Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.9685 OF 2007
(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
D.D. 15.01.2008
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr.B.S.Chauhan &
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta
Riyaz Khan & Ors. ... Petitioners
Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors. ... Respondents
Examination:
Uttar Pradesh PSC
Whether remedial action taken by the Commission regarding the errors in the questions/key answers
as per the recommendation of the expert Committee can be accepted? – Yes
1033
There were complaints regarding errors in the questions as well as key answers – The same were
referred to Committee of Experts which concluded that five questions were required to be cancelled
and the answers of nine questions were to be substituted by the correct answers amongst the options
– The recommendation of the Expert Committee were accepted and result was declared afresh on the
basis of the rectified answers after cancelling the previous result – High Court observing that the action
taken by the Commission cannot be doubted disposed of the writ petition with a direction to consider
the allegations regarding acceptance of candidature of some candidates and to pass appropriate orders
after hearing the candidates who are likely to be affected.
JUDGMENT
In view of the order passed earlier, Shri Murlidhar Dube, Controller of the Examinations and Shri
Arun Prakash, Special Secretary (Law) of the U.P. Public Service Commission are present along with
the records. Shri M.A. Qadeer, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Najma Begum for the
Commission and Shri Shailendra for the petitioner have been heard.
The answer books and result sheets have been examined. As per the information gathered from
the counter-affidavit filed by the Commission as well as the oral submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties, it is evident that on the representations received against the key answers given on the
Website, the Commission decided to constitute a Committee of Experts consisting of four Members.
The Expert Committee concluded that five questions were required to be cancelled and the answers
of nine questions were to be substituted by the correct answers existing amongst the options. These
recommendations of the Expert Committee were accepted by the Commission and the Commission declared
afresh result on the basis of the rectified answers after cancelling the previous result.