Delhi High Court.
Delhi High Court Seeks SSC Reply on Pleas Challenging “Flawed” CGLE 2024 Results: New Delhi – The Delhi High Court has called upon the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) to respond to a petition challenging the final results of the Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE), 2024. The challenge, brought by 92 candidates whose names did not appear in the final merit list, alleges a “flawed and opaque evaluation process” and “indiscriminate awarding of bonus marks” by the SSC.
The CGLE is a prominent examination conducted by the SSC for recruiting Group B and C officers across various ministries, departments, and organizations within the Government of India.
The petitioners, in their plea before the High Court in the case of Devyanshu Suryavanshi & Ors. Vs Staff Selection Commission & Anr, are seeking the quashing of the results of Session-I of the Tier-II exam and a directive for its re-conduct. They have also challenged the dismissal of a similar plea by the Central Administrative Tribunal, indicating this is the second round of litigation over these issues. In a previous petition, the High Court had, on a prima facie basis, acknowledged “certain discrepancies in one or two questions of the final answer key.”
Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE):
The CGLE is structured in two tiers: Tier I and Tier II. Candidates who clear Tier I proceed to Tier II, which is conducted across two sessions. Each correct answer in Tier II carries three marks, with a negative marking of one mark for incorrect responses.
The crux of the petitioners’ grievances lies in the SSC‘s handling of discrepancies identified in the final answer key. The Court was informed that following reports of discrepancies in a few questions, the SSC took the unusual step of cancelling 19 questions. Subsequently, it awarded all candidates equal marks for these cancelled questions, irrespective of whether they had attempted them or answered them correctly.
The petitioners argue that this decision led to an “unjust inflation of marks for certain candidates and a corresponding unfair disadvantage to the petitioners.” Their petition asserts, “SSC granted bonus marks indiscriminately, causing unjust enrichment of undeserving candidates and infringing upon the rights of those who answered correctly. Such a practice not only lacks legal justification but also contravenes the standards of competitive examination jurisprudence, warranting judicial interference.”
Furthermore, the petitioners allege that the answers for four other questions were “changed arbitrarily without any concrete reasoning,” and bonus marks were awarded even for questions where the official answer key had already provided the correct answer.
The petition strongly contends that “Firstly, there was no valid reason for declaring the said questions as invalid. Secondly, awarding marks to all candidates—including those who answered the said questions incorrectly—has conferred an undue and unfair advantage upon them, thereby prejudicing the interests of the Petitioners.”
A significant point of contention is also the application of the “normalization” process. The petitioners claim this process was applied without any “cogent justification or methodology,” resulting in an “unjust and unconstitutional redistribution of merit.”
The ‘normalization’ process, introduced by the SSC in 2019, aims to adjust for variations in difficulty levels across different examination shifts or sets. It employs a standard formula based on the assumption of a uniform ability distribution among candidates across shifts. However, the petitioners argue that given the limited number of flawed questions, corrections could have been made directly instead of resorting to the broader normalization process.
The Delhi High Court‘s directive for the SSC to file its response sets the stage for a critical examination of the examination body’s evaluation procedures and the fairness of its results.
Advocates Gauhar Mirza, Aditya Bharat Manubarwala, and Tanishka Grover are representing the aggrieved candidates. Central Government Standing Counsel Arnima Dwivedi, along with Advocates Amit Dutta, Harpal Singh, and Sainyam Bhardwaj, are appearing for the Staff Selection Commission. The outcome of this petition will have significant implications for the transparency and integrity of public service examinations in India.
