JUDGMENT
Vipin Sanghi, J.
1. The Petitioner is a graduate (bachelor of Arts) from Delhi University. He has done his Master in Business Administration (MBA) from IMT, Ghaziabad and is presently pursuing degree in Master in Computer Computers (MCA) from Indira Gandhi National Open University New Delhi. He is working as an I.T. Consultant in a Multi National Corporation in Noida.
2. The Petitioner appeared in the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), Civil Services Examination, 2006 as a General candidate. The Preliminary examination was held on 14.5.2006. The Petitioner successfully qualified in the said examination and was permitted to take the Civil Services (Main) Examination, which took place w.e.f. 13.10.2006. The scheme of the Civil Services (Main) Examination 2006 provided for the following written examinations:
Compulsory Papers : General Studies and Essays.
Optional Subjects : Two optional subjects from
amongst 54 subjects offered.
Qualifying papers : English and Hindi or any other
language mentioned in the 8th
Schedule.
3. The Respondent, UPSC declared the result of the Civil Services (Main) Examination 2006 on 14.3.2007. The Petitioner was declared as not having qualified in the written examination. The break up of the marks obtained by the Petitioner in the various written papers as disclosed by the Respondent is as follows:
Subjects Maximum Marks Marks Obtained Essay (Paper III) 200 130 General Studies (Paper IV) 300 173 General Studies (Paper V) 300 041 Optional (1) Geography (Paper VI) 300 176 (Paper VII) 300 151 Optional (2) Sociology (Paper VIII) 300 132 (Paper IX) 300 162 Penalty Mark 0 Written Total 2000 965 Remarks: Not qualified in written. (Candidature provisional)
4. The Petitioner state that he was shocked and dismayed to see his result, particularly, in relation to the General Studies (Paper V), which is the second paper of General Studies, wherein he had been awarded only 41 out of 300 marks. According to him, his expectation and estimation was around 151 marks in the said paper. He also submitted that he had not been awarded any penalty marks (negative marks), as is clear from the aforesaid disclosure made by the Respondent, UPSC. His apprehension was that either some of his answers had remained un-evaluated or that there was some calculation mistake of marks in the answer sheet, or that there was some typographical mistake in showing his marks in his published result. The Petitioner represented to the Respondent for re-checking, revaluation and sought an interview, to which he did not receive any response. When he sent a reminder he got a reply dated 24.3.2007, wherein the Respondent had stated that as per the practice of the Commission, revaluation of the answer sheets is not allowed and that on rechecking, it was found that there were no errors. The Petitioner thereafter approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, (the Tribunal) by filing O.A. No. 1168/2007 assailing the authenticity of the result of his Civil Services (Main) Examination 2006 in respect of the Second General Studies paper wherein he was shown to have obtained only 41 out of 300 marks. The said application has however been rejected by the Tribunal and that is how the petitioner is now before us in this writ petition.
5. Before us, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had secured very good marks in all the other papers and despite his being awarded only 41 marks out of 300 in the General Studies, 2nd paper i.e. General Studies (Paper V), the last person to be selected had only a few marks more than the marks awarded to him in the aggregate. This Court issued notice to the Respondent on 5th October 2007 and also directed the Union Public Service Commission to produce the two papers of General Studies of the Petitioner in a sealed cover. It may be noted that in one of the papers of General Studies, the Petitioner has secured 173 out of 300 marks, whereas in the other paper he has secured only 41 out of 300 marks.
6. On 12th October 2007, the Respondent UPSC produced the two answer sheets of the Petitioner in respect of the two papers viz., General Studies 1 and 2. We have gone through the two answer sheets. We are satisfied that they pertain to the same candidate. We have also satisfied ourselves with regard to the calculations of marks in the answer sheet in question, and we find that all the questions have been checked and marked and there is no error of calculations of marks. We are, therefore not in position to interfere in this case since it does not fall within our jurisdiction to step into the shoes of the examiner to evaluate the answer script of a candidate.
7. We inquired from the Counsel for the respondents if there was a possibility of re-valuation of the answer script of the petitioner in the second paper of General Studies by another examiner. Learned Counsel for the respondent has stated that the UPSC does not have any such policy of revaluation of answer sheets. She also submitted that lakhs of candidates appear in the Civil Service Examination each year and it is not possible for the Respondent UPSC to entertain any request for re-valuation since it would open a Pandoras Box and make it impossible for the Respondent to complete the selection process in a satisfactory and timely manner, which is an annual feature.
8. While we are aware of the limitations in our jurisdiction in ordering revaluation of the answer papers and also in venturing into areas concerning policy decisions that the administration may take, considering the fact that every now and then Petitions come before this Court where candidates, who otherwise appear to have meritorious academic records, find themselves out of the merit list on account of, what appears to be, an unexplained deviation, we would like to convey to the Respondents our suggestions which they may consider incorporating in their present policy with regard to redressing such like grievances of candidates.
