Even for a DEPUTY COLLECTOR exam, UPSC can ASK wrong question !! & then REDUCE your marks +deny you post !!
Notes
******************
* The Maharashtra Public Service Commission conducts exams for collector , deputy collector etc posts
* There are many wrong questions in multiple papers !!!!
* they go on to reduce the marks of all candidates and change the minimum marks etc
* interesting to note that the cut off for interview is as low as 40% !! "........As per the advertisement, the candidates of open category needed to secure a minimum of 48% marks in each paper and those of the reservation category needed to secure a minimum of 40% marks in each paper. With the reduction in the total number of marks for the four papers, the marks required for fulfilling the test of 45% and 40% got reduced ............."
***********************************************************
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
***********************************************************
WRIT PETITION NO.2209 OF 2013
1. Shri Abhijit Uddhavrao Nikam
Age : 26 years, Occ. : Student,
Residing at 343, Omkar,
Karanje Peth, Satara.
2. Shri Manoj Suvichar Pawar,
Age : 26 years, Occ.: Student,
Residing at Post Varnae,
Tal. & Dist. Satara.
3. Shri Dattatraya Appaso Gaikwad
Age : 26 years, Occ.: Student,
Residing at Post Pachwad,
Tal. Wai, Dist. Satara. …. Petitioners
Vs.
The Maharashtra Public Service Commission
Having Office at Bank of India
Building, 3rd Floor, M.G. Road,
Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. …. Respondent.
***********************************************************
Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. S.K. Shinde, Government Pleader for the respondent.
***********************************************************
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2499 OF 2013
Shri Mahesh Nemchand Singhal
B27, Utkarshnagar Gadital,
Hadapsar, Tal. Haveli,
Dist. Pune – 411 028. …. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC),
Through its Deputy Secretary,
Bank of India Building,
3rd Floor, M.G. Road, Hutatma Chowk,
Mumbai – 400 001.
2. The State of Maharashtra …. Respondents
Mr. Kuldeep D. Nikam, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.K. Shinde, Government Pleader for respondents no.1 & 2.
***********************************************************
Coram : V.M. Kanade &
Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota JJ.
Date : 20th June, 2013.
***********************************************************
JUDGMENT (Per Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J).
***********************************************************
1. This is the common order on the above two petitions.
2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent, the petitions are taken up on board for final hearing. Heard the learned counsel.
3. In the year 2012, the respondent, M.P.S.C. had undertaken the process for recruitment to the post of Deputy Collector, amongst other, for the State of Maharashtra. The four petitioners herein had applied to the post of Deputy Collector, pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent. On 10th June, 2012, they successfully cleared the preliminary examination and appeared for the main examination held on 1st, 2nd and 3rd September, 2012. The main examination consisted of six papers. The first two papers were of languages and the remaining four papers were of General Studies. Each paper for General Studies carried 150 marks and was of objective type. On declaration of results on 20th February, 2013, the petitioners found that their names were not included in the list of successful candidates, qualified for the interview.
4. Postexamination, the respondent discovered that all the four papers for General Studies contained incorrect questions. The number of incorrect questions in the four papers were 2, 4, 11 and 5 respectively. Therefore by way of corrective action, the respondent cancelled the incorrect questions and correspondingly reduced the total number of marks for each of the four papers. The marks for paper No.1 on exclusion of two questions were reduced to 148. The marks for paper No.2 were reduced to 146, for paper No.3 to 139 and for paper No.4 to 149. This reduction in the total marks for the four papers naturally impacted the number of minimum qualifying marks for clearing the papers. As per the advertisement, the candidates of open category needed to secure a minimum of 48% marks in each paper and those of the reservation category needed to secure a minimum of 40% marks in each paper. With the reduction in the total number of marks for the four papers, the marks required for fulfilling the test of 45% and 40% got reduced as follows:
Subject 45% 40% Total marks
General Studies Paper I 67 59 148
General Studies Paper II 66 58 146
General Studies Paper III 63 56 139
General Studies Paper IV 65 58 145
The marks secured by the petitioners herein in the four papers of General Studies are as follows:
Subject Qual Mark pettioner marks
General Studies Paper I 67 79 96 83 83
General Studies Paper II 66 86 90 84 91
General Studies Paper III 63 62 62 60 58
General Studies Paper IV 65 73 80 64 63
Thus all the petitioners are seen to have not secured the minimum qualifying marks for the open category for General Studies, paper No.3. Petitioner No.3 in the first petition and the petitioner in the second petition failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks for General Studies, paper No.4 also. Consequently, they were declared not eligible for the interview. By the present petitions, the petitioners challenge the decision of the respondent of reducing the marks for incorrect questions in the four papers.
5. Mr. Warunjikar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that instead of reducing the marks for the incorrect questions, for the purpose of qualifying standards for the two categories, the respondent ought to have allotted, to all the candidates, the marks for the incorrect questions in all the four papers, which would have benefited everybody. According to him adoption of method of deletion of the questions and the marks allotted therefor has worked to the disadvantage of the petitioners because the system of evaluation provided for negative marks for wrong answers.
6. Mr. Shinde, the learned Government Pleader for the respondent submits that the course of corrective action of deletion of incorrect questions and giving pro rata marks to the remaining questions has been upheld by the Apex Court in it's decision in Pankaj Sharma vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, reported in 2008 A.I.R. SCW page 2332 (2). This Court also, by its decision dated 3rd August, 2012 in Writ Petition No.7328 of 2011 in Dr. Gorakhnath Ramchandra Patil vs. Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Another has approved the method adopted by the respondent on the ground that it cannot be said to be arbitrary or contrary to any law. The method also does not result into any candidate having obtained unfair advantage over another candidate for answering the question, which is found to be wrong.
7. The petitioners have not been able to establish that the corrective action of deletion of the questions adopted by the respondent is either arbitrary or contrary to law. The course of corrective action proposed by the petitioners of allotment of marks to all the incorrect questions to every candidate could not have been a solution to the problem. Since the evaluation of the papers involved negative marking, allotment of marks to incorrect questions would not have benefited everybody equally. With deletion of the questions and the marks therefor not only the marks allotted to the questions but also the negative marking wherever given got deleted, thereby bringing all the candidates to the same level or position. The assessment of the candidates then was only on the basis of the remaining questions that had been attempted by them. Since, there is neither any arbitrariness nor illegality in the course of action adopted by the respondent, there cannot be any judicial interference with the same. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the petitions. The Writ Petitions are therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.
(Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.) (V.M. Kanade, J.)
***********************************
FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
regards
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist
No comments:
Post a Comment