Case title: UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS. VS. RUPESH KUMAR JHA & ORS
Case no: W.P.(C) 12354/2023 & CM APPL. 48883/2023, W.P.(C) 1760/2024 & CM APPL. 7358/2024 -Stay
Order on: 29.02.2024
Quorum: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI WITH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
Fact of the case:
The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) conducted the Combined Higher Secondary Level (10+2) Examination 2016. The selection process included two written exams: Tier-I (objective type) and Tier-II (descriptive type), followed by a typing/data entry speed test. The respondents successfully passed the Tier-I exam and appeared for the Tier-II exam. Upon declaration of the Tier-II results, respondents realized they were awarded zero marks due to not signing the opening page of their answer sheets. The respondents had signed the attendance sheet and declaration form and affixed their thumb impressions on the answer sheets. They approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) claiming the lack of signature on the answer sheets was a minor and inadvertent error. CAT quashed the SSC’s decision to reject the respondents’ candidature. CAT directed SSC to evaluate their answer sheets and, if successful, to appoint them based on merit without back wages until the date of appointment. Union of India and SSC Filed writ petitions challenging CAT’s order, arguing that the lack of signatures made the respondents’ identification doubtful. Highlighted that examination guidelines clearly stated that failure to follow instructions could lead to rejection of candidature.
Legal provisions:
Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India: Empower High Courts to issue certain writs and orders.
Contentions of Appellant:
Petitioners argued that the respondents’ failure to sign the opening page of their answer sheets raised doubts about their identification. They contended that this omission was not a minor error and could affect the outcome of the examination. Petitioners emphasized that the examination guidelines clearly stated that failure to follow instructions could lead to rejection of candidature. They asserted that SSC was justified in rejecting the candidature of respondents based on non-compliance with these guidelines. Appellant’s counsel cited legal precedents, including Karnataka Public Service Commission vs. B.M. Vijay Shankar & Ors., to support their argument regarding the importance of adhering to examination guidelines.
Contentions of Respondents:
Respondents argued that their failure to sign the opening page of the answer sheets was a minor and inadvertent error. They contended that their identity was not in doubt as they had signed other required documents and affixed thumb impressions on the answer sheets. Respondents highlighted that invigilators did not notice the missing signatures during the examination. They argued that if the omission had been significant, invigilators would have directed them to sign the opening sheet before leaving the examination centre. Respondent’s counsel cited Vashist Narayan Kumar v. State of Bihar, case to highlighting identity issues were not in dispute in the given case. They also referred Union of India vs. Sumit Kumar case for addressing minor errors not affecting candidate identification.
Court Analysis & Judgement:
The Court criticized the petitioners for the delay in filing the writ petitions, especially considering the impact on the candidates’ careers. However, the Court proceeded to analyse the substantive issues raised by both parties. The Court agreed with the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) decision that the omission to sign the opening page did not affect the respondents’ identification. It noted that invigilators had accepted the answer sheets without noticing the missing signatures, indicating the insignificance of the error. The Court found no infirmity in the CAT’s order and dismissed the writ petitions. Petitioners were given six weeks to comply with the directions issued by CAT regarding the evaluation of respondents’ answer sheets and their appointment based on merit.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Antara Ghosh
