Holding

The Supreme Court held that the BPSC’s selection process was not vitiated and upheld the appointments of the Medical Officers (Ayurveda).

Summary

The Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) conducted a screening test and viva voce for 195 Ayurvedic Medical Officer vacancies. Several unsuccessful candidates challenged the process alleging question paper leakage, evaluation by unqualified staff, vague questions with multiple answers, lack of expert participation in interviews, and an excessive 50% weightage to viva voce. The High Court set aside the selection on these grounds and ordered a fresh advertisement. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined each allegation, finding no evidence of paper leakage, noting that answer sheets were evaluated against key answers supplied by paper‑setters, and that the presence of experts on most interview days satisfied procedural requirements. The Court also held that the weightage given to viva voce was not per se invalid and that the Commission, not the Chairman alone, conducted the examinations. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the BPSC’s selections were upheld.

Issues considered

The question papers for the screening test were leaked before the examination.
The answer sheets of an objective test were evaluated by clerical staff lacking subject expertise.
The screening test contained vague questions with more than one correct answer.
The interview panels did not include all nominated experts on every day of the viva voce.
The allocation of 50% marks to the viva voce rendered the selection process vitiated.

Subjects

Public Service CommissionSelection ProcessObjective TestViva VoceQuestion Paper LeakageMerit RecruitmentEvaluation ProcedureBihar Public Service Commission

Judgment

SH. SUBASH CHANDRA VERMA AND ORS. ETC. A
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC.

DECEMBER 13, 1994

[A.M. AHMADI, CJ ANDS. MOHAN, J.] B
.
Service Law: Selection-Filling up of post of Medical Officers
(Ayurveda)-Allegation that the question papers were out and become
marketable commodity before the examination-Irregularities including
evaluation ofanswer sheets by clerical staff of the Examination Department C
who had no knowledge of the subject of the examination also alleged--
Whether selection vitiated-Held No.

The Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) issued an advertise-
ment on 15.9.89 for filling up 56 vacancies to the post of Medical
Officers (Ayurveda), which number was subsequently increased to 195. D

On 10.1.93, the screening test was held. There were about 3,000
candidates who appeared for screening test. 410 candidates were
declared successful in the said screening test which included the
appellants.
E
Some of the candidates who failed to secure the minimum marks
and who could not be declared successful in the screening test filed writ
petitions seeking quashing of screening test held by BPSC on a number
of grounds. The principle grounds on which the screening test was
assailed were (i) the question papers had leaked and they became
marketable commodity before the examination, (H) the answer books of F
objective type examination came to the evaluated in the premises of
BPSC by the staff members who had no knowledge of the subject, (iii)
the Chairman of BPSC acted arbitrarily in holding the examination
and lastly (iv) the questions asked in the screening test were vague and
had more than one answer.
G
Meanwhile pursuant to the screening test held on 10.1.93 the
successful candidates were called for viva voce in batches before four
Boards constituted by the BPSC consisting of two Members of BPSC
and one Expert appointed either by the BPSC or by the State
Government H
507
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A Some more candidates who had failed in the screening test also
filed writ petition seeking to quash the screening test on the very same
·grounds as were urged in the earlier writ petition. The appellant
intervened in both these petitions. By a common judgment both the
writ petitions were allowed. The screening test was set aside mainly on
the grounds (i) the experts were not present during the interview on all
B the dates of interview by the BPSC, (ii) the questions ,•n the screening
test had more than one probable answer and (iii) the BPSC had fixed
50% for viva voce which was contrary to the rulings of this Court.
After so setting aside the test results, the High Court directed the BPSC
to advertise afresh for the post and make the selection. Aggrieved by
this, the appellants have filed the present appeals.
c Allowing the Appeals and uphol4ing the selection, this Court

HELD: 1. A democratic system could be administered well only if
the civil servants ate appointed solely on the basis of merit by open
competition. It is further essential that they should carry on the
administration independently instead of blindly carrying out the orders
D of the political superiors. For recruitment on the basis of merit, the
Constitution has provided for a Public Service Commission for the
Union as well as the States. They are made autonomous in order that
the functions may be carried on independently, fairly and impartially.
[516 E to F]
E Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., [1985] 4
sec 412, referred to.
2. The service commission in its counter had stated that the
question papers for the examination held on 10.1.93 had not leaked out
before the commencement of the examination. The question papers
F were in sealed packets at the time of delivery to the Zonal Officers for
distribution to the supervisor and no examination center ha.d reported
of any tempering with the sealed packets of the question papers.
[520 E]

3.1. The allegation that the answer books were freely available, was
G not made when the first writ petition came to be filed on 12.3.93. The
petitioners would state that about the leakage of these question papers,
a report was sent on 11.1.93 under certificate of posting. The specific
stand of the commission is that no such report was ever sent. If it had
been so sent, it would have been received at the office of the Service
Commission. That was never received. One is unable to understand
H why the petitioners chose to send the report (if at all it had been sent)
S. C. VERMA v. STATE OF BIHAR 509

under certificate of posting. If really such a representation was made, A
nothing would have been easier than to deliver the same at the counter
of the Service Commission and get a printed receipt in proof of having
filed such a representation. Therefore, that cannot have any probative
value since by then the valuation ·of the answer books was over. The
results relating to short listing had been published on 24.2.93. Hence
the production of answer sheets after the publication of results will B
have no evidentiary value. The same would be the case of the Press
Report dt.15.3.93. The High Court has not appreciated these aspects
properly. [520 G, 521 B to C]

