ANIL KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nearly four decades ago in 1982, the Kanpur University had held a Combined Pre-Medical Test for admission in MBBS course in Medical Colleges, which was 'Multiple Choice Objective Type Test'. For achieving high level of transparency and fairness in the process of selection, the University had published key answers for the questions along with the result of the test. Some of the candidates had questioned the correctness of the result on the ground that the key answers, prepared for evaluation of their answer scripts, as disclosed by the University, were incorrect. The dispute had ultimately travelled up to the Supreme Court in case of Kanpur University and Others vs. Samir Gupta and Others, reported in (1983) 4 SCC 309. The Supreme Court, in case of Samir Gupta (supra), made very significant observation of great importance in paragraph 15, relevant portion of which reads as under : -

(2.) Samir Gupta (supra), dealt with the importance and relevance of publication of model answers, which are the bases for evaluation of answer scripts in a multiple choice objective type test. Samir Gupta (supra), has noted the adverse consequences of non-disclosure of key answers, if the key answers are kept secret in a multiple choice objective type test and observed that had the key answers been not published, numerous students 'would have had to suffer injustice in silence'. The Supreme Court recorded with appreciation, the sense of fairness in the University in publishing the key answers, which had given the students an opportunity to have a closure look at the system of examinations, which they had conducted.

(3.) In the present case, the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Commission'), which has the consistent track record of falling into errors at considerable scale in holding similar type of multiple choice objective type tests, in past, in relation to recruitment to various posts under the State of Bihar, has not only failed to publish the model key answers, but it is resisting the petitioners' claim to know the key answers, which were the basis for evaluation of the answers scripts. The Commission had adopted the practice of publishing the key-answers in past, but in relation to the selection process in hand it has decided to keep the key-answers secret. In the present proceeding, the Court considering the rationality and tenability of the decision of the Commission to withhold the key-answers from public domain into the background of the explanation put forth by the Commission to justify the said decision.