KPSC in a bind over revaluation of candidate from 2015 batch

The Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) is staring at a crisis as it has allegedly failed to challenge a Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT) order for revaluation of answer scripts of a candidate who appeared in the Gazetted Probationers Examination-2015, with its officials warning that the move will open a floodgate of similar applications and legal cases.

The latest development comes in the wake of the delay within the agency to appeal against the KAT order of April 23, directing the commission to re-evaluate the scripts of Vinay Kumar R, son of Ramaiah, a resident of Bengaluru, who appeared for the examination.

While the legal counsel for KPSC and its officers believe that the KAT order needs to be challenged, the Department of Personnel and Administration (DPAR) has now come up with its own legal opinion that the KAT order was not a fit case for appeal in the high court. The DPAR’s move has now put the KPSC at the crossroads on whether or not to challenge the KAT order.

The examination for 428 posts was held in 2017. Except for the qualifying (Kannada and English), the seven papers of the main exam were evaluated twice. The average of two evaluations was considered while shortlisting candidates for personality tests on 1:5. The provisional list of candidates was announced in 2019.

Vinay Kumar appeared for the personality test but didn’t make it to the provisional list. He moved the KPSC for the re-evaluation of his answer scripts in the main examination.

The KPSC did not consider his request as the rule allowed revaluation only when there was over 15% difference between the total marks awarded by two evaluators.

The KAT ruled that there were several discrepancies creating confusion regarding question numbers and corresponding scores. The tribunal cited instances of awarding 3 marks to applicants even though he “has not attempted to answer the question” in General Studies Paper-3, awarding marks to non-existent questions in Paper-2 and other errors by evaluators.

On April 23, the tribunal concluded: “There has been patent illegality and also material irregularity in the evaluation of the answer scripts of the applicant and there has been scant regard for the evaluation process which re-emphasises the prayer of the applicant,” it said, ordering evaluation and “on the basis of the marks consider his candidature for recruitment”.

Documents available with DH show that KPSC advocate Mohammad Shameel advised the commission to appeal against the order in the High Court. “It is opined that the order of the tribunal be challenged in writ proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka,” his opinion read.

The head of the KPSC legal cell, quoting Shameel’s opinion, said the commission has to make appropriate decisions. Further, the controller of examination stated, “It (re-evaluation) will lead to flooding of many such candidates seeking selection or upgradation in rank. This should not be done at this stage. Appeal may be filed immediately in the High Court,” the officer said.

The then KPSC Member Secretary Ramandeep Chowdari placed the matter before the commission. However, no decision was made with members reserving their opinion till the chairperson gave his opinion.

To a question on the DPAR opinion not to challenge the KAT order, KPSC Member Secretary Vishal R said the matter will be placed before the commission. “Both the opinions will be placed before the commission, which will take a decision,” he said.

The KAT order shows KPSC failed to be transparent in handling the matter. For instance, after the rejection of the request for revaluation, Vinay filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act in Jan 2020, seeking copies of his answer scripts.

When his RTI requests were rejected, Vinay appealed to Karnataka Information Commission, which ordered in his favour. The KPSC, however, moved the high court and released the scripts in August 2023, after the court upheld the KIC order.

An official who previously worked in KPSC, however, noted that a mistake should not be made while correcting an error from the past. "One mistake can’t correct another. It will only open up a Pandora’s box," he added.