3.2. The stand of the commission is that the screening was objective
type and the evaluation staff members were merely required to give C
marks with reference to key-answers supplied by paper setters, the
evaluation staff members were not required at all to have the
knowledge of the subjects as they were to merely evaluate the answers
with reference to standard answer sheets applied by the paper-setters.
Thus, the lack of knowledge of the subject on the part of the evaluation
staff has not affected at all the case of the candidates. If really the key D
answers had been supplied to the persons in charge of valuation, there
was no need to send the answer books for out side valuation. It is also to
be noted that no candidate was put to any disadvantage since there was
no negative marking. (521 E to F]
3.3. Besides the Full Commission had taken a decision regarding E
the evaluation of the answer sheets in the above terms by its resolution
dt.15.1.93 as this was an objective test According to the Commission,
in such- tests, if possible, the answer sheets are examined by optical
Marks Reader Computer [which examines the objective answer sheets].
It is fed the correct answers on key answer sheets and it corrects the
answer papers accordingly. In this case since no Optical Marks Reader F
Computer was available the commission decided to examine the answer
sheets with the help of the key to correct answers obtained from the
paper setter through its senior most Assistants for which no knowledge
of the subject was required. Thus, the High Court is not justified in
concluding that the evaluation was vitiated. [521 G to H, 522 A]
G
4. In an objective type of test, more than one answer is given. The
candidates are required to tick mark the answer which is appropriate
out of the plurality of answers. The questions and answers were
prepared by the experts in the field with reference to standard books.
Therefore, it is incorrect to say that a question will have more than one
correct answers. Even if the answer could be more than one, the H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A candidates will have to select the one which is more appropriate out of
the alternative answers. In any event, this [is a) difficulty was felt by all
the candidates. [522 B to C]

5. The High Court should have appointed an expert body and
obtained its opinion about the confusing or controversial nature of
B questions. For reasons best known, it was not done. It has merely chose
to accept the version of the writ petitioners before it. The reason why
this Court has repeatedly pointed out that such · matters should be
referred to an expert body and its opinion sought, is that in academic
matters like this, Courts do not have the necessary expertise. [522 F]

C Kanpur University and Ors. v. Samir Gupta and Ors., [1984) l SCR
73, distinguished.

Dr. Shantanu Singh v. State of UP. and Ors., AIR (1993) All 85,
referred to.

6. The Commission had given clear instructions to the evaluators to
D
award full marks to the candidates in cases where (a) the candidate has
put tick mark against the correct answer and has also put correct
answer in the box ;

(b) the candidate has put only tick mark against the correct answer
but has not written anything in the box ; and
E
(c) the candidate has written correct answer in the box but has not
put any tick mark against the correct answers. No candidate was put to
any disadvantage in awarding marks because of any discrepancy,
ambiguity or duplicity. Moreover, there being no negative marking, no
disadvantage was caused to any candidate on this amount.
F [523 H, 524 A to B]

7. If really on the first two days the experts of the Commission
participated and on 17th, 18th and 19th the expert nominated by the
Government had participated, the High Court had clearly gone wrong
G
when it found that the statement was vague and it does not state as to ..
under what circumstances the services of the experts were not
requisitioned for viva voce test held on 15th and 16th March, 1993. It is
very important to note that there is no allegation impeaching the
credibility of experts chosen by the Service Commission. Nor, have the
writ petitioners stated that because of the participation of experts
appointed by the. commission, the selection was vitiated. 50% marks
H
S. C. VERMA v. STATE OF BIHAR [MOHAN, J.] 511

had been allocated for the interview. Therefore, the entire process of A
selection was vitiated. [527 D to F]

Anzar Ahmed v. State of Bihar and Ors., [1994) 1 SCC 150, relied
upon.

8. It is the entire commission which has conducted these exami- B
nations and not the Chairman alone. [528 E]

Sanjay Kumar Singh v. Bihar Public Service Commission and Ors.,
(1993) BLJ 328, distinguished.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 31-32 of C
1994 etc. etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.7.93 of the Patna High Court in
C.W.J.C. Nos. 2512 and 2646of1993.

Gopal Subramaniam, and M.L. Verma, Vikas Singh, Gopal Singh,
Rakesh U. Upadhyay, D.B. Vohra, Sanjeev Malhotra, L.R. Singh, Rana D
Mukherjee, Goodwill Indeevar, Yunus Malick, E.C. Vidya Sagar, C.B.
Babu, Anip Sachthey and B.B. Singh for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MOHAN, J. The Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter E
referred to as 'BPSC') issued an advertisement on 15.9.1989 for filling up
56 vacancies to the post of Medical Officers (Ayurveda) in the State Of
Bihar. In that advertisement it was specifically provided that for the purpose
of selection screening test would be held to short-list the candidates before
making final selection. By a corrigendum dated 28.8.1991 it was stated that
the vacancies to the post of Medical Officers (Ayurveda) had increased by F
139. Thus, the total vacancies became 195. Another corrigendum dated
13.9.1992 was issued stating that all eligible candidates for the interview
whoever became eligible till the date of the interview could take the
interview. on 24.12.1992, letters were issued by BPSC to all eligible
candidates to appear for objective type test in order to screen the applicants G
and to short-list the number of candidates.

On 10.1.1993, the screening test was held by BPSC. There were about
3,000 candidates who appeared for screening test. The results of the
screening test were declared on 24.2.1993. 410 candidates were declared
successful in the said screening test which included the appellants herein. H
512 ciSUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A Some of the candidates who failed to secure the minimum marks and
who could not be declared successful in the screening test filed C.W.J.C ..
No. 2512 of 1993 on 12.3.1993. They sought to quash the screening test
held by BPSC on a number of grounds. The principal grounds on which the
screening test was assailed are:

B 1. The question papers had leaked and they became marketable
commodity before the examination.

