IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9155 of 2008 JAY SHANKER PRASAD W i t h CWJC No.9338 of 2008 ANU PRIYA W i t h CWJC No.9590 of 2008 RAJESH KUMAR JHA & ORS W i t h CWJC No.9760 of 2008 CHANCHAL KUMAR W i t h CWJC No.9237 of 2008 RAJMANI & ORS W i t h CWJC No.9693 of 2008 NAVIN KUMAR JHA W i t h CWJC No.11620 of 2008 PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUBEY W i t h CWJC No.8803 of 2008 KRISHNA KUMAR & ANR Veresus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioners : Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh, Shri Y.V.Giri, Shri Chitranjan Sinha, Senior Advocates, Shri Chakradhari Sharan Singh , Shri Chandan Jha, Shri Raju Giri,, Shri Vikash Ranjan Bharti, Shri Rajeev Kumar Singh, Shri Nawal Kishore Singh, Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh, Shri Durga Nand Jha, Shri Madan Prasad Jha, Shri Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Shri Hriday Kant Mishra, Advocates For the Intervenors: Shri Ram Balak Mahto, Shri Vinod Kanth, Senior Advocates and Shri Pushkar Narayan Shahi, Advocate For the Commission : Advocate General and Shri Vipin Kumar Advocate For the State: AAG 2, AAG 3, AAG 7, GP 22, GA 9, SC 21 and Ritesh Kumar, Advocate --------------------- 9. 25.11.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State. The respondent State having decided to recruit 1510 Sub Inspectors in the State Police, on a requisition made, 2 the Bihar Staff Selection Commission published Advertisement no. 704 of 2004 on 21.9.2004 inviting applications for the same. A preliminary screening test was held and the successful candidates were invited for a physical test followed by a written examination held between 19.4.2008 to 26.4.2008. The written examination consisted of a total of 18 papers. Hindi was only a qualifying subject with a pass mark of 30. General Knowledge was a compulsory paper. The remainder consisted of 16 optional subjects. A paper consisted of 100 questions of 1 mark each for a correct answer and a negative marking of 0.2 for an incorrect answer. The results were then published on 30.5.2008. The competition was stiff. The petitioners came to this Court aggrieved that they had lost out with miniscule differences of only 0.20 to 0.60 marks from those declared successful. They made a further grievance that the model answers in respect of the papers of Ancient Indian History, Public Administration and Indian Constitution, Geography and Medevial to Mordern History bore some incorrect model answers. In some cases while the correct answers were also there and the petitioner may have ticked the correct answers yet they were made to suffer on account of the wrong model answers. On the submission made that question papers were not allowed to be taken home, this Court granted liberty to the Counsel for the petitioners to examine the questions and the model answers in the chambers of the Advocate General. Affidavits were then filed pointing out certain errors in the model answers. 3 Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Commission then sought adjournment to enable the matter to be considered appropriately at the concerned level. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Commission thereafter on 11.11.2008. With candid fairness it acknowledges errors in the model answers for compulsory General Knowledge paper and nine optional papers with no errors reported in the remaining seven optional papers. The errors were in the range of one wrong model answer in the optional paper of Commerce to a maximum of nine wrong model answers in the Ancient Indian History paper. This was ascertained by referring the question papers to the experts on the subject in their respective fields, details whereof have been mentioned in Annexure R/A of the supplementary counter affidavit. None of the counsels for the petitioners have questioned the issue of academic competence of the experts except a very bald and vague pleading in the reply to the supplementary counter affidavit in CWJC No. 9760 of 2008 questioning as to why it was given to the named experts and not to any other. Learned Advocate General next submitted that those questions which had incorrect model answers have been deleted. The remaining questions have been restructured on 100 marks. The computer which red the OMR answer sheets was reprogrammed accordingly and all answers sheets for all subjects whether with errors or no errors in the model answers were re-scrutinised along with negative marking. As a result 160 persons originally selected from the 1510 successful candidates had to be deleted and were replaced by new 160 successful candidates. The Commission was now ready to 4 proceed further in the matter. All appointments had been put on hold because of the present cases. Learned Advocate General next submitted that the respondents were conscious of the undue hardship to be caused to the 160 candidates now to be removed from the list of successful candidates. Many of them may have given up their previous jobs or left other offers in favour of the present. Additionally the issue arises with regard to those who have secured more marks than these 160 persons sought to be reconsidered, quantified to be approximately 271 making a total of 431 candidates. Additionally two seats of the reserved category of women also became available due to quota reduction. Thus making a total of 433 candidates. Relying on 1997 (8) SCC 488 (Surendra Singh & ors Vs State of Punjab & another) he submits that the present was a rare and exceptional circumstance and an emergent situation considering that no recruitment had been done for a decade affecting policing in the State when the State proposes to deviate from established principles of appointment confined to vacancies specified in the advertisement as a matter of policy decision. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh appearing in CWJC No. 9760 of 2008 sought to urge during submissions that there may have been errors in the model answers in Hindi paper also. There is no factual foundation in the pleadings for the same and none of the other Counsels have raised this as an issue either in their pleadings or their submissions. The issue therefore need not detain the Court. He next urged that four errors have been found in the 5 General Knowledge paper and this shall affect the results. He next submitted that of the nine questions removed from the Ancient Indian History paper the petitioners may have answered them correctly and which option may have been there but not in the model answer, to remove them shall cause prejudice. That the restructured percentage marking in Ancient History may result in higher marks by percentage to a candidate of Ancient Indian History to the prejudice of a candidate of a paper with no error. That the new model answers may not necessarily be correct. That the credibility of BELTRON, the agency which re- scrutinised the result had been found wanting earlier with regard to another examination and, therefore, the scrutiny by them could not be accepted without suspicion. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh and Shri Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Advocates appearing for the petitioners in CWJC No. 9237 of 2008 pointed out that there was still one wrong model answer in Ancient Indian History paper. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh submits that he does not press CWJC No. 9338 of 2008. This application is dismissed as not pressed. Learned Senior Counsels Shri Chitranjan Sinha and Shri Y.V.Giri in CWJC 9155 of 2008 and 9590 of 2008 appearing on behalf of those who did not figure in the list of 1510 successful candidates urged that the new list of the successful candidate be brought on record to enable them to know where they stand. It was however fairly conceded that at this stage it was speculative for them to consider whether they 6 have now been selected or fell in the zone of consideration additionally as suggested by the Advocate General. In fairness they both conceded that the petitioners do not raise any issues with regard to the credibility of the experts and the procedure adopted for deletion of the wrong questions and restructuring of the remaining correct questions on a scale of 100 and re- scrutiny of all the papers on that basis. All that they urged is that this shall not tantamount to conceding their right to agitate fresh grievances after the new final list was published. Similar submissions were made on behalf of the petitioners in the other writ petitions. Learned Senior Counsels Shri R.B.Mahto and Sri Vinod Kanth as also Shri Pushkar Nrayan Shahi Advocates for the Interveners successful in the original list of 1510 candidates, and now unaware of their fate for reason of removal of 160 candidates, in context of their respective I.A. applications filed in CWJC 9155 of 2008 submitted that since the State did propose to take care of those 160 persons who have been removed from the original list and are prejudiced by inclusion of fresh 160 names, have no further submissions to make as their interest were being adequately kept in mind by the State. The lis before this Court was with regard to an examination having provision for negative marking and the question of incorrect model answers. None of the Counsels have raised any issues with regard to lack of fairness, unfair means etc. with regard to the written examination. The competence of the experts who redesigned the model answers has also not been 7 questioned. That it may not have been sent to experts which the petitioner in CWJC No. 9760 of 2008 considered desirable is of no relevance to merit consideration. The Courts have consistently held that academic matters are best left to the experts and it is not for the Courts to dabble in the same, in the present fact circumstances when none of the other Counsels in this batch of cases have questioned the same. In (2007) 5 SCC 519 Bihar Public Service Commission & ors Vrs Kamini & others, allowing the writ petition it was held in the relevant extract of paragraph 8 as follows:- “8. Again, it is well settled that in the field of education, a Court of law cannot act as an expert. Normally therefore whether or not a student candidate posses requisite qualification should be better left to educational Institutions. This is particularly so when it is supported by an expert committee…….” Likewise the possibility of any alleged errors by BELTRON, the agency, with regard to another examination is also of no relevance being un-guidedly speculative and merits no consideration. The issue of prejudice to any one by deletion of those questions which originally had wrong model answers does not arise. The wrong answers having been deleted and remaining questions restructured on the scale of 100, re-scrutinised, to which procedure none of the petitioners in the other writ petitioners have raised any objection satisfies this Court of the reasonableness and fairness on part of the State. That those in the restructured papers of Ancient Indian History may result with higher marks than candidates in papers with no errors is a 8 speculative submission. No material in respect thereof has been brought on record and the petitioners are all applicants of the Ancient Indian History paper, Public Administration and Indian Constitution, Geography (a paper with no errors) and Mediveal to Mordern History. The General Knowledge paper was a compulsory paper and restructuring them shall be applicable equally to all. In absence of any challenge by the petitioners to the methodology adopted by the Commission for fresh verification of the model answers restructuring of question papers with defective answers, the errors on an average being 2.05 out of hundred in seventeen papers, the conduct of the examination itself or the re-scrutiny of the papers thereafter, no further lis survives. What may or may not arise as a future cause of action based on fresh material is an entirely different matter and cannot be speculated at the moment. Since the Commission now proposes to publish the list of 1510 candidates in pursuance thereof, therefore is no occasion for this Court to adjudicate the matter any further. The issue shall now proceed from that stage. The Commission is expected to proceed expeditiously in the matter considering that recruitment has been affected for a decade and matters have already been delayed, in the background of the pressing urgency for the appointments submitted by the State. In CWJC No. 8803 of 2008 the relief sought was for issuance of Admit Cards for the written examination. The examinations are now over, final results have been declared. No 9 arguments have been addressed in this matter. This writ application has lost its relevance and is accordingly dismissed. What the State may propose to do, or not to do, in so far as persons beyond the new list of 1510 candidates are concerned, is not the domain of the Court in the present lis, but are policy matters for the State to decide in its wisdom. The errors in the examinations giving rise to the lis in these writ applications having been corrected the writ applications are disposed in terms of the same. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)