Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently allowed appeals filed by the candidates who had challenged their non-selection in the recruitment process for the 2018 Constables (Civil Police) and Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) positions.

The bench of Justices Manoj Kumar Gupta and Manish Kumar Nigam concurred with the appellant candidates' argument that the U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotional Board had included an erroneous answer for a particular question in the final answer key.

For Question No. 68 of Test Booklet B, Series 17, the appellants argued that the key answer incorrectly designated option 'D' as the correct answer, when, in fact, the correct answer should have been option 'C'.

They asserted that upon correction of the answer, they would meet the cut-off criteria.

The question was: At 9 PM, the hour hand faces north, which direction will the minute hand face at 6:30 AM?  Options: A) North B) East C) West D) South

The provisional key answers mentioned the answer to this question as option C, whereas the final answer key, which was released after seven months, mentioned the answer to the question as option D. 

The Board submitted before the court that the first part of the question was incorporated only to confuse the candidates and the same was to be ignored and only second part of the question should have been read in isolation.

However, the division bench opined that such argument was wholly unsustainable in law.

"A question has to be read as a whole. A candidate is never expected to shut his eyes to or ignore any part of question and thereafter answer it," the bench said. 

A question has to be given its plain meaning and read as a whole and the candidates were being tested for reasoning and logic and not physics, the bench added. 

Through an earlier order, the court had referred the question to a subject expert for an opinion, who had opined that the correct answer was option c. 

Keeping the same in view, court ordered that candidates falling short by 2.5 marks or less from the cut-off scores in their categories may be considered for appointment to vacant positions which were 603, but only if they filed writ petitions immediately after the cut-off announcement in 2019.

"Those who have already been selected should also not be disturbed. This would balance the interest of all sides, without causing prejudice to any one," court held while allowing the appeals against the single judge bench order which had rejected the writ petitions of the appellant candidates. 

Case Title: Kapil Kumar And 7 Others v. State Of UP. And 4 Others