December 11, 2017
A Supreme Court Bench of Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta Pronounced Judgment and issued direction in a Civil Appeal filed by the candidates appeared for examination conducted by UP Secondary Education Services Selection Board for the Post of Trained Graduate Teachers in Social Science in which more than 36000 candidates appeared for the examination.
On 15th January, 2009 the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board published an advertisement inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Trained Graduate Teachers in Social Science. The recruitment was to be in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and the Rules framed thereunder.
More than 36,000 candidates took the written examination held pursuant to the
advertisement and the result of the written examination was declared by the
Board on 18th June, 2010. The written examination was based on multiple choice
answers which were to be scanned on OMR sheets.
The candidates who qualified in the written examination were called for an
interview held between 16th and 26th July, 2010. Eventually, the combined result
(written examination and interview) was declared on 14th September, 2010.
According to the appellants, they were successful in the written examination as
well as in the interview and were amongst those who were in the select list for
recruitment.
Some candidates who were not successful in the written examination or in the
interview filed writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court between 2010 and
2011. All these writ petitions were dismissed by a learned Single Judge. The
reasons for dismissal of these writ petitions were that there was no provision
for re-evaluation of the answer sheets in the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education
Services Selection Board Act, 1982 or the Rules framed thereunder. Reliance was
also placed by the learned Single Judge for dismissing writ petitions on the
decision of this Court in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v.
Mukesh Thakur in which this Court considered a large number of its earlier
decisions and held: "Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that
in the absence of any provision under the statute or statutory
rules/regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation."
Another batch of writ petitions came to be listed before another learned Single
Judge of the High Court. The subject and issues were the same and the learned
Single Judge admitted these writ petitions for final hearing notwithstanding the
dismissal of several similar petitions. The challenge made by the writ
petitioners was to seven questions/answers in the written examination which,
according to them, had incorrect key answers.
The learned Single Judge personally examined those seven questions and concluded
it. On this basis, the learned Single Judge passed a judgment and order dated
8th February, 2012 directing re-examination of the answer sheets of these 77
writ petitioners. It was further directed that in case these writ petitioners
are selected then those at the bottom of the select list would automatically
have to be pushed out.
Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, the Board
preferred Special Appeal No. 442 of 2012 before the Division Bench of the High
Court. Some candidates also preferred Special Appeals directed against the
judgment and order dated 8th February, 2012. The Special Appeal filed by the
Board was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 13th March, 2012.
In some other Special Appeal filed by a candidate, it was stated by the Board on
11th April, 2012 that the answer sheets of all the candidates would be
re-evaluated in the light of the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
Following up on this, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge
was implemented on 10th September, 2012 and the reevaluated results of the
written examination of all candidates were declared. As a result of the
re-evaluation, it appears that some candidates, who were declared successful in
the combined result declared on 14th September, 2010 were now declared
unsuccessful. The appellants before us were not affected by the re-evaluation of
the written examination and continued in the select list. Thereafter, a set of
petitions was filed including some before this Court and eventually it came to
pass that those aggrieved by the order passed by the Division Bench on 13th
March, 2012 could file review petitions On 12th May, 2014 the Board published
the final select list of candidates who had qualified in the written examination
as well as in the interview. In this final select list, the appellants did not
find a place and, therefore, they challenged the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 8th February, 2012. According to the appellants the learned Single
Judge had incorrectly re-evaluated the seven disputed questions and had arrived
at incorrect answers to these questions.
The Division Bench heard all the review petitions as well as the appeals and
passed an order dated 28th April, 2015 referring the seven disputed
questions/answers for consideration by a one-man Expert Committee. On or about
18th May, 2015 the Expert Committee gave its Report to which the appellants
filed objections. Eventually, by the judgment and order dated 2nd November, 2015
the Division Bench directed a fresh evaluation of the answer sheets on the basis
of the Report of the Expert Committee. This decision of the Division Bench is
under challenge before us.
During the pendency of the appeals in this Court, the third reevaluation was
completed by the Board. The result of the third reevaluation has been kept in a
sealed cover. The sealed cover was initially filed before us but later returned
to learned counsel for the Board.
The Bench of Supreme Court Judges said: "We are pained that an examination
for recruitment of Trained Graduate Teachers advertised in January, 2009 has
still not attained finality even after the passage of more than eight years. The
system of holding public examinations needs to be carefully scrutinised and
reviewed so that selected candidates are not drawn into litigation which could
go on for several years."
The question before this Court was: "Whether, under law, a candidate has a
right to demand an inspection, verification and revaluation of answer books and
whether the statutory regulations framed by the Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education governing the subject insofar as they
categorically state that there shall be no such right can be said to be ultra
vires, unreasonable and void."
The court said that "if an error is committed by the examination authority,
the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not
deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or
dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an
erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though
some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is
not always possible."
The Bench concluded the Judgment with the following Direction.
"(1) The results prepared by the Board consequent upon the decision dated 2nd November, 2015 of the High Court should be declared by the Board within two weeks from today.
(2) Candidates appointed and working as Trained Graduate Teachers pursuant to the declaration of results on the earlier occasions, if found unsuccessful on the third declaration of results, should not be removed from service but should be allowed to continue.
(3) Candidates now selected for appointment as Trained Graduate Teachers (after
the third declaration of results) should be appointed by the State by creating
supernumerary posts. However, these newly appointed Trained Graduate Teachers
will not be entitled to any consequential benefits."
The Bench said that "Before concluding, we must express our deep anguish with
the turn of events whereby the learned Single Judge entertained a batch of writ
petitions, out of which these appeals have arisen, even though several similar
writ petitions had earlier been dismissed by other learned Single Judge(s).
Respect for the view taken by a coordinate Bench is an essential element of
judicial discipline. A judge might have a difference of opinion with another
judge, but that does not give him or her any right to ignore the contrary view.
In the event of a difference of opinion, the procedure sanctified by time must
be adhered to so that there is demonstrated respect for the rule of law."
The court disposed of the appeals and miscellaneous application with the above
direction.
Tweet
Read the Judgment of Supreme Court dated 11.12.2017
December 12, 2017
December 12, 2017
Supreme Court Judgment for eviction of Tenant and recovery of rent and damages
December 12, 2017
What a Mess! This is perhaps the only way to describe the events that have transpired in the examination conducted by the U.P. SESSB - Supreme Court December 11, 2017