. Nos. 29, 56, 77, 100 & 112 of Mathematics subject-paper in “B” series are also treated as wrong questions and, therefore, deserved deletion.
57. From the above factual position, it is evident that apart from 64 wrong questions, which the Commission on its own deleted, many more questions pointed out also deserved deletion under the methodology adopted by the Commission. If that is done now, the merit of the candidates, who have been short-listed for the Main Examination and of those who have remained unsuccessful, would come to be largely altered, which may result in ouster of some of the selected/short-listed candidates from the select list and inclusion of some of the unsuccessful candidates in the select list because of consequent improvement in their merit position.
58. The contention of Mr. Raina, learned Counsel for the Commission is that the individual merit position of most of the writ petitioners is so low that even if they get the benefit of deletion of more questions, even then they cannot reach near the merit of last selected candidate.
59. Whereas, Mr. Shah, Mr. Kapoor and Mr. Chopra, learned Counsel for the short-listed candidates contend that there is no need to redraw the merit. According to them, in case of deletion of questions having printed errors/spelling mistakes and the questions which are admittedly wrong and have not been deleted, the same would not change the merit position of the unsuccessful candidates including the writ petitioners. It has been submitted by them that the benefit of deletion of questions and adjustment of marks of such questions pro-rata would confer equal benefit upon all the candidates who have appeared in the papers, of which such questions are to be deleted. According to them, even if the individual merit of a candidate improves, his comparative merit position qua the other candidates of the same paper would remain the same.
60. The question in issue is not whether petitioners’ improved merit would bring them near to the merit obtained by the last selected candidate. The issue under consideration is whether the selection of short-listed candidates is fair. Undisputedly, by deletion of more questions, the merit of the candidates, who appeared in any of the above said subject-papers, would certainly be improved.
61. In present kind of cut-throat competitions even small fractional difference in marks matters. By alteration of merit, some unselected candidates can find place in the select list, whereas some of the selected candidates may have to go out of the same. Whether the petitioners would find place in the select list or some other unsuccessful candidates, who have not come to the Court, would be immaterial for considering the validity of the selection of selected candidates. Under law, the selection of selected candidates can be up-held only if the merit of all the candidates is found to have been fairly judged. The comparative merit of the candidates cannot be said to have been fairly drawn, because the unsuccessful candidates have been denied the benefit of the methodology adopted by the Commission for distribution of the marks of such undeleted questions, which too ought to have been deleted, as pointed out earlier.
62. It is true that so far as the paper of General Studies is concerned, such improvement of merit of the candidates would not matter much, as the paper was compulsory and all the candidates will be benefited alike. But, so far as the improvement of merit of the candidates of said optional subject-papers is concerned, their merit is ultimately to be compared with the short-listed candidates, and in the event of re-drawing the merit, the same can lead to the exclusion of some of the selected candidates and inclusion of some of the unsuccessful candidates. Even a fractional improvement of merit position of an unsuccessful candidate can bring him within the selection zone. As the Commission is bound to select the person who is the best, it would not matter as to who gets selected or who goes out of the select list. The contention is, therefore, without any force.
63. Now, it shall be appropriate to examine the validity of the methodology adopted by the Commission, whereby the admitted wrong questions have been deleted and marks of such deleted questions distributed pro-rata to the remaining questions. For instance, as per the admitted stand of Commission, in the optional subject paper of Animal Husbandry, 37 questions out of 120 questions were wrong, so those were deleted. Each question was having 2.50 marks, so 37 questions carried in all 92.50 marks. When 92.50 marks were distributed amongst remaining 83 questions, each question’s marks got increased to 3.61 marks. Thus, the performance of a candidate was judged on the basis of questions he correctly answered out of 83 questions, each question having 3.61 marks.
64. The contention of learned Counsel for petitioners is that the methodology adopted by the Commission is unfair, unreasonable and impractical. For illustrating his view point, Mr. Rahul Pant, learned Counsel for some of the petitioners, submits that suppose a candidate “X”, who had opted for Animal Husbandry subject-paper, correctly answered 50 questions out of 83 questions, he would be getting 3.61 ? 50 = 180.50 marks. Similarly, a candidate “Y”, who appeared in a subject paper with no wrong question, also correctly answered 50 questions out of 120 questions, he would be getting 2.50 ? 50 = 125 marks only. Thus, the candidate “X” would be getting 55.50 more marks than the candidate “Y”, while both the candidates have correctly answered 50 questions. Mr. Raina, learned Counsel for the Commission, submits that in the above illustration the candidate ‘X” would be in an advantageous position, meaning thereby that the petitioners have gained, so they should not be allowed to raise the grievance.
