PRASHANT RAMESH CHAKKARWAR Vs. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Every year, Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "UPSC") conducts Civil Services Examination for the purposes of recruitment to Indian Administrative Service and other allied services. So high are the expectations of some candidates that on not finding success, they resort to litigation as they earnestly believe that by no reasonable process of evaluation, could they achieve such low level of success. We find that virtually every year same ritualistic pleas are urged, notwithstanding that the issue has been debated repeatedly and Courts have held, that though not a perfect situation, in the absence of a better alternative, the procedures followed by UPSC while evaluating the answer sheets do not warrant judicial interference. We had heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents at length on 28.9.2010. It was the first date when the matter was listed before us. The petitioners were relying upon pleadings of UPSC in earlier litigations and the issues were discussed with reference to the said pleadings.

(2.) The Civil Services Examination comprises of two successive stages; namely, (i) Civil Services Preliminary Examination (Objective Type) for the selection of candidates for appearing in the main examination, and (ii) Civil Services Main examination (Written and Interview) for the selection of candidates for the various services and posts. The Preliminary Examination consists of two papers of objective type (multiple choice questions) in two subjects, namely, General Studies and one subject to be selected from the list of optional subjects set out in paragraph 2 of the plan of examinations notified by the UPSC and carries 150 and 300 marks respectively. The marks obtained in the preliminary examination are not considered and counted for determining the final order of merit of the successful candidates at the main examination. The candidates who are declared successful in the Preliminary Examination are required to appear at the Main Examination which consists of written examination as well as viva voce test. The written examination consists of nine papers; namely, two papers each for two optional subjects, two papers pertaining to General Studies, one paper pertaining to English, one paper pertaining to Regional Language and one paper pertaining to an essay written by the candidate. The marks pertaining to English and Regional Language are not counted for purposes of ranking in the examination. The papers pertaining to optional subjects and General Studies carry 300 marks whereas the paper pertaining to essay carries 200 marks, thus totaling 2000 marks in all. The viva voce test carries 300 marks. The marks obtained by a candidate in the Main Examination (written as well as viva voce) determine his final ranking. The successful candidates are allotted various services having regard to their ranking in the examination and the preferences expressed by them for various services and posts.

(3.) The petitioners herein are the civil services aspirants, who appeared in Civil Services Examinations conducted by UPSC in the years 2007, 2008 and 2009. The petitioners successfully cleared the Preliminary Examination in the year they sat, but could not qualify in the Main Examination. Aggrieved by the marks awarded to them in the Main Examination, the petitioners filed applications under Section 19, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi inter-alia, alleging that the possibility that there were irregularities in the Civil Services Examination conducted by UPSC in the years 2007-2009 cannot be ruled out inasmuch as various irregularities have been detected in the Civil Services Examinations conducted in the past several years and that the process adopted by UPSC for evaluation of answer sheets of the candidates pertaining to Main Examination is arbitrary and illegal. The details of the applications filed by the petitioners are being tabulated herein below:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_2377_ILRDLH20_2010_1.html</FRM>