2. The answer books of objective type examination came to be
evaluated in the premises of BPSC by the staff who had no knowledge of
examination.
c
3. The Chainnan of BPSC had acted arbitrarily in holding the
examination. ·

4. The question asked in the screening test were vague and had more
than one answers.
D
Pursuant to the screening test held on 10.1.1993 the successful
candidates were called for viva voce between 15.3.1993 to 19.3.1993 in
batches before four Boards constituted by the BPSC. In all such interview
boards, two Members of BPSC and one Expert appointed either by the
BPSC or by the State Government constituted the Board.
E
Some more candidates, who had failed in the screening test, filed
C.W.J.C. No. 2646 of 1993 on 19.3.1993, seeking to quash the screening
test on the very same grounds as were urged in C.W.J.C. No. 2512of1993.
The appellants filed intervention petitions in both these petitions. They
were allowed by the High Court and the counsel for interveners were heard.
F By a common judgment dated 19.7.93, both the writ petitions were allowed.
The screening test dated 10.1.1993 was set aside mainly on the following
grounds:

1. The experts were not taken during the interview on all the dates of
interview by the BPSC;
G
2. the questions in screening test had more than one probable answer;
and

3. the BPSC had fixed 50 per cent for viva voce which was contrary to
H the rulings of this Court.
S. C. VERMA v. STATE OF BIHAR [MOHAN, J.] 513

After so setting aside, the High Court directed the BPSC to advertise A
afresh for the post and make the selection. Aggrieved by this, ~e appellants
have filed this civil appeals.

Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1994 and Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1994 are
directed against the judgment and order of the Patna High Court dated
19.7.1993 passed in C.W.J.C. Nos 2512 of 1993 and 2646 of 1993 B
respectively.

Mr. Gopal Subramanian, learned counsel for the appellants states that
the High Court had completely misdirected itself and had arrived at wrong
conclusions. The allegation that answer books were freely available was not
made when the first writ petition came to be filed on 12.3.1993. The alleged C
question and answer sheets came to be filed by the BPSC. Only thereafter
the writ petitioners filed the same before the court. If really, there was a
representation, in this regard, on 11.1.1993, the stand of the BPSC is that no
such representation was received by the Examination's Office. It is
somewhat surprising that such an important representation should have
been sent under Certificate of Posting rather than by Registered Post. Even D
otherwise, there is an enquiry Counter in the Office of the BPSC. If really,
such a representation was to be filed, nothing would have been easier than
to deliver the same at the Counter and get a printed receipt in proof of
having filed that representation. Nothing of that sort was done. The Press
Report about the leakage of question paper came to appear months after the
examination and no credence could be given to such a report. Therefore, the E
finding of the High Court, on this aspect, is clearly wrong.

As regards the allegation of corruption it is somewhat strange that the
rejoinder is completely silent on this aspect. The High Court had committed
the mistake ofreferring to Annexure XII mentioned in the rejoinder.
F
Concerning the expert participation the position is as follows:

On 26.2.1993, a request was made by the Chairman of BPSC for
nominating 8 experts for interview. The Government replied on 12.3.1993
nominating the experts. Since the interviews were to commence on
15.3.1993 the BPSC had made its own arrangement. However, the BPSC G
replied, as and when it was necessary, the experts appointed by the
Government will be informed. The High Court had completely gone wrong
in holding that there were no experts on all five days oblivious of the fact
that on each one of the interview dates from 15th to 19th March, 1993, the
experts nominated by the BPSC participate<,i. On the last two days two of
the experts nominated by the Government also participated. It is important H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A to note that there is no allegation impeaching the credibility of experts
nominated by the BPSC. Hence, the finding of the High Court that it is
highly disturbing to notice that the BPSC, on its own, had been taking such
decisions which do not answer the test of reasonableness or fairness is
incorrect. The BPSC had clearly brought this out in its counter affidavit to
the supplementary affidavit. Thus, the finding of the High Court is
B unsupportable.

The High Court holds that in the screening test at least 24 per cent
questions are confusing and controversial and do not adhere to the norms of
such multiple choice type questions. This statement is made by the writ
petitioners and the High Court chooses to accept the same. If the High
C Court had referred the matter to an expert committee and if the expert
committee had so opined at least something could be said in favour of the
respondents therein. The High Court has no competence to conclude
whether a question is capable of two answers. More than above this, there
was no negative marking nor even is it the case of the present respondents
that they answered the so-called confusing questions in one way and they
D have not been awarded marks. No such attempt was ever made by any of
the appellants excepting to make a vague allegation that the questions were
confusing and can be of two answers. Such an allegation could not be
accepted straightaway.

The BPSC is faulted for having assigned 100 per cent for viva voce.
E this Court in Abid Asghar v. State ofBihar and Others, [1994] 1 SCC 151
held that 50 per cent marks for viva voce and 50 per cent marks for
academic performance should be the criterion. In view of this decision, the
contrary finding of the High Court is incorrect in law.

The High Court has further held that the evaluation of the answer
F sheets should not have been done by the staff of the BPSC; that the answer
books should have been sent for outside evaluation. Reliance placed on
Shantanu Singh v. State of UP. and Others reported in AIR (1993)
Allahabad page 85 has no application to be present case. Having regard to
the fact that this is an objective type of question paper, so long as the key
answers are supplied to those who are in charge of the evaluation, the BPSC
G cannot be blamed. All that is required to be done is to tally the answer with
the key answer. There is nothing wrong in that evaluation. Thus, the
judgment of the High Court is totally unsupportable and requires to be set
aside.