65. The question in issue is not whether the petitioners were put in an advantageous position due to the fact that their subject papers had wrong questions or were in a disadvantageous position. The public Service Commission is a Public Institution created for safeguarding the interests of public by making selection of most meritorious persons to the public offices, so its every act/action towards a selection process for being valid has to meet the test of fairness and reasonableness. No act/action can be fair and reasonable if it is not free from arbitrariness, un-reasonableness and malafide. Arbitrariness flows from an action which gives unequal treatment to equals. A selection process, which puts some candidates in an advantageous position and others in disadvantageous position in the same selection process, would be unfair.
66. Be it so, the fact of the matter is that the mistakes do have crept in the question papers and the situation/problem arising therefrom warranted immediate remedial measures. One way to deal with the problem could be to cancel all such subject-papers in which there were wrong questions and to hold fresh examination, while the other way would have been to make adjustments of marks while evaluating the answer scripts. The Commission in its own wisdom has preferred the other way to deal with the issue and evolved the already described methodology. A candidate who had opted for any of the subjects, out of the subjects of which the question papers were having wrong questions, was to be pitted against a candidate in whose optional subject-papers there were no wrong questions/mistakes.
67. In the example cited by the learned Counsel for petitioners, it is true that the candidate “X” would have got 180.50 marks by attempting 50 questions correctly and the candidate “Y” would have got 125 marks also by attempting 50 questions correctly, but for determining their comparative merit, it would be required to be seen whether both of them can be said to stand at par. The candidate “X” out of 83 questions answered 50 questions correctly, while the candidate “Y” answered 50 questions correctly out of 120 questions. Both the candidates had similar kind of advantages and disadvantages. “X” had the advantage of having increased marks for each question he attempted correctly and disadvantage of having less number of total questions for making an attempt, while the candidate “Y” had the advantage of having more number of total questions for making an attempt, with disadvantage of each question having less marks. When advantage and disadvantage of both the candidates is balanced, it appears that both of them can be deemed to be at the same position in relation to the available chances for showing their performance. The distribution of marks of deleted questions of a paper to the remaining questions pro-rata, therefore, can not be said to have caused any prejudice to any of them.
68. The methodology adopted, therefore, can not be considered unfair, because going by the probability factor a candidate’s rate of performance for undeleted questions can reasonably be taken as his rate of performance for deleted questions as well. Therefore, by no stretch of reasoning the modus operandi evolved can be said to be unfair or unreasonable.
69. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that:
(a) there is no violation of examination rules;
(b) the methodology evolved cannot be faulted with;
(c) under the methodology evolved, the Commission in all should have also deleted 83 following questions of different subject-papers and marks of said questions distributed pro-rata to correct questions of the papers:
(i.) 12 questions of subject-paper Zoology; 11 questions of Geology; 11 questions of Sociology; 9 questions of Geography; 8 questions of Chemistry; 6 questions of Agriculture; 6 questions of Mathematics; 2 questions of Mechanical Engineering and 1 question of Law (total 66 questions) having printing errors/spelling mistakes;
(ii.) 5 questions of subject-paper Mathematics; 3 questions of Chemistry; 2 questions of Law; 1 questions of Political Science and 1 question of Zoology (total 12 questions), with regard to which the Commission has taken no stand, and; (iii.) 5 questions of compulsory subject-paper General Studies.
70. In the light of above conclusion/findings arrived at, the question arising for consideration is what relief should be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case. For answering the question, a few more undisputed facts need to be noticed.
71. That fact of the matter is that after OWP No. 442/2005 came to be filed, the Court vide order dated 10.10.2005 passed the following interim direction:
Subject to objection from other side, till further orders no action would be taken by the respondents on an advertisement which has been issued for holding of main examination.
72. Against the above order, two candidates, who were then not parties to the writ petition, went in Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench. The learned Division Bench vide its order dated 15.12.2005 disposed of LPA No. 126/2005, modifying order dated 10.10.2005 by providing as follows:
1. That the Public Service Commission would be at liberty to proceed with the main examination and the selection process in accordance with the provisions of Examination Rules (SRO 161 of 1995).
