UTTAR PRADESH SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTION COMMISSION & ANR. versus BRIJENDRA PRATAP SINGH & ANR.

UTTAR PRADESH SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTION COMMISSION & ANR. versus BRIJENDRA PRATAP SINGH & ANR.

The Commission's distinction between candidates who chose option B (which was correct when the question was set) and those who left the question blank (who should not be penalised when no option was correct on the exam date) versus candidates who marked a plainly incorrect option was not palpably arbitrary; deletion...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission & Anr.; Respondent: Brijendra Pratap Singh & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 7720 of 2021 / Appeal From High Court Judgment (special Appeal No. 78 of 2019)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned Division Bench judgment dated 18.02.2021 set aside
Legal Topics
Examination Answer Key, Selection Process, Awarding of Marks, Deletion of Question, Arbitrariness
Service Law Administrative Law Employment Law Judicial Review Examination Answer Key Selection Process Awarding of Marks Deletion of Question +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission & Anr.

Appellant

Brijendra Pratap Singh & Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 7720 of 2021 / Appeal From High Court Judgment (special Appeal No. 78 of 2019)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commission's decision to award marks to candidates who answered option B (originally correct when set) and to candidates who left the question blank, while not awarding marks to those who selected other incorrect options, was arbitrary or liable to be set aside on judicial review
  2. 2 Whether deletion of the question at a late stage was an appropriate remedy
  3. 3 Scope of judicial review of decisions of an examining body

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission's distinction between candidates who chose option B (which was correct when the question was set) and those who left the question blank (who should not be penalised when no option was correct on the exam date) versus candidates who marked a plainly incorrect option was not palpably arbitrary; deletion of the question at this late stage would cause prejudice. Therefore the High Court's direction was set aside and the appeal allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned Division Bench judgment dated 18.02.2021 set aside

Orders

  • Impugned judgment dated 18.02.2021 of the High Court set aside
  • Appeal allowed