RAJESH KUMAR & ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2013] 4 S.C.R. 753 · Decided: 13-03-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2013] 4 S.C.R. 753 
RAJESH KUMAR & ORS. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2515-2516 of 2013 etc.) 
MARCH 13, 2013 
[T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
B 
Selection/Appointment - On the basis of competitive c 
examination - Evaluation of answer scripts challenged -
Defect found in 'Model Answer Key' to one of the papers -
High Court directed to conduct fresh examination in the paper 
having defective 'Model Answer Key' - Held: The entire 
selection process was vitiated by use of defective 'Model 
D 
Answer Key' and appointments made on the basis of such 
examination would also be rendered unsustainable -
However, in the facts of the case, instead of directing fresh 
examination, correcting the defect by evaluation of answer 
scripts with correct key was better option - The re-evaluation 
would affect only inter-se seniority among the candidates -
The already appointed candidates, after re-evaluation, if did 
not make the grade, would not be ousted from service, but 
would figure at the bottom of the select list. 
E 
Respondent Nos. 6 to 18, who were unsuccessful 
F 
candidates in the written objective type examination, 
conducted by State Staff Selection Commission for 
appointment to the post of Junior Engineer, filed writ 
petition in the High Court challenging the evaluation of 
the answer scripts. The successful candidates i.e. the 
G 
appellants were not impleaded as parties. During 
pendency of the petition, the successful candidates were 
appointed in the different Departments of the State. 
Single Judge of the High Court referred the "Model 
753 
H 
754 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 4 S.C.R. 
A Answer Key" to experts. The experts gave their report 
that in Civil Engineering paper, answer to 45 questions 
were wrong, two questions were repeated and one 
question was defective. Single judge of the High Court 
cancelled the entire examination as well as the 
B appointments made on its basis. Division Bench of the 
High Court partly allowed the writ appeal, holding that 
entire examination was not required to be cancelled as 
there was no allegation of any corrupt motive or 
malpractice with regard to other question papers. The 
c Court directed to rectify the defect by conducting fresh 
examination in Civil Engineering paper only. 
D 
During pendency of the writ appeal fresh selection 
process was initiated, wherein 6 of the respondents were 
appointed while the rest opted not to join. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that 
High Court committed an error in quashing the entire 
selection process, even when the petitioners-
respondents had not prayed to that effect; and that even 
E if the result of the first selection process was vitiated by 
the use of erroneous 'Model Answer Key', the court could 
have rectified the defect by directing re-evaluation of 
answer scripts. The appellants also prayed for a suitable 
direction that after re-evaluation, if they fell below the cut-
F off line, they should not be ousted from service and the 
re-evaluation would determine only inter-se seniority. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Division Bench of the High Court was 
G justified in holding that the result of the examination in 
so far as the same pertained to 'A' series question paper 
was vitiated. This was bound to affect the result of the 
entire examination qua every candidate whether or not he 
was a party to the proceedings. If the result was vitiated 
H by the application of a wrong key, any appointment made 
RAJESH KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR 
755 
on the basis thereof would also be rendered 
A 
unsustainable. The High Court was, in that view, entitled 
to mould the relief prayed for in the writ petition and issue 
directions considered necessary not only to maintain the 
purity of the selection process but also to ensure that no 
candidate earned an undeserved advantag_e over others 
B 
by application of an erroneous key. [Para 12] [762-A-D] 
Bharat Amritlal Kothari v. Dosukhan (2010) 1 SCC 234: 
2009 (15) SCR 662; State of Orissa and Anr. v. Mamata 
Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436: 2011 (2) SCR 704 -
C 
distinguished. 
2. Given the nature of the defect in the answer key, 
the most natural and logical way of correcting the 
evaluation of the scripts was to correct the key and get 
the answer scripts re-evaluated on the basis thereof. 
D 
There was no compelling reason for directing a fresh 
examination to be held by the Commission especially 
when

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.