Mr. ML Verma, learned counsel, appearing for the contesting
H respondents (the writ petitioners before the High Court) would urge, it
S. C. VERMA v. STATE OF BIHAR [MOHAN, J.] 515

cannot be denied that the questions were confusing. Several questions were A
capable of two answers. That being so, where the respondents are
prejudiced, it is open to them to complain. In this case, out of the 50
questions, at least, 12 questions, namely, 24 per cent were confusing and
controversial and do not adhere to the norms of such multiple choice type
questions. This allegation has come to be accepted by the High court. This
court also in Kanpur University and Others v. Samir Gupta and Others, B
AIR (1983) SC 1230 had critisied such type of questions. Rightly, the High
Court had followed the ruling of this Court. As was pointed out by the High
Court, even if the evaluation of the answer sheets of the candidates is not
computer-based, no attempt was made on the part of the BPSC to find out
whether there was any discrepancy in the key answers; nor was any expert
committee constituted in this regard. C
Annexures formed part of the affidavit. Therefore, as rightly held by
the High Court, Annexures V and IX had not been rebutted by the BPSC.

With regard to the appointment of experts the BPSC is unable to
explain as to why, when it received the communication from the D
Government on 12th March, 1983 itself, the experts appointed by the
Government were not allowed to participate and were asked to go. After all,
there were still three days left for the viva voce to commence. It is this
aspect which has come in for comment at the hands of the High Court. A
statutory functionary like the BPSC cannot behave in this fashion. In the
writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 2512 of 1993) filed by Dr. Uma Kumar and E
Ors. It was specifically alleged at paragraph 2 as under:

"Whether the examination in question could be held on
10.1.93, even after the question papers were out, and had
become a marketable commodity, before the examination
was held? F
xxx xxx xxx

Whether the answer books could be examined in the premises of the
BPSC building itself, by clerical staff of the Examination Department who
had no knowledge of the subject of the Examination?" G

In paragraph 16 it was stated thus:

"That the petitioners had obtained the photostat of the
question papers with correct answers, sold to the candidates
at the test examination centers, for price. H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A The copy of the question paper and answer is attached herewith as
Annexure-2."

Though this writ petition made the specific allegation the same was not
met in the counter by the BPSC. If really, according to the BPSC, the
answer books were in sealed envelops, the question of obtaining the answer
B books surreptitiously would not arise. Therefore, this statement in the
counter has to be rejected.

The explanation offered by the BPSC for directing the evolution to be
done by the clerical staff is strange. Even though it is an objective type test
unless the valuer has some knowledge of Ayurveda, such an evaluation
C must be held to be bad in law and farcical. The High Court had delved into
these factual aspects and come to a proper conclusion. Hence, interference
by this Court may not be warranted.

In Civil Appeal No. 32/94 Mr. Rakesh Upadhyay appearing for
respondents submits that the Chairman had himself instructed to the
D Commission to handle the examinatfons. Hence, they are invalid. In support
of this argument reliance is placed on Sanjay Kumar v. Bihar Public
Service Commission, 1993 (1) B.L.J. 328.

We will now proceed to examine the correctness of these submissions.

A democratic system could be administered well only if the Civil
E
servants are appointed solely on the basis of merit by open competition. It
is further essential that they should carry on the administration
independently instead of blindly carrying out the orders of the political
superiors. For recruitment on the basis of merit, the constitution has
provided for a Public Service Commission for the union as well as at the
F States Level. They are made autonomous in order that the functions could
be carried on independently, fairly and impartially. The importance and the
role a Public Service Commission is expected to play, ha5 been pointed out
by this Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.,
[1985) 4 sec 417 at 456 in the following words :

" ..... the Public Service Commission occupies a pivotal place
G
of importance in the State and the integrity and efficiency of
its adIDinistrative apparatus depends considerably on the
quality of the selections made by the Public Service
Commission. It is absolutely essential that the best and finest
talent should be drawn in the administration and
H admiriistrative services must be composed of men who are
S. C. VERMA v. STATE OF BIHAR [MOHAN, J.] 517

honest, upright and independent and who are not swayed by A
the political winds blowing in the country. The selection of
candidates for the administrative services must therefore be
made strictly on merits, keeping in view various factors
which go to make up a strong, efficient and people oriented
administrator. This can be achieved only if the Chairman and
members of the Public Service Commission are eminent men B
possessing a high degree of caliber, competence and
integrity, who would inspire confidence in the public mind
about the objectivity and impartiality of the selections to be
made by them. We would therefore like to strongly impress
upon every State Government to take care to see that its
Public Service Commission is manned by competent, honest C
and independent persons of outstanding ability and high
reputation who command the confidence of the people and
who would not allow themselves to be deflected by any
extraneous considerations from discharging their duty of
making selections strictly on merit.. ..... "
D
Therefore, every Service Commission is expected to conduct its affairs
fairly and impartially.
'
The Government of Bihar by its letter dated 3.2.1989 requested the
BPSC to make recommendation for appointment on the temporary posts of
Ayurvedic Medical Officer. The Commission invited applications from E
suitable and eligible candidates by its advertisement No. 24189 which was
published in the Bihar Gazette on 20.9.1989. The said post of Ayurvedic
Medical Officer is a Gazetted Class-II post and carries the pay scale of Rs.
1000-50-1700-EB-60-1820. The number of posts were 56. The candidates
were required to possess the degree of Ayurveda or equivalent degree
obtained from a recognized and approved college. In addition, the F
candidates were also required to possess the Internship Training Certificate
of six months from a recognized institution which has a provision for
indoor patients as also for training of Ayurvedic Medical Officer. The
maximum age of the candidates as on 1.8.1989 was fixed at 35 years.
However, for state government employees, the maximum age was 40 years G
and the candidates of scheduled caste and scheduled tribes were entitled to
relaxation in the age-limit for a maximum of 5 years. The last date for
making of the applications was 15th November, 1989. The advertisement
clearly stipulated that the aforesaid qualifications are minimum
qualifications and the candidates not possessing the minimum qualifications
will have no right to be called for interview. In the event of receipt oflarge H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A number of applications, it will be open to the Commission to conduct a
screening test.