2. That private respondents writ petition, OWP No. 442/2005 and all other identical petitions, the numbers whereof are given herein above, shall be batched together and shall be posted before the appropriate Writ Court on 10th February, 2006. All writ petitioners shall take necessary steps to complete the service of respondents in these writ petitions through publication within two weeks. All parties to the writ petitions shall complete their pleadings after exchanging those pleadings within four weeks. The Writ Court is requested to consider and decide this batch of writ petitions on the next date and Registry is directed to explore posting of these writ petitions alone before the Court on that date, except those cases where dates have already been fixed.
3. That in case private respondents or other writ petitioners involved in these writ petitions succeed in their writ petitions, respondent-Public Service Commission shall take necessary steps to undertake an exercise in compliance to the Court orders and hold a separate/special examination of all those writ petitioners who would qualify pursuant to the writ court orders, if the main examination which is proposed to be held under the impugned notification has already been held by them.
73. Aggrieved by the order of learned Division Bench, the writ petitioners in OWP No. 442/2005 filed an application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for obtaining leave to file the Special Leave Petition. However, the same was sought to be withdrawn by the said writ petitioners and ultimately it came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 3.2.2006.
74. Pursuant to the directions of Division Bench, the Public Service Commission conducted the Main Examination of the candidates who stood short-listed on the basis of Preliminary Examination under dispute. The Commission has also issued the list of those candidates who have been declared to have qualified the Main Examination. However, interviews of all those qualified candidates are yet to be held by the Commission. In the meanwhile, in an another matter, i.e., IA No. 2 (in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 96/2006) the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 28.8.2006 stayed the appointments to be made pursuant to the said selection till the final decision of these writ petitions.
75. In the above backdrop, the question of relief to be granted in these writ petitions is to be considered.
76. The contention of learned Counsel for petitioners is that whole of the list of short listed candidates, prepared on the basis of Preliminary Examination held by the Commission, should be quashed and holding of fresh Preliminary Examination should be ordered. The implication of doing the same would be that, as a necessary consequence of the cancellation of whole of the list of short-listed candidates, the selection of candidates through the Main Examination shall also have to go. It is also the contention of learned Counsel for petitioners that since the order of Division Bench has come to be passed while sitting in appeal over the interim direction issued in the writ petition, therefore, the same would merge in order dated 10.10.2005 and the character of the same would remain to be as that of an interim order passed in the writ petition. According to learned Counsel for petitioners, as the interim order cannot control the final order, therefore, at the time of passing of final order it shall be open to the Court to pass any direction which it may deem appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case, uninfluenced by the contours of the interim order, which includes the order of Division Bench.
77. On the other hand, the contention of Mr. Z. A. Shah, learned Counsel for selected candidates is that pursuant to the order of Division Bench, which acquired finality after the withdrawal of application for seeking permission to file Special Leave Petition from the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the shortlisted candidates on the basis of Preliminary Examination were allowed to appear in the Main Examination during the pendency of these writ petitions. He further submits that the list of successful candidates has also been published, whereas for making the final selection only interviews are to be held by the Commission. It is also an undisputed fact that the validity of Main Examination and consequent selection of the candidates is not under challenge, either in the present petitions or in any independent petition, therefore, ends of justice and equity would be better served if in the event of petitioners’ success in the writ petitions, they are also directed to be examined in a fresh Main Examination to be conducted by the Commission and, thereafter, fresh merit is drawn of all the candidates, who have already qualified and who may qualify in the fresh Main Examination. Mr. Shah submits that the interest of petitioners, which already stands protected by the order of learned Division Bench, would continue to be protected in the above manner.
