Kumari Madhu Sao vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that the key answers provided by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission for three specific questions (Nos. 2, 76, and 99) were demonstrably wrong on the face of it, based on the documents the experts relied upon. The Court found that the PSC itself had fairly admitted one answer to be incorrect. Given the presence of negative marking, a change in key answers would require a complete reshuffling of the candidate list. The Court emphasized the welfare of students, citing Supreme Court precedents that state students should not suffer due to errors made by the examining body. Therefore, the Court directed the PSC to send these three questions and their answers again to an expert body for re-evaluation. If the answers change, the entire list of candidates must be reshuffled according to the new answers. This exercise was to be completed within two months to ensure certainty for subsequent examinations. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioners, a group of candidates who appeared for an examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (PSC), challenged the PSC's evaluation process. They contended that the key answers provided for certain questions were incorrect, leading to an unfair assessment of their performance, especially given the negative marking scheme. The PSC had initially provided answers, and upon review by experts, some answers were admitted to be wrong. The petitioners sought a re-evaluation of specific questions and a reshuffling of the results based on corrected answers. The examination involved negative marking where 1/3rd of a mark was deducted for each wrong answer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the key answers provided by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission for certain questions in the examination were demonstrably erroneous, thereby vitiating the evaluation process, as per the principles laid down in educational matters? (Relates to the fairness of the examination process and the duty of care by the examining body). 2. Whether the candidates, including the petitioners, should suffer due to errors committed by the respondents in providing incorrect key answers, particularly in the context of negative marking? (Relates to the welfare of students and the consequences of administrative errors). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the key answers for specific questions (Nos. 2, 76, and 99) were palpably wrong, as evidenced by the documents relied upon by the experts themselves. They contended that a change in key answers, especially with negative marking, necessitates a reshuffling of the entire merit list. They relied on Supreme Court judgments in Rishal and others Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others and Kanpur University, Through Vice-Chancellor and others Vs. Samir Gupta and others, which emphasize the welfare of students and the need for caution by examining bodies. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment records that the PSC fairly admitted the answers to one question to be wrong. No other specific arguments from the respondents were recorded.