9. Our suggestions are founded upon a fundamental premise that nobody is infallible, and anybody who claims himself or herself to be infallible would be committing a serious mistake. Even the Courts and Tribunals, which function with great deal of transparency, in public gaze, by following principles of natural justice, and are expected to support their decisions with reasons, are open to making errors and that is why our judicial system provides a well defined hierarchy and provides for appeals and further appeals. The respondent UPSC, is discharging a public duty and is a repository of public trust. It owes a duty to all the citizens of India to act fairly in the discharge of its duties. We are not suggesting that it is not doing so at present. However, in our view, there is scope for improvement. We would appreciate if our suggestions are taken in that spirit. The Supreme Court, in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan , observed:
4. The object of any process of selection for entry into a public service is to secure the best and the most suitable person for the job, avoiding patronage and favoritism. Selection based on merit, tested impartially and objectively, is the essential foundation of any useful and efficient public service. So, open competitive examination has come to be accepted almost universally as the gateway to public services. “The ideal in recruitment is to do away with unfairness”. United nations Handbook on Civil Service Laws and Practice; “Competitive examinations were the answer to the twin problems represented by democracy and the requirements of good administration. They were the means by which equality of opportunity was to be united with efficiency…. By this means favoritism was to be excluded and the goal of securing the best man for every job was to be achieved”. Public Personnel Administration by O. Glenn Stahl, “Open competitive examinations are a peculiarly democratic institution. Any qualified person may come forward. His relative competence for appointment is determined by a neutral, disinterested body on the basis of objective evidence supplied by the candidate himself. No one has “pull”, everyone stands on his own feet. The system is not only highly democratic, it is fair and equitable to every competitor. The same rules govern, the same procedures apply, the same yardstick is used to test competence”. Introduction to the study of Public Administration by Leonard White.
10. In our view, the Respondent should consider evolving an in-house review mechanism to redress grievance of such of the candidates, who appear to be on the border line i.e. those candidates who do stand a chance of coming into the merit list, in case, on revaluation of a particular answer script (in which they appear to have got particularly less marks compared to the marks obtained by them in the other papers) their marks are upwardly revised. To limit the magnitude of such an exercise the policy could prescribe cut off percentages which a candidate should score in all papers in the aggregate except the one or two papers, regarding which he may have a grievance. The Respondent could also prescribe a limit on the number of answer papers that may be re-evaluated of a particular candidate. One would reasonably expect a candidate, who has done very well in most papers to be generally consistent and do more or less equally well in the other papers as well. When this expectation is belied, the concerned candidate has a grievance.
11. Revaluation in such like cases, in our view, would serve a dual purpose. It would provide an assurance to the concerned candidate that his candidature has been seriously scrutinized and he is not a victim of a stray and patently wrong evaluation. Considering the fact that the objective of the examination conducted by the Respondent is primarily to pick up the genuinely most meritorious candidates for appointment to public offices, a revaluation process, as aforesaid, would also ensure that a truly meritorious candidate, who may have been a victim of an erroneous evaluation by one or two of the examiner, does not escape the net. This would obviously be in the interest of the organization/entity for which the Respondent is undertaking the process of selection, and in larger public interest.
12. If the Respondents were to evolve a process of revaluation in a limited category of deserving cases, for which the criteria can be evolved, clearly defined and declared, it would also reduce the sense of dissatisfaction and heart burning in the minds of the failed candidates and also leave the courts with a sense of assurance that the system has a self-correcting mechanism. It would reduce litigation such as the present one and enhance the reputation and credibility of the Respondent as a Recruiting Agency.
13. The present policy of the respondent of strictly refusing revaluation in all cases appears to be a result of their concern to compile and publish the examination results punctually and to avoid multiplicity of their workload. These are genuine concerns and one cannot find fault with them.
14. However, at the same time, one cannot become so insensitive in this process as to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to cases, the facts of which leave various questions unanswered and leave doubts about the correctness of the valuation process of the Respondent.
15. The mechanism of the kind that we are suggesting would also instill a sense of accountability in the minds of the examiners who would then take their task of making assessment of answer sheets more seriously. If such a system is evolved as suggested by us, the results of the process of revaluation could also provide valuable information to the Respondent to determine how the particular evaluators are discharging their duties and responsibilities, which is extremely crucial not only from the point of view of the candidates, but also from the point of view of the organisation/entity who entrusts the selection process in the hands of the respondents.
16. If the submission of the petitioner, that he has missed getting into the Civil Services only a few marks, despite getting only 41 out of 300 marks in the 2nd paper of General Studies is true, and in fact he was entitled to be awarded marks in the range in which he has been awarded in other papers it could be that the Government of India has lost out on a highly deserving candidate.
17. Accordingly, we direct the respondent UPSC to consider the suggestions made by us at the highest level as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within four months and to place on record the result of its consideration. The registry is directed to list the matter before Court as soon as the response of the UPSC is received, and if it is not so received, within the next six months, the matter be listed for directions before the Court.