78. The dispute in these writ petitions relates to the Preliminary Examination only for short-listing the number of candidates for the Main Examination. The final selection of a candidate for appointment depends upon his comparative merit obtained in the Main Examination and in the interview to be held. Undisputedly, the marks obtained by the candidates in the Preliminary Examination can be counted only for short-listing and not for making final selection for their appointments. This being the position, the principal and fundamental grievance of the writ petitioners and the candidates, who were in identical position, can only be that they have been denied the eligibility to appear in the Main Examination by not judging their merit rightly and properly. Had they been selected by short-listing, they would have only acquired the eligibility to appear in the Main Examination. It is also a fact which cannot be disputed on any valid reason that all the candidates, who have been short-listed, have not appeared in the same optional subject papers, which were having deficiencies, but many of them had appeared in the optional subject-papers which were not having any discrepancy at all. Therefore, the Preliminary Examination, as it relates to those optional subject-papers in which there was no discrepancy at all, cannot be faulted with. It is only the examination of those candidates who appeared in 13 optional subject papers, which were having discrepancies in the questions, is under challenge. In case the Preliminary Examination of candidates, who appeared in the said optional papers having discrepancies, is cancelled and fresh examination is held, their merit position would have to be readjusted in relation to those candidates who appeared in the subjects which had no discrepancy and who have already appeared in the Main Examination. At the same time, it would also have to be kept in view that quite possibly some of such candidates, who appeared in the subject-papers having no discrepancy, may not have been able to find berth in the final select list, already prepared and issued by the Commission on the basis of merit obtained in the Main Examination and, therefore, are out of competition.
79. In such like complex situation, in my considered opinion it would not be appropriate to cancel whole of the Preliminary Examination for holding a fresh examination of all the candidates. In my view, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, without disturbing the selection of short-listed candidates, justice can be done to the unselected candidates, who appeared in the optional subject-papers leaving discrepancies, by redrawing their merit afresh after deletion of pointed out undeleted questions and distribution of their marks pro-rata amongst the remaining questions and, thereafter, conquering their merit for deciding about their eligibility to appear in the Main Examination, which may be directed to be held afresh in respect of such candidates.
80. Further, as all the candidates, irrespective of their optional subject-papers, have appeared in the compulsory paper of General Studies having discrepancies, therefore, adjustment of marks of pointed out undeleted questions of General Studies have not to be confined only to the unselected candidates, who have appeared in the optional subject-papers having discrepancies, because there can be such a candidate who has not been selected/short-listed, but he if gets the benefit of adjustment of marks in the compulsory paper, his merit may improve so as to bring him within the selection zone. All the unselected candidates of optional subject-papers having no discrepancy would also be entitled to the benefit of adjustment of marks of pointed out undeleted questions of General Studies paper on pro-rata basis. So far as the candidates, who have already been short-listed for the Main Examination are concerned, they cannot in any manner be prejudiced, as they have already made it to the Main Examination and their merit obtained in the Preliminary Examination is not to be counted towards the final selection for appointment.
81. For the reasons stated above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I allow all the writ petitions and direct the Public Service Commission as follows:
(a) To delete the following questions of each paper of “A” series and their corresponding questions in “B”, “C” and “D” series and distribute their marks pro-rata to remaining questions of the papers:
(i) 13 questions of Zoology (twelve questions with printing error/spelling mistakes, i.e., Q. Nos. 18, 20, 27, 29, 30, 34, 39, 44, 51, 52, 95, 112; and one question where the Commission has not taken any stand, i.e., Q. No. 89);
(ii) 11 questions of Chemistry (eight questions with printing error/spelling mistakes, i.e., Q. Nos. 31, 99, 100, 105, 107, 109, 110, 119; and three questions where the Commission has not taken any stand, i.e., Q. Nos. 28, 56 & 67);
(iii) 11 questions of Geology (i.e. Q. Nos. 37, 46, 72, 75, 79, 81, 82, 95, 101, 106 & 114 with printing error/spelling mistakes);
(iv) 11 questions of Sociology (i.e. Q. Nos. 17, 37, 46, 53, 60, 72, 73, 83, 93, 9(tm) & 98 with printing error/spelling mistakes);
(v) 9 questions of Geography (i.e. Q. Nos. 9, 21, 22, 23, 51, 61,87, 97 & 106 with printing error/spelling mistakes);
(vi) 6 questions of Agriculture (i.e. Q. Nos. 18, 64, 69, 74, 79 & 104 with printing error/spelling mistakes);
(vii) 3 questions of Law (one question with printing error/spelling mistakes, i.e., Q. No. 9; and two questions where the Commission has not taken any stand, i.e., Q. Nos. 101 & 110);
(viii) 2 questions of Mechanical Engineering (i.e. Q. Nos. 37 & 72 with printing error/spelling mistakes);
(ix) 1 question of Political Science (i.e. Q. No. 43, where the Commission has not taken any stand);
(x) 5 questions of General Studies (i.e. Q. Nos. 6, 10, 55, 94 & 96);
(xi) 11 questions of Mathematics (six questions with printing error/spelling mistakes, i.e., Q. Nos. 9, 53, 76, 97, 106, 117; and five questions where the Commission has not taken any stand, i.e., Q. Nos. 29, 56, 77, 100 & 112) of “B” series and their corresponding questions in “A”, “C” & “D” series;
(b) To separately redraw the merit of all the unselected candidates for the Main Examination in respect of compulsory paper of General Studies;
(c) To redraw the merit of all the unselected candidates for the Main Examination as per direction (a) in respect of said ten optional subjects;
(d) To separately redraw a combined merit list of such candidates who have appeared in the compulsory paper of General Studies and optional subject-papers, as mentioned in direction (a);
(e) Also to redraw a combined merit of compulsory paper of General Studies and optional papers of those candidates, in whose optional subject-papers there was no discrepancy, i.e., 12 remaining optional subjects, which include the subject-papers of Animal Husbandry, Botany, Indian History and Physics, and who have not been short-listed.