In the meanwhile, the Commission was informed by the Government
of Bihar that the Health Department had taken a decision to fix the age limit
in place of 1.8.1989 to 1.8.1988. Accordingly, the maximum age limit as on
B 1.8.1988 had to be 35 years. Rest of the terms and conditions were to
remain the same. In view of the aforesaid development, the Commission on
7.3 .1990 issued a corrigendum and informed the candidates about the same.
The other terms and conditions were to remain the same. However, in view
of the change, the last date for making of the applications was extended to
28.3.1990.
c
The Commission received a further communication from the
Government of Bihar whereby the Government informed the commission
that it has created 139 more posts of Ayurvedic Medical Officers with the
result that vacancies now were increased to 195. Accordingly, the
·Commission again on 24.8.1991 issued a corrigendum bringing the
D aforesaid facts to the notice of general public. In the light of increased
vacancies, the last date for making of the applications was extended to
7.10.1991. Rest of the terms and conditions were to remain the same.

It appears in the case of appointment of Unani Medical Officer, the
Patna High Court in a writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 2672 of 1992) had
E directed the Government and the Commission to permit alJ candidates in
the interview if they possess the requisite qualification by the time of the
interview. In view of this ruling, the Government and the Commission
decided to permit all candidates to appear in the interview who would be
completing the period of internship and are in a position to produce their
Internship Certificate and the Registration Certificate on the date of
F
interview notwithstanding that by the time of the making of the applications
they had not completed the Internship. Hence, the Commission again on
9.9.1992 issued another corrigendum informing the candidates that all such
candidates who are in a position to produce the Internship Training
Certificate and the Registration Certificate by the time of interview, shall be
G eligible to appear in the interview. Accordingly, the last date for making of
the applications was extended to 30th of September, 1992.

In view of receipt c;f large number of applications, the Commission on
10.1.1993 conducted Ayurvedic Chikitsa Padadhikari (objective type
screening test) at seven centres. The candidates were required to merely put
H a tick(../) mark against the correct answers. The results of the screening test
S. C. VERMA v. STATE OF BIHAR [MOHAN, J.] 519

was published on 24.2.1993. C.W.J.C. No.2512/1993 was filed on A
12.3..1993. The viva-voce took place between 15.3.1993 to 19.3.1993. After
the test, since the question booklet-cum-answer sheets were· print.ed on
ordinary papers and further since the Commission was not having the
facility of optical marks reader which can examine the computerized
answer-sheets of objective tests and hence, the full Commission in its
meeting held on 15.1.1993, decided to get the answer-sheets evaluated in B
the office of the commission with reference to key of correct answer
supplied by the paper-setters who were chosen from outside Bihar by the
senior most Assistant under the direct supervision of officer-on-special duty
(Examination-in-Charge) as also under the supervision of the members of
the commission. Since the examination was of objective type and correct
answers were supplied by the paper-setter, the checking staff were merely C
required to check the correct answers with reference to the stencil and
award marks accordingly. For the said purpose, they were not required to
possess the knowledge of the subject concerned. Therefore, the Commission
had decided to evaluate the answer sheets manually with the help of key of
correct answers supplied by the paper-setters. Accordingly, the Officer on
special duty-cum-Deputy' Secretary (lncharge Examination) with the help D
of the confidential section under the direct supervision of the members of
the Commission got the marks calculated according to the key provided by
the question setters. The calculation of the marks was again checked by the
Officer on special duty-cum-Deputy Secretary (lncharge Examination) as
also by the members of the Commission on the basis of random checking. E
The marks thus calculated were fed into the computer and the final result
was obtained. Thus, in the entire process, there was no subjective
evaluation or element involved. The result so prepared of the screening test
was published on 24.2.1993. The factors which weighed with the High
Court in setting aside the impugned selections to the post of Medical
Officer (Ayurveda) are as follows :
F
1. Because of rampant corruption, the questions paper that had leaked
out, had become a marketable commodity even before the
examination. In fact, answers to these questions were freely
available.
G
2. The Service Commission had the answer books examined by the
staff of the Service Commission contrary to the prevailing practice
of the getting them examined by experts of different States.

3. Several controversial questions were set and in relation to some
questions, there could be more than one answer. H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A 4. There had been gross violations of the nonns set out for selection
as the Commission did not utilize the services of the experts
nominated by the State except on two days at the interview.

5. 50 marks had been allocated for the interview. Therefore, the
entire process of selection was vitiated.
B
We will now examine, whether these grounds had been made out by
those candidates who took the objective test as well as the viva voce and yet
could qualify for selection.
\
1. Because of rampant. corruption, the questions paper that had
c leaked out, had become a marketable commodity even before the
examination. In fact, answer to these questions were freely
available: In paragraph 15 of the impugned judgment, the High
Court states : "So far as the contention of rampant corruption in
holding the examination is concerned, even the petitioners could
obtain a photostat copy of the questions papers with correct
D answers; one of which is contained in -Annexure 5 to the writ
application and other is contained in Annexure 12 to the reply to
the counter-affidavit filed by the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No.2512
of 1993."

