BSSC Graduate Level Exam: Patna High Court Judgement Notice - W3i.iN

17/09/2016

BSSC Graduate Level Exam: Patna High Court Judgement Notice

BSSC Graduate Level Exam 2016 – Patna High Court Judgement Notice for Case No.4727 of 2016: Bihar SSC Graduate Level exam got a new turn finally. The Patna High Court dismissed case against BSSC Graduate Level Pre and Mains exam 2016. Here in the post below we have posted Patna High Court Judgement notice on Bihar 2nd BSSC Graduate Level Exam.

Patna high court decision in favour of BSSC. No exam cancellation. 

The bench of Justice A.K. Tripathi has took almost 3 month to announce Judgment on Bihar SSC Graduate Level exam 2016. Read the complete Judgement issued by Patna High court for Bihar SSC Graduate Level exam.

 The Patna High court has denied any Scam in BSSC GraduateLevel exam. They just dismissed all case against Bihar Staff Selection Commission (BSSC) against malpractice in 2nd Graduate Level Exam. 

BSSC Graduate Level, Bihar SSC Graduate exam, BSSC Graduate Level Exam 2016

What's next?

BSSC will continue its recruitment process for 2nd Graduate Level Examination. Written exam has not been cancelled. Read official notice below.

Patna High Court Judgement Notice


1. After the result of the preliminary examination of the Second Graduate Level Combined Competitive Examination was published by the Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') on 03.02.2016, a batch of writ applications came to be filed seeking quashing of the result. The primary ground on which quashing has been sought is that the O.M.R. sheets of the candidates have been evaluated by using erroneous model answers.

2. The submission on behalf of the petitioners, therefore, is that the corrected model answer key should be utilized for fresh evaluation and publication of the result giving a fair opportunity to one and all to participate in the mains examination.

3. The advertisement in question was issued on 01.09.2014 inviting applications from eligible candidates for various posts vacant in the State of Bihar. A copy of the advertisement is
Annexure-2 to the writ application.

4. Since there were lakhs of candidates who responded to the said advertisement, the preliminary examination was conducted on two different dates. The first preliminary examination was conducted on 16.02.2015 and the second one on 23.02.2015.

5. After the conduct of the examination, the Commission published a model answer key on its website on 22.04.2015 and invited objections. Some of the petitioners submit that before all the objections could be filed and considered, the final answer key used by the Commission for evaluation was put on the website and even results of 17335 candidates was declared.

6. Since examination was conducted on two different dates, the Commission adopted what is known as equi percentile equating and equalization of scores model to moderate the marks earned by the candidates of the two examinations. The Court was informed by the expert of the Commission that this model is used even in examinations, like, the I.I.Ts. etc. and has a scientific basis. The object of this formula is to bring about parity in evaluation so that the candidates are judged on some kind of a balanced parameters. The Court infact ordered the concerned person of the Commission to explain the concept of the modality and after going through the materials as well as the methodology, the Court is satisfied that the equi percentile model does not suffer from any kind of irrationality.

7. The Court, therefore, does not entertain any arguments on the above aspect of the matter and any submission made with regard to the said exercise for evaluation must rest at that.

8. Petitioners do state that their O.M.R. sheets, score card, the answer sheet along with the answer key used for evaluation of the O.M.R. sheets was put on the website of the Commission on 20.02.2016.

9.  Petitioners also take a plea that the model answer key which was used for publishing the earlier result on 22.04.2015 had also undergone a change and the same was tinkered with. Infact such changes had its fall out in the sense that what was not a correct answer in the earlier model answer key was shown to be correct or vice-aversa. Objections, therefore, were raised and focus was limited to eight answers given in the final answer key used by the Commission for evaluation to demonstrate as to where the Commission has gone wrong and this has implications for the petitioners. If their correct answers were subsequently marked as wrong, it had its effect on the final result since these petitioners have missed out by very narrow margin. The Court would like to record that over a period of time, during course of arguments and after exchange of pleadings, the following position emerges with regard to the correct or incorrect answers provided to the questions for the two examinations.

10.  For the examination dated 16.02.2015 which has been labeled as Set-A, total 7 questions have been affected.

11. For the examination dated 23.02.2015, total 9 objections have been affected. 

12. The counsels representing the petitioners, from the materials brought on record, have tried to make out a case that if the very foundation of evaluation is based on an erroneous model answers, the entire evaluation goes wrong and it will have a direct bearing on the candidates who otherwise perceive themselves to have qualified the preliminary examination.

13.  It was demonstrated before the Court by the counsels for the petitioners that based on the objections received from the candidates, the matter was referred to a committee of experts and even the recommendation of the experts have not been accepted by the Commission in toto. Meaning thereby that changes were brought about to the model answers even by the Commission. Their apprehension is that this was done with an object and purpose and the sanctity of evaluation has been violated.

14. Very detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Staff Selection Commission. They have explained the modality and the exercise which was undertaken by them in publication of the results of the preliminary examination. They have also explained the reason for the changes in the model answer and the necessity for doing so. They have very pointedly made arguments that the Commission at its own level also sat with the question setters along with opinion of the experts. The experts suggestions on some of the questions and the model answers were found to be erroneous and on the basis of standard text and suggestions, certain changes were brought about. There was no hide and seek in the evaluation process and everything has been put on record in black and white.

15. Not important. 

16. The Court has observed in the various litigations of such kind that whenever large scale recruitment is done by any agency, immediately the various coaching centers encash on that occasion by offering quick solution, capsule courses for clearing the examination. Since there are no uniform standards maintained by such institutions who are more interested in making money out of the system as well as in claiming the largest number of success in an examination do also have a role to play in such litigations, which come before the Court. A lot of confusion with regard to the model questions and answers are created by such institutions as well because when they are confronted with the wrong answers which were provided to such candidates. To save their skin, they resort to substandard text and materials to justify their module. 

17. The Court, therefore, will not get persuade by such inputs which are used by the candidates in initiating a legal process for cancellation of such examinations. The Court, however, has with an open mind gone through the questions and answers as well as the basis for the changes which was required to be made by the Staff Selection Commission. The Court will neither go by the opinion of one set of counsels representing the petitioners or the submission made on behalf of the Staff Selection Commission but having examined the questions and the answers as well as the reasons for sticking to certain answers by the Staff Selection Commission, in evaluation of the answer sheet of these candidates, does come to a considered opinion that there is neither any motive nor any omission on the part of the Staff Selection Commission in finally zeroing down on the right answers to the questions which are subject matter of dispute. 

The Court infact has no hesitation in saying that the failed candidates have painted a larger than life picture than what it is in reality. Obviously there is a reason for doing so.

18.  In totality, therefore, no case as such is made out to interfere with the results of the preliminary examination conducted by the Commission. Infact the Court has been further informed that even the mains examinations have now been held by the Staff Selection Commission and since this Court has not found things a-miss to interfere with the declaration of result of the preliminary examination, therefore, the petitioners cannot succeed and the Court will not give any direction for reevaluation of the answer sheet on the basis of the so called model answer suggested by the candidates, to the questions which are subject matter of dispute.

19. The Court would also like to take note of another factual aspect which was addressed by certain counsels for the petitioners. The issue here is that the repeated evaluation also resulted in changes in the final result of the preliminary examination which has its own consequence in the sense that 858 candidates got dislodged and 921 candidates were included when the second round of result was declared. This aspect was also gone into by the Court and the Commission has explained the reason thereof. According to them based on the objections of the candidates, the experts' opinion was sought. There was variation of almost 30% to the answers suggested by the candidates and the one suggested by the experts, therefore, with a view to ensure more accuracy the Commission consulted the question setters and it is basically the questions setters suggestion to the model answers which was shown as answers of the Commission. This was also a matter of attack by the petitioners that it was the Commission which had made changes on its own. The Commission does accept that after the publication of the first round of results, more objections were received from the candidates, and it is only after the said deliberation, that a second evaluation was required. 

20.  The Court would also like to record that a complete and detailed compilation of the disputed questions has been handed over to the Court. It provides the complete basis for reaching the correct answers which was used for evaluation. This forms part of the record and has also been relied upon. The Court has not reproduced those questions and answers from the compilation as it did not want to add unnecessary bulk to the order. Besides the said compilation was shared and is referable material and is available for ready reference as it forms part of this record. This compilation also, therefore, supports the final position and the basis for the model answers which were used for evaluation by the Commission which led to declaration of the final result of the preliminary examination. The same does not suffer from any material irregularity.

21. The writ applications have no merit and so are dismissed.

Judgement Date: 17.09.2016