(f) To conduct the special Main Examination of all such candidates, whose such combined redrawn merit is equal to or more than the merit of last short-listed candidate, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Examination Rules;
(g) To complete the whole exercise within a period of six weeks; (h) To pay an amount of rupees one lac and thirty thousands as costs to the writ petitioners, at the rate of rupees ten thousands in each writ petition, to be shared by them equally.
82. Before parting with this judgment, I won id like to say that it is very unfortunate that the candidates, who were computing to get employment in the coveted services of the State, after having put in so many years in studies, have to litigate for their lawful rights, denial of which emanates from the lack of expertise in conducting the examination on the part of none else than the Public Service Commission, which is a premier and constitutional examination conducting body of the State. Out of 23 subject-papers, which include the compulsory paper of General Studies, in which the candidates were examined for short-listing, there were major discrepancies and printing errors in 14 papers. With the experience of conducting the examination, which the Commission had, and with the kind of expertise expected from such like examination conducting body, it should not have happened. Why it happened, the explanation given by the Commission is that it got number of question papers prepared at the hands of very senior Professors/Deans of various Universities and Institutions across the Country and outside the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The paper-setters were required to put the question papers in the envelopes/packets, which were signed and sealed by them. Such sealed packets, with reference to each subject, were pooled in an another question bank. Thereafter, to avoid any possibility of interception/interference of secrecy in the question papers, in the Commission one of such sealed packets/manuscripts/papers of each subject, out of number of sealed packets/manuscripts/papers, was picked up at random by the Chairman of Commission and directly sent to the Printing Press for designing, ‘proof reading’ and printing of booklet series. Thus, according to the Commission, the spelling mistakes, which were existing in the papers, crept in due to the printing error.
83. The explanation given is exfacie unacceptable, as it was the duty of Commission to do the job of proof reading itself so as to avoid any printing error. The plea that the said job was left to the Printer itself for maintaining the secrecy is not tenable. Was there any dearth of such officers in the Commission who could be trusted with the job of proof reading of the papers? I am sure there would be many such officers in the Commission whose integrity cannot be questioned. Had any one of them been deputed for the job and a little care taken, the situation would not have been as grave as it is. It is only because of the casual approach, which may be called euphemistically over-cautious approach, the petitioners have been forced to take resort in the litigation. I am sure that this case will serve as an eye-opener for the Public Service Commission and in future no such thing will be allowed to happen, and all the necessary steps for improving the system shall be taken.
84. At the same time, I would also like to record my displeasure over the manne ‘ in which the two Members of the Commission, namely, Professor B. K. Tiku and Dr. N. A. Jan have filed their replies, in which they have made allegations in relation to the working of Commission as well as its Chairman. They deserve to be reminded of the fact that they being the members of the Commission were bound to defend its decisions, which the Commission had taken in its meetings referred to in the earlier part of judgment. In an institution where decisions are required to be taken by a group of persons in position on the basis of majority opinion, if during the decision making process some member expresses his dissent or reservation, the same gets obliterated when ultimately final decision is taken. Being bound by such a decision, no member of the group is entitled to publically criticize the decision on the strength of his personal views.
These writ petitions along with connected CMPs, accordingly, shall stand disposed of.