Reference is made to Annexure 12. The Service Commission in its
E counter had stated that the question papers for the examination held on
10.1.93 had not leaked out before the commencement of the examination.
The question papers were in sealed packets at the time of delivery to the
Zonal Officers for distribution to the supervisors of different examination
centres. No supervisor of any examination centre had reported of any
tempering with the sealed packets of the question papers.
F
The allegation that the answer books were freely available, was not
made when the first CWJC no.2512/93 came to be filed on 12.3.93. The
petitioners would state that about the leakage of these question papers, a
report was sent on 11.1.93. under certificate of posting. The specific stand
of the Commission is that no such report was ever sent. If it had been so
G sent, it would have been received at the office of the Service Commission.
That was never received. The nonnal procedure for sending such a
representation is pointed out in the counter affidavit of the Service
Commission as under :

" ... the office of the Bihar Public Service Commission has an
H Enquiry Counter. Any person can file any paper at this
S. C. VERMA v. STATE OF BIHAR [MOHAN, I.] 521

counter and get a printed receipt thereof. As has been stated A
earlier no such representation was received in the office of
the Commission ... "
_ _/
We are at a loss to understand why the petitioners chose to send the
report [if at all it had been sent] under certificate of posting. As has rightly
been pointed out by Mr. Gopal Subramanium, if really such a B
representation was made, nothing would have been easier than to deliver
the same at the counter of the Service Commission and get a printed receipt
in proof of having filed such a representation. The High Court referred to
Annexure 12 which is mentioned only in the rejoinder filed in CWJC no
. 2512193. Therefore, that cannot have any credential value since by then the
valuation of the answer books was over. The results relating to short listing C
had been published on 24.2.93. The writ petitions came to be filed on
12.3.93. Hence, the production of answer sheets after the publ_ication of
" results will have no evidentiary value. The same would be the case of the
Press Report dated 15.3.93. We are afraid, the High Court has not appre-
ciated these aspects properly.
... 2. The Service Commission had the answer books examined by the staff
D

of the Service Commission contrary to the prevailing practice of getting
them examined by experts of different States: The stand of the Commission
is the screening test was objective type and the evaluation staff were merely .
required to give marks with reference to key-answer supplied by paper E
setters, the evaluation staff were not required at all to have the knowledge·
of the subjects as they were to merely evaluate the answers with reference
to standard answer sheets supplied by the paper-setters. Thus, the lack of
knowledge of the subject on the part of the evaluation staff has not affected
at all the case of the candidates.
F
If really the key answers had been supplied to the persons in charge of
the valuation, where was the need to send these answer books for outside
valuation? It is also to be noted that no candidate was put to any
disadvantage since there was no negative marking.

Besides, the Full Commission had taken a decision regarding the G
evaluation of answersheets in the above terms by its Resolution dt. 15.1.93
as this was an objective test. According to the Commission, in such tests if
possible, the answersheets are examined by Optical Marks Reader
Computer and Optical Marks Reader Computer which examines the
objective answer sheets has no knowledge of the subject. It is fed the
correct answers on key answersheets and it corrects the answer papers H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A accordingly. In this case since no Optical Marks Reader Computer was
available the Commission decided to examine the answer sheets with the
help of the key to correct answers obtained from the paper setter through its
senior most Assistants for which no knowledge of the subject was required.
Thus, in our view, the High Court is not justified in concluding the
valuation was vitiated.
B
3. Several controversial questions were set and in relation to some
questions, there could be more than one answer: In an objective type of
test, more than one answer are given. The candidates are required to tick
mark the answer which is the most appropriate out of the plurality of
answers. The questions and answers were prescribed by the experts in the
c field with reference to standard books. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that a
question will have more than one correct answer. Even ifthe answers could
be more than one, the candidates will have to select the one which is more
correct out of the alternative answers. In any event, this is a difficulty felt
by all the candidates.
....
D Mr, Kamla Kant Tripathi in his counter affidavit talks of only two
questions. The High Court had come to the conclusion that 24% questions
are confusing and controversial and do not adhere to the multiple type of
questions.

Mr. M.L. Verma, learned counsel relying on Kanpur University .and
E Ors. v. Samir Gupta and Ors., [1984] 1 SCR 73 would submit that the
finding of the High Court on this aspect is fully justified.

We are unable to uphold this contention. Normally speaking, the High
Court should have appointed an expert body and obtained its opinion about
the confusing or controversial nature of questions. For reasons best known,
F it was not done. It has merely chosen to accept the version of the writ
petitioners before it. The reason why this Court has repeatedly pointed out
such matters being referred to an expert body and its opinion sought, is that
. in academic matters like this, courts do n6t have the necessary expertise. In
Kanpur University's case [supra] relied upon by Mr. M.L. Verma, the
. following observations occur at pp. 81-82:
G
"We agree that the key-answer should be assumed to be
correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not
be held to be wrong by an inferential process of
rationalization. It must be clearly demostrated to be wrong,
that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men
H well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. .
S. C. VERMA v. STATE OF BIHAR [MOHAN, J.] 523

The contention of the University is falsified in this case by a · A
large number of acknowledged text books, which are
commonly read by students in U.P. Those text-books leave
no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is
correct and the key answer is incorrect.

Students who have passed their Intermediate Board Examina- B
tion are eligible to appear for the entrance Test for admission
to the Medical Colleges in U.P. Certain books are prescribed
for the Intermediate Board Examination and such knowledge
of the subjects as the students have is derived from what is
contained in those text-books. Those text-books support the
case of the students fully. If this were a case of doubt, we C
would have unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if
the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to
penalize the students for not giving an answer which accords
with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is
demonstrated to be wrong."
D
That is not the position here.

In Dr. Shantanu Singh v. State of U.P. and Others, AIR (1993) All. 85,
it is stated at page 87 as under:

"In proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution it is not E
possible for this court to further probe into the matter and on
the basis of affidavits and documents on record it has not
been established that more than 6 questions had dual correct
answers resulting in any disadvantage to the candidates who
attempted the said questions. The University has directed that
no negative marking on the disputed 6 questions should be F
done and as such no prejudice has been caused to the
students who appeared in the examination. It is noteworthy
that the University suo motu examined this aspect after the
examinations were over and constituted a Committee of
Experts to ensure that the students did not suffer on this
score." G

In the circumstances quoted above, the question of appointment of a
Committee of Experts suo motu by the Commission did not arise.

It requires further to be noted that the Commission had given clear
instructions to tlie evaluators to award full marks to the candidates in cases H
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A where (a) candidate has put tick mark against the correct answer and has
also put correct answer in the box; (b) candidate has put only tick mark
against the correct answer but has not written anything in the box; and (c)
the candidate has written correct answer in the box but has not put any tick
mark against the correct answers. No candidate was put to any disadvantage
in awarding marks because of any discrepancy, ambiguity or duplicity.
B Moreover, there being no negative marking, no disadvantage was caused to
any candidate on this account.

Lastly, we may also note Annexure 2 complained o!1ly about 2
questions while Annexure 5 about 6 questions and Annexure 6 about
another 6 questions as confusing and controversial. The High Court merely
C adds up all these and says 24% are confusing and controversial. We are not
in a position to accept the finding of the High Court on this issue.

4. There had been gross violations of the norms set out for selection as
the Commission did not utilize the services of the experts nominated by the
State except on two days at the interview: On 26.2.1993 the Commission
D had written to the Government for nomination of experts. The Government
replied that letter on 12.3.1993 as under:

"GOVT. OF BIHAR
HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE
DEPARTMENT
E From

Sh. Bhairva Mahto
Deputy Secretary to Govt.

To
F
Chairman,
Bihar Public Service Commission,
Beli Road, Patna.

Patna, dated 12.3.93
G Sub: In connection with nominations of experts for appointment of
Ayurvedic Medical Officers.

Sir,

With reference to your letter No.2375 dated 26.2.93 on the above
H subject, l am directed to say that a request has been made for nominating
S. C. VER..\1A v. STATE OF BIHAR [MOHAN, J.] 525

eight experts for interview of the appointment of Ayurvedic Medical A

- Officers.

In this connection the names of the following officers have been
selected:

Dr. Anirudh Mishra M.D. PHD
.., 1. Superintendent B
Govt. Ayurvedic College
and Hospital, Patna.

2. Dr. N.G. Bandhyopadhyaya Prof. and H.O.D. P.S.Deptt, Govt
M.D.,PHD Ayurvedic College, Patna.

3. Dr. Sudhakar Sharma M.D. Prof. lncharge, Principal, Govt. c
..,. Ayurvedic College and
Hospital,Darbhanga.

4. Dr. Bali Ram, M.D. Professor Govt. Ayurvedic
College, Patna.
D
5. Dr. Bidyanand Prasad Reader, Department of
M.D. E.N.T., Govt. Ayurvedic
College, Patna

6. Dr. Maltilata Sinha Professor, Govt. Ayurvedic
College, Begusarai. E

7. Dr. K.P. Mishra, M.D. Reader, P.G. Deptt.
Ayurvedic College, Patna.

8. Dr. Ramsebak Singh M.D. Lecrurer, Govt. Ayurvedic
College, Patna. F

Sd/- Bhairba Mahto
Deputy Secretary

- Memo No. Health Patna
Dated G

Copy forwarded to:-

All concerned officers for information. It is requested that they should
ensure to reach B.P.S.C. office on 15.3.93 before 9 a.m. for taking
interview of Ayurvedic Medical oftjcer. H

(
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A Sd/- Bhairba Mahto
Deputy Secretary
Bihar State Govt."

The interviews were to take place from 15.3.1993 onwards. By then the
-
Commission had appointed its own experts. In the counter of the
B Commission filed before the High Court it is stated:

" ... the Commission appoints expert for interviews either by
itself for requests the Government to assign experts from the
concerned Department. In this case the Commission had on
its own, appointed some experts as also 8 experts were
C assigned by the Government at the Commission's request. On
the first day of interview i.e. 15 .3 .1993 the services of all the
experts were not required and accordingly they were so
informed. They were also informed that on the subsequent
dates of their services are required they shall be accordingly
informed and requested to assist at the interview.
D
That thereafter i.e. on 17th, 18th and 19th, March, 1993 some
of the 8 experts assigned by the Government were requested
to assist the Commission at the interview and accordingly
two experts assigned by the Government namely Dr. K.P.
Mishra and Dr. Bali Ram took part in the interview on those
E days."

