In a recent development, the Uttarakhand High Court has issued an order directing the State Public Service Commission to form an Expert Committee tasked with a thorough reexamination of the responses to two questions featured in the Uttarakhand Judicial Service Civil Judge Preliminary Examination of 2023. This legal action stemmed from the case of Tarun Sahni Vs Uttarakhand Public Service Commission.
The High Court’s division bench, composed of Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, further stipulated that the Expert Committee must consist of individuals who were not involved in the initial process of assessing the answer keys. The Court has set a strict timeline for this entire procedure, mandating that the Commission completes it within the next four weeks.
In accordance with the findings of the Expert Committee, the candidates’ scores will be recalculated, and a new merit list will be generated as per the Court’s instructions.
In addition to these two questions, the Court has also instructed the Commission to disregard another question due to its inadequate clarity in the English language. This particular question, which raised concerns, was formulated as follows: “Period of effect of holding over in the absence of agreement under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882? (sic)”
The judges expressed their disappointment that this question appeared to have been created with a careless approach, lacking proper scrutiny to ensure comprehensibility for candidates attempting it in English.
The Court’s involvement in this matter stemmed from a group of unsuccessful candidates who had filed petitions questioning the correctness of certain answers provided in the answer key.
One of the contested answers related to a question about the meaning of ‘Tuhr’ under Muslim law. The candidates had argued that the correct answer was ‘period between menstruation,’ whereas the Commission had identified ‘None of the above’ as the correct response. A subject expert later clarified that the candidates’ answer would have been correct only if option (c) had stated that it was the ‘period between two menstruations.’ However, the Court criticized this approach, asserting that the purpose of the exam was to evaluate candidates’ legal knowledge, not to assess their proficiency in English or to create tricky questions.
The Court concluded that the expert’s reasoning lacked proper consideration and did not take into account relevant factors.
The other disputed answer concerned a question about an illiterate laborer marking his house wall daily to track his wages. The candidates argued that the answer was ‘documentary,’ while the Commission deemed ‘circumstantial evidence’ as the correct choice. The Court noted that the expert’s opinion did not appear to be based on any established literature, textbooks, or legal principles.
Given these observations, the Court has granted relief to the petitioners.
Advocates Swati Verma, Snigdha Tiwari, and Nagesh Agarwal represented the petitioners, while Advocate Alok Mehra represented the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. Standing Counsel Pradeep Joshi represented the State, and Advocate Pankaj Miglani represented the High Court of Uttarakhand.
