Editor,
In regards to the 2021 SI (civil/IRBn) exam, the court has taken serious action against the APPSC and said that “Erroneous model answer key for evaluation of answer scripts of candidates appearing in competitive exam is bound to led to erroneous results.”
The court has found that the answer keys of a few questions were wrongly printed, due to which two aspirants were deprived of 1 or 2 marks even after they correctly answered the question. Hence, they filed a case for re-verification or reevaluation of answer key by an expert, so that they can be appointed to the post of sub-inspector (civil/IRBn). The two candidates scored 197.33 and 198.66, respectively. And as per their claim, they will get 2 marks and 1 mark, respectively, if the APPSC goes for re-verification. The last rank scored 199.16.
The advocate for respondent has relied upon Pramod Kumar Shrivastava (supra) to contend that in absence of any provision for re-evaluation of the answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for reevaluation of their marks as the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Conduct of Examination Guidelines, 2017 does not provide for reevaluation of the answer script.
Directions by the honourable court:
Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is inclined to issue following direction:
- APPSC shall evaluate the correctness of Answer Key in respect of Question No 18 & 96 of the Elementary Mathematics Question Paper and Question No 57 of General knowledge through an independent, experienced and expert examiner.
- And if the same is found to be not correct then to prepare correct Answer Key in respect of the said Question No 18 & 96 and 57.
- And thereafter, to reevaluate the Answer Script of the petitioner and to take follow-up action.
- This exercise has to be carried out within a period of 1 [one] month from the date of receipt of this order.
The court’s decision to reevaluate the answer key for specific questions is a commendable move towards ensuring fairness and justice in the examination process. It acknowledges that mistakes in the answer key can have a significant impact on candidates’ results, and rectifying these errors is essential to uphold the merit-based selection process.
The case brought by the two candidates who scored 197.33 and 198.66 demonstrates that individuals who believe they have been unfairly treated by errors in the examination process have the right to challenge the results in court. This sets a precedent for accountability and fairness in competitive exams.
The advocate for the respondent, M Pertin, cited the absence of provisions for reevaluation in the relevant rules and guidelines of APPSC. This highlights a crucial issue – the lack of a structured mechanism for addressing errors in the evaluation process. It’s essential for examining bodies to have clear rules and procedures for handling such situations.
A rigid approach by the APPSC might harm the trust of the public and aspirants in the examination process. Public trust is essential for the credibility of any examining authority, and transparency in dealing with errors is a crucial factor in maintaining this trust.
A new SOP must be drafted to address the risk of errors or leakage. A well-defined SOP can guide the examination process, provide a framework for addressing mistakes, and ensure that the examination remains fair and free from discrepancies. Public opinion in this matter can help in shaping a more robust system.
In summary, the case and the court’s directions highlight the significance of maintaining fairness, transparency, and justice in competitive exams. A comprehensive and transparent SOP can go a long way in preventing errors and restoring public trust in the examining authority.
APPCS aspirant