The same stand is reiterated in the affidavit filed before this Court
which is as follows:

"There is no provision either in the rules or in instructions
F that the Commission cannot appoint its own experts. Infact, ....
the past practice shows that the Commission itself used to
appoint experts who are to be associated with th& interview.
In the instant case also, the Commission appointed following
experts:
•
G 1. Dr. Nagesh Dwivedi

2. Dr. Jai Prakash Narayan Singh

3. Dr. Ajmat Hussain Ansari

4. Dr. (Smt.) Vidyawat Pathak
H
S. C. VERMA v. STATE OF BIHAR [MOHAN, J.] 527

5. Dr. Devanand Prasad Singh, and A
6. Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh .

All the aforesaid experts were associated and they partici-
pated in the Interview Board held on 15th and 16th of March,
1993. In addition, the Government had also forwarded list of B
eight experts to the Commission out of whom, Dr. Baliram
and Dr. K.P. Mishra were associated with the interview held
on 17th, 18th, and 19th of March, 1993. In this view of the
matter, the High Court erred in coming to the conclusion that
it was not explained as to why and under what circumstances
the services of the experts were not requisitioned for the viva C
voce test held on 15th and 16th March, 1993. The
Commission is not obliged to select experts nominated by the
Government alone."

Ifreally, therefore, on the first two days, the experts of the Commission
participated and on 17th, 1·8th, and 19th Dr. Bali Ram and Dr. K.P. Mishra, D
the experts nominated by the Government had participated, the High Court
had clearly gone wrong when it found "the statement was vague and it does
not state as to under what circumstances the services of the experts were not
requisitioned for viva voce test held on 15th and 16th March, 1993". It is
very important to note that there is no allegation impeaching the credibility
of experts accepted by the Service Commission. Nor again, have the writ E
petitioners stated that because of the participation of experts appointed by
the Commission participating, the selection was vitiated.

5. 50 marks had been a/located/or the interview. Therefore, the entire
process of selection was vitiated: This point is concluded by the recent
decision of this Court in Anzar Ahmed v. State of Bihar and Ors., [1994] 1 F
sec 150). The headnote reads:
" The decision of the Supreme Court with regard to fixation
of marks for interview in a selection broadly fall in two
categories: (i) selection for admission to educational
institutions and (ii) selection for employment in service. The G
personality . traits of students seeking admission to
educational institutions are not fully developed and therefore
greater importance has to be given to written examination
than to viva voce but in case of appointment to public service
recruitment has to be made from persons of mature
personality. The observations in Lila Dhar case indicate that H
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 6-S.C.R '"'-

A question of weightage of marks to be attached to interview
vis-a-vis marks for written examination can arise only when
written examination as well as viva voce test are both
accepted as essential features of selection. There also no hard
and fast rule regarding the precise weightage to be given to
viva voce test as against written examination, can be laid
B down. The weightage must vary according to the
requirements of service.

The question of weightage to be attached to viva voce would
not arise where the selection is to be made on the basis of
interview only. Decision in Ashok alias Somanna Gowda
c case cannot be construed to mean that the principles which
govern ·the allocation of marks for interview in a selection
based on written and viva voce would also apply to a
selection where no written test is held but the selection is
based on interview only."

D Mr. Rakesh Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the respondents in C.A.
No.32/94 raises an additional point that insofar as the Chairman himself had
handled the examination without reference to the Commission, the entire
exam!nation stood vitiated. In support of the submission he places reliance
on Sanjay Kumar Singh v. Bihar Public Service Commission and Ors.,
(1993) 1 BLJ 328. The Service Commission would counter this argument
E by submitting that this is factually incorrect. It is the entire Commission
which has conducted these examinations. Thus, the reliance placed on
Sanjay Kumar Singh 's case (supra) is wrong and not justified as laid down
in the same decision at pp. 338-40. We find it to be factually incorrect. The
Commission in its affidavit categorically states:
F
"After the test, since the questions booklet-cum-answer
sheets were printed on ordinary papers and further since the
Commission was not having the facility of Optical Marks
Reader which can examine the computerized answersheets of
objective tests and hence, the full Commission in its meeting
G held on ) 5. 1. 1993, decided to get the answer-sheets
evaluated in the office of the Commission with reference to
key of correct answers, supplied by the paper-setters, who
were chosen from outside Bihar, by the senior most Assistant
under the direct supervision of Officer-on-Special Duty
[Examination In charge] as also under the supervision of the
H members of the Commission. Since the examination was of
S. C. VERMA v. STATE OF BIHAR [MOHAN, J.) 529

objective type and correct answers were supplied by the A
paper-setter, the Checking Staff were merely required to
check the correct answers with reference to the stencil and
award marks accordingly. For the said purpose, they were not
required to possess the knowledge of the subject concerned.
Therefore, the Commission had decided to evaluate the
answer sheets manually with the help of key of correct B
answers. Supplied by the paper-setters. Accordingly, the
officer on Special Duty-cum-Deputy Secretary (lncharge
Examination) with the help of the confidential section under
the direct supervision of the members of the Commission, got
the marks calculated according to the Key provided by the
question setters. The calculation of the marks was again C
checked by the Officer on Special Duty-cum-Deputy
Secretary [Incharge Examination] as also by the members of
the Commission on the basis of random checking. The marks
thus calculated were fed into the computer and the final result
was obtained. Thus, in the entire process, there was no
subjective evaluation or element involved. The result so D
prepared of the Screening Test was published on 24 .2 .l 993.
[emphasis supplied]

Thus, it is clear that the entire Commission has functioned and not the
Chairman alone. Hence, Sanjay Kumar's case (supra) has no application.
E
For all these reasons, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set
aside. The selections made by the BPSC for the post of Medical Officer
[Ayurveda] are upheld. The Civil Appeals are allowed accordingly, I.A.
Nos. 3 and 4 of 1994 are disposed of accordingly. The appellants will be
entitled to their costs which are quantified at Rs. 5,000 from the
respondents [the writ petitioners before the High Court.] F
K.S.D. Appeals allowed.