Delhi High Court Rejects Plea Against Civil Services Exam 2023, Says It Can't Suggest Manner In Which Questions Are Framed In Paper

Rejecting a plea challenging Paper I and Paper II of Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2023, the Delhi High Court has observed that it cannot suggest the manner in which questions are framed in a question paper, so long as there is no ambiguity in the question or the answers provided.

A division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul noted that CSE involves lakhs of students and over six lakhs students appeared in 2023 exam.

The Court said that when setting a paper for over six lakhs students, it cannot be presumed that all students would be of the same standard or would have a common syllabus.

“Besides, the level of difficulty of the paper may also be higher, in view of the number of candidates attempting it. Some degree of play in the joints has, therefore, to be granted to the authorities who set the paper,” the Court said.

The preliminary examination of CSE consists of two papers, i.e. Paper I and Paper II. Paper I relates to General Studies whereas Paper II is the Civil Services Aptitude Test (CSAT).

The Court rejected the petition filed by a candidate Pranav Pandey, challenging an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing his plea against the exam.

The Bench said that where the candidate has raised the grievance before the paper setting authorities, prior to approaching the Court and the matter has been referred to experts who justified the suggested answer, the Court must read with caution.

“It is only where the suggested answer is palpably not the correct one, or where there are, equally palpably, more than one correct answer to a question, that the Court has the jurisdiction to interfere. Even in such cases, the Court must be satisfied beyond any doubt, that the question and the suggested answers are unacceptable, as the suggested answer as either incorrect, or it is not the only correct answer,” the Court said.

Regarding paper I, Pandey's case was that questions were not formulated as to effectively challenge the aptitude of the students and that it was possible that a student who did not know the correct answer and a student who knew the correct answer would both be marked for the question.

The Bench said that if the submission is to be accepted, it would mean that no question could ever be set in any paper providing for alternate options and asking the candidate to identify the number of correct options, among those provided.

It observed that it is open to the paper setter, instead, to require the candidate to identify the number of correct options among the options provided.

“The mere fact that, in the latter case, all candidates who answer by stating that only one of the suggested options is correct, would be equally marked, irrespective of whether they knew which the correct option was, is no ground for the Court to strike down the question,” it added.

Regarding paper II, it was argued that the questions were also to be found in text books on the basis of which examinations such as the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) and other examinations, or in other specialized text books for studies at higher level.

The Court said that mere fact that some questions may also figure in text books for higher classes or at higher level study text books, or be asked in other competitive examinations, does not definitely indicate that the questions are out of syllabus.

“…we are of the opinion that a finding by the Court that a question is out of syllabus, can hardly be returned, save and except in the most exceptional cases. The question must be glaringly out of syllabus. So long as it is broadly within the syllabus prescribed, even if it is a question which is unusually difficult or one which no one except a student of extraordinary ability would be able to attempt, that cannot be a factor for the Court to declare the inclusion of the question as illegal, or meriting judicial interference,” it said.

Title: PRANAV PANDEY v. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION