Friday, August 23, 2013

Even for DEPUTY COLLECTOR exam, UPSC can ASK wrong question !! & then REDUCE your marks +deny you post !! the collector will rule you !!

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