Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 10.02.2022 passed by the Gauhati High Court (Itanagar Bench) in Writ Appeal No.12/2019, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by respondent No.1 herein and has directed the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ’Public Service Commission’) for re-evaluation of the papers of respondent No.1 and respondent No.4 herein by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 05.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.
It appears that the answer keys with respect to question No.12 and question No 31 were found to be wrong and therefore it was decided by the Public Service Commission to cancel the said question Nos. However, by the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the writ appeal and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, by ordering re-evaluation of the papers of respondent No.1 herein – original writ petitioner and respondent 3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court ordering re- evaluation of the papers of respondent No.1 herein – original writ petitioner and original respondent No 5, the Public Service Commission has preferred the present appeal. 1
It is further submitted that in the present case as the answer keys with respect to both the questions were found to be wrong, it was decided to cancel the said questions and to allot the marks on pro-rata basis to all the candidates with respect to each question.
It is submitted that however original respondent No 5 who has been allotted two marks on pro-rata basis correctly answered only question No 31 and answered question No 12 wrongly.
It is submitted that therefore if original respondent No.5, who is placed at serial
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/acquisition-of-land-and-deemed-lapse-under-the-act-2013/
No 21, would have been allotted only one mark for giving correct answer to only one question, i.e, question No 31 only and in that case, the original writ petitioner would have been at serial
No 21.
Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and others, reported in (2019) 16 SCC 663, it is vehemently submitted by Shri Manish Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 herein – original writ petitioner that as observed and held by this Court, the re-evaluation of the papers even in absence of any specific provision is permissible. 31 of the General Knowledge Paper were found to be wrong, a conscious decision was taken by the Public Service Commission to cancel the aforesaid two questions and with a view to see that no candidate should be penalised for the mistakes in the answer keys provided by the resource persons, it was decided to award marks against question No 12 and question No 31 to all the candidates on pro-rata basis.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/taxation-of-engineering-design-drawings-goods-or-services/
Applying the same analogy with respect to wrong answer keys and thereafter when a conscious decision was taken to allocate the marks on pro-rata basis with respect to two questions whose answer keys were found to be wrong and when all the candidates were awarded two marks (one mark each for the aforesaid two questions), it cannot be said that the Public Service Commission acted illegally and/or arbitrarily and/or committed any wrong. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court ordering re-evaluation of the papers of respondent No.1 and respondent No.
Case Title: THE ARUNACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (APPSC) Vs. MISS HAGE MAMUNG (2023 INSC 59)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000350-000350 / 2023
