Summary
An unsuccessful candidate in the 2019 common written examination for direct recruitment to the Punjab and Haryana Superior Judicial Services challenged the process. The Criminal Law paper, of 200 marks, was issued without question 4 (40 marks), which was supplied about an hour into the examination. The High Court dismissed his writ petition at the motion stage. The Supreme Court called the missing question a serious lapse, not an inadvertent error. To salvage a long-delayed selection, it directed that the paper be evaluated on the other four questions (160 marks), the written result be redeclared and qualifying candidates be interviewed afresh by a common board. Objections about Bare Acts, hasty evaluation and refusal to disclose written marks under RTI before viva-voce were rejected, and the Court advised OMR sheets and provisional answer keys for MCQ papers.
Issues
- Whether a written examination for judicial service is vitiated where one question was missing from a paper and supplied only an hour into the examination, and what relief is appropriate
- Whether candidates may obtain their written-examination marks under the RTI Act before the viva-voce is completed
- What transparency safeguards should govern multiple-choice papers in public recruitment
Provisions considered
- read with Rule 4(2), High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007, Right to Information Act, 2005Refusing to disclose written-examination marks before the selection, including viva-voce, was complete was upheld. (¶¶ 20, 28, 29)
- Scheme of direct recruitment, Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 / Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007The written result was to be redeclared and those within three times the vacancies called for viva-voce before final results under the Rules. (¶¶ 5, 35)
Held
- Issuing the Criminal Law paper without question 4, which was supplied after about an hour, was a serious lapse for which someone must be held responsible. It could not be dismissed as inadvertent human error. (¶¶ 30, 31)
- As there was no objection to the other four questions and the examination came after a gap of four to five years, the Court chose to salvage the selection. Paper V was to be evaluated on questions 1, 2, 3 and 5 (160 marks), excluding question 4, rather than cancelling or re-holding the paper. (¶¶ 31, 32, 35)
- Candidates qualifying on the revised result must be interviewed by one common board, so earlier interviews held under interim orders could not stand. The result of an in-service officer selected through the separate limited competitive examination, unaffected by the dispute, was to be declared. (¶¶ 33, 34, 36)
- Disclosing written marks before the viva-voce is completed may bias the interview board and is not required. Where merit rests on the written examination alone, results must be published without delay. (¶¶ 28, 29)
- For multiple-choice papers, candidates should be given OMR sheets and allowed to keep the question paper. A provisional answer key should be published inviting objections, those objections considered by a subject expert committee, and a final key published. The other objections, on Bare Acts being supplied and hasty evaluation, were baseless. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's order of 23.01.2020 was set aside with directions to re-evaluate Paper V on questions 1, 2, 3 and 5, redeclare the written result, hold viva-voce for those qualifying before a common board and declare the in-service intervenor's result, all within two months.