New Delhi: Where did Mahatma Gandhi start the salt satyagraha? For those well-versed with Class 12 textbooks of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) under the education ministry, and the works of authors like Vipin Chandra and Rajeev Ahir, the answer is Dandi. But, the answer key of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission (UPSSSC) for the Revenue Lekhpal (accountant) examination conducted in 2022 states “Sabarmati” as the correct answer.
Another question that the exam’s candidates faced was, what percentage of the grant for an 1,800-watt surface solar pump were small-time farmers eligible for under the Solar Photovoltaic Irrigation Pump Scheme, apart from the Centre’s subsidy. The options were 45 percent, 30 percent, 15 percent and none of the above.
Although most candidates answered 45 percent, and this was the figure given on the agriculture department’s website, the actual grant percentage had been changed to 30 percent, and the same was mentioned in an internal departmental correspondence. Despite this, some of the candidates were penalised by the UPSSSC for the agriculture department’s failure to update its website.
It was these kinds of questions and answers that drove hordes of candidates appearing for the 2021-2022 Revenue Lekhpal examination conducted by the UPSSSC to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court in its ruling last month said marks should be given to those choosing either or two correct answers in the four questions mentioned in the plea of candidates.
The court noted that although the salt march commenced from Sabarmati, the actual act of defiance, the violation of the salt law, took place at Dandi. Thus, from a purely technical perspective, the answer Dandi should be treated as correct, as was the official position. At the same time, the court said that Sabarmati may be correct as well, as the Dandi march started from Sabarmati.
Taking note of the deficiency on the part of the UPSSSC in framing the questions, the court also ordered that the commission must reevaluate the answer scripts.
In doing so, the bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran pointed out that not only were some of the questions ambiguous, but some had more than one correct answer.
The division bench passed an order which would affect the careers of over 8,000 applicants whose lives were in limbo after the mains examination for the post of Revenue Lekhpal in Uttar Pradesh in 2022.
“We note with some concern that the deficiency in this case lies at the commission’s end as well for the kind of questions framed which were ambiguous or having more than one answers as correct,” the court said in its 24 April ruling.
“Accordingly, the court directs the commission to re-evaluate the answer scripts in light of the above findings and award marks only to the candidates/appellants herein, and continue the selection process without disturbing the candidates who have already been selected.”
Also Read: Legal pedigree not just entrenched in SC. 1 in 3 HC judges related to judges, ex-judges or lawyers
‘Unfair of the state to put such questions’
Speaking to ThePrint, advocate Anand Nandan, who represented one of the petitioners in the case, explained: “The exam was primarily for the appointment of accountants. However, some of the answers in the multiple-choice questions were ambiguous and had not been updated.”
“For instance, one of the questions was, which is the longest national highway that passes through Uttar Pradesh. Although the options said NH-2, NH-4 and NH-8, and none of the above, these answers weren’t updated since the government had renamed the erstwhile NH-2 as NH-19, but the options didn’t capture that.”
Attempting to bridge this error on the commission’s part, the court noted, after review, that both NH-2 and “none of the above” are acceptable answers. The candidates who marked either should be awarded full marks, the court said.
In some cases, there were multiple correct answers, Nandan said, pointing out that for every wrong answer, 0.25 marks were deducted and for every correct answer, one mark was given.
“For a more holistic view, however, the court said that in ambiguous cases, those who had attempted either of the answers should get full marks. This relief however has been restricted to only those candidates who had approached the court till the date of the order,” he added.
Delhi-based Anand told ThePrint that besides the national highway question, there were many other questions where the court observed that answers were ambiguous. “The court also made remarks on the state, adding that it was very unfair of the state to put such questions and answers to the candidates,” he said.
Recalling an interesting analogy by the court, Anand said that the court likened the situation to asking someone “who loves a child more?”, where the options would say something like A. Father, B. Mother, and C. None of the above.
He elaborated on the question, where Mahatma Gandhi started the salt satyagraha. The options were Dandi, Surat, Sabarmati, and Pawnar. Although most candidates answered Dandi, relying on the NCERT’s Class 12 textbooks and the works of Chandra and Ahir, the commission’s answer key said Sabarmati.
The court said it had to also consider the fact that it was an examination for Lekhpal and directed that candidates opting for either option must be awarded full marks.
Journey of the case, from Allahabad HC to SC
The journey of the case, Reetesh Kumar Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh, began from the Allahabad High Court after it refused to interfere with the correctness of questions in the selection process for 8,085 posts of Revenue Lekhpal, by way of a March 2024 order that dismissed their plea.
The reason given by the high court was that the UPSSSC was an expert body, and the decision to cancel the questions was an option available to it, but the court could not arrogate to itself the jurisdiction of the commission.
The court also upheld the stand of the commission that no prejudice was caused to the candidates since it had cancelled some of the questions. This is what made the aggrieved candidates approach the Supreme Court.
By way of their plea, the candidates said that after the examination was conducted, the commission had published the answer key. They argued that despite marking the correct answer, they weren’t selected. They also pointed to four questions for which they said answers provided in the official answer key were incorrect.
“There were no clear-cut answers to the questions asked, i.e. the questions and their answers which are presently in dispute. Rather in some cases, more than one option could reasonably be considered correct,” the Supreme Court said in its order putting the matter to rest.
Taking note of the deficiency in the framing of questions and the ambiguities in the answer sheet, the court finally ruled that a re-evaluation of the answer scripts must take place, without disturbing the candidates who had already been selected in the 2022 examination.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)