UTTAR PRADESH SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTION COMMISSION & ANR. versus BRIJENDRA PRATAP SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 12 S.C.R. 137 · Decided: 14-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
137
[2021] 12 S.C.R. 137
137
UTTAR PRADESH SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTION
COMMISSION & ANR.
v.
BRIJENDRA PRATAP SINGH & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 7720 of 2021)
DECEMBER 14, 2021
[K. M. JOSEPH AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ. ]
Service Law: Examination held for the post of Gram
Panchayat Adhikari – Awarding of marks – Advertisement issued
for filling up the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari – Examination
for said post took place on 21.02.2016 – In Examination, one of
the question was asked about the name of the Panchayati Raj
Minister of State in which option ‘B’ was ‘Kailash Yadav’ – However,
Minister for Panchayati Raj of State ‘Kailash Yadav’ passed away
on 09.02.2016 i.e. few days prior to examination – After the release
of answer key, appellant Commission decided that the candidates
who chose option ‘B’ as correct answer or did not mark any option
for the said question be awarded 01 (one) mark and no action was
required in respect of the candidates who chose option ‘A’, ‘C’, ‘D’
of this question – Respondent-candidate, who offered option ‘A’,
challenged the decision of the Commission by filing writ petition
before High Court – Division Bench directed the appellant either to
delete the said question or award marks to respondent – Instant
appeal filed by Commission – Held: The decision of the appellant
commission to award marks to those who answered option B or did
not mark any option is rationale – Respondent represented those
section of candidates who gave an answer which was not correct at
any point of time – Distinction drawn between the categories by
Commission cannot be characterised as palpably arbitrary –
Appellant made out a case for interference.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. This is a case where as on the date when the
examination took place, actually none of the answers which were
given as options were correct. On the date when the questions
were, in fact, set, one answer was correct (Option ‘B’). It is this
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 12 S.C.R.
rationale which apparently has weighed with the appellant
Commission in deciding to award marks to those who have
answered by ticking Option ‘B’. Those who did not answer any
of the options, were given marks on the appellant’s premise that
none of the answers were right. The respondent, on the other
hand, represented a section of those candidates who went ahead
and gave an answer which was not correct by any yardstick, at
any point of time. So, it is here that the Commission drew a
distinction between the categories which would not therefore, in
short, be characterised as palpably arbitrary. [Para 13][143-D-F]
Kanpur University Through Vice Chancellor v. Samir
Gupta (1983) 4 SCC 309 : [1984] 1 SCR 73 – referred
to.
Guru Nanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg and Others
(2005) 13 SCC 749 – held inapplicable.
Case Law Reference
[1984] 1 SCR 73
referred to
Para 9
(2005) 13 SCC 749
held inapplicable
Para 10
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.7720 of
2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.02.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No.78 of 2019.
M. R. Shamshad, Arijit Sarkar, Ms. Nabeela Jamil, Niaz A.
Farooqui, Zaki Ahmad Khan, Advs. for the Appellant.
Piyush Singh, Aditya Parolia, Akshay Srivastava, Sourav Sharma,
Rajesh Kumar, Gaurav Goel, Adarsh Upadhyay, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
(1) Leave granted.
(2) In June, 2015, the appellant issued an advertisement calling
for applications for filling up the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari. The
Minister for Panchayati Raj, Department in the State of Uttar Pradesh,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
139
was one Shri Kailash Yadav. Examination, pursuant to the advertisement,
was scheduled to take place on 21.02.2016. Shri Kailash Yadav passed
away on 09.02.2016.
(3) In the examination, question No. 46 was as follows:
“46. Presently who is the Panchayati Raj Minister in Uttar
Pradesh?
A. Sh. Shivpal Yadav B. Sh. Kailash Yadav
C. Sh. Balram Yadav
D. Sh. Durga Prasad Yadav”
(4) The answer key came to be published on 25.02.2016. As is
clear from the decision of the Commission in regard to question No. 46,
as on the date when the examination took place on 21.02.2016, Shri
Kailash Yadav whose name is shown as the correct answer in terms of
Option B had passed away and therefore, Option B would not be correct
answer. In fact this was an uncontemplated event as can be seen with
the benefit of hindsight. The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.