Re-evaluation of objective exam answers and limited equitable protection for innocent appointees upheld after revised merit list

The Supreme Court upheld re-evaluation of an objective-type competitive examination where the conducting Board corrected defective model answers, deleted wrong questions, and issued a revised merit list, holding that such action was confined to objective questions capable of accurate reassessment and was not arbitrary. It also granted limited equitable protection to innocent appointees who had already undergone training and served for years, finding that immediate ouster would be unjust, but that they could not retain an unfair advantage from the earlier erroneous selection. Their adjustment through fresh appointment in the revised merit list was ordered without back wages, seniority, or other benefits from the original appointment.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the respondent-Board could validly cancel the first merit list and undertake re-evaluation of the answer scripts, including deletion of wrong questions and correction of model answers; and (ii) whether the appellants, having already undergone training and served for several years, could be ousted from service or were entitled to equitable protection.

Issue (i): whether the respondent-Board could validly cancel the first merit list and undertake re-evaluation of the answer scripts, including deletion of wrong questions and correction of model answers.

Analysis: Clause 14 of the Examination Conduct Rules was held to govern only defective or wrong objective questions and to permit deletion of such questions with pro-rata allocation of marks. The Court held that the Board, as the authority conducting the competitive examination, could correct irregularities in the evaluation process by re-evaluating the objective-type answers on the basis of corrected model answers and by deleting the defective questions. The exercise was not arbitrary or prejudicial, since it was confined to objective questions capable of accurate reassessment and was undertaken to identify the truly meritorious candidates.

Conclusion: The re-evaluation process and the revised merit list were upheld as valid.

Issue (ii): whether the appellants, having already undergone training and served for several years, could be ousted from service or were entitled to equitable protection.

Analysis: The Court noted that the appellants were innocent appointees and were not responsible for the erroneous evaluation. It balanced the illegality in the earlier selection process against the serious hardship that would result from immediate termination after years of training and service. Applying equitable considerations, the Court held that complete ouster would be unjust, but continued service could not confer unfair advantage over candidates in the revised merit list.

Conclusion: The appellants were protected by directing their appointment in the revised merit list at the bottom, without back wages, seniority, or other benefits of the earlier appointment.

Final Conclusion: The decision on re-evaluation was sustained, but the appellants were granted limited equitable protection by being adjusted through fresh appointment in the revised merit list on a non-prejudicial basis to the candidates selected therein.

Ratio Decidendi: An examining authority may correct objective-examination irregularities by re-evaluation and deletion of defective questions, and where innocent appointees have served for a substantial period, equitable relief may be granted to avoid undue hardship without preserving rights flowing from the erroneous earlier selection.

---