Calcutta High Court: The Single Judge Bench of Amrita Sinha, J., dismissed the challenges raised against the Coal India Limited’s 2021 promotional examination, holding that awarding uniform marks for 19 erroneous questions did not amount to changing the rules of the game. Since there was no negative marking, the Court found no prejudice or discrimination in the selection process. The Court concluded that the petitioners had failed to establish that the selection or promotion process was arbitrary, or illegal and declined to interfere with the expert opinion.
Background
The case arose when the petitioners, who are the employees of Bharat Coking Coal Limited which is a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. (CIL), challenged the manner of selection process conducted for the promotion of employees from non-executive cadre to the executive cadre. The selection process originated in a notification issued by Coal India Limited in October 2015 for filling various promotional vacancies in different disciplines. The petitioners applied pursuant to that notification. A written examination was conducted in January 2016, but the examination was subsequently cancelled by a notice dated 11 July 2017. Coal India Limited conducted a re-examination with the same set of candidates on 31 July 2021 through a computer-based test. Before the examination, Coal India Limited published frequently asked questions and answers for the benefit of the candidates. The examination was conducted on the same syllabus that had applied to the original selection process. The petitioners participated in the re-examination and successfully cleared the written test.
After the computer-based test, Coal India Limited published a model answer key for the candidates in August 2021 for submitting objections through an official Response Query Management Portal, which remained operational from 4 August 2021 to 8 August 2021. The Petitioners 1 and 3, did not submit objections. The Petitioner 2, raised objections concerning certain questions. The examining body while considering the objections, referred to subject experts for scrutiny. The experts found that 19 questions were either erroneous or outside the prescribed syllabus. The examining body decided to award marks to all candidates in respect of the disputed questions. The marks were consequently granted uniformly, irrespective of whether a candidate had attempted the particular question.
A provisional list of candidates shortlisted for interview was thereafter published. The petitioners’ names appeared in that list, and they were called for interview on 24 November 2021. The final merit list was published on February 2022 and subsequently issued the promotion order on 21 February 2022. The petitioners did not find their names in the final selection list. The cut-off marks for the unreserved category stood at 144.88, and all the petitioners had secured marks below this threshold. A total of 109 candidates were ultimately selected and promoted pursuant to the impugned selection process, and have been serving in their promotional posts since 2022.
The petitioners alleged that CIL conducted the promotional examination with the help of an outside agency. The said agency changed the marking pattern of the questions. The same amounted to changing the rules of the game after the game had begun. The change was made without obtaining any consent and behind the back of CIL.
The petitioners contended that awarding marks to everyone, including candidates who had not attempted the questions, amounted to treating unequals equally and thereby violated Article 14 of the Constitution. They submitted that the admit cards had expressly stated that no marks would be awarded for unattempted questions. Therefore, the examining agency could not subsequently introduce a different method of evaluation without prior notice to the candidates. They also disputed the expert conclusion that the 19 questions were wrong or outside the syllabus and contended that the questions were actually within the prescribed syllabus.
The petitioners referring to an order passed by Bombay High Court in Sanjay v. Government of India, WP No. 4315/2017, challenged the delay in completing the selection process, contending that Coal India Limited had not adhered to the timeline stipulated in the case. In support of their challenge, the petitioners relied upon several decisions of the Supreme Court, including Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, (2025) 2 SCC 1, K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512, ICAR v. D. Sundara Raju, (2011) 6 SCC 605, Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309 and Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (2005) 5 SCC 172. These decisions were relied upon for the propositions that the rules governing a selection process cannot ordinarily be altered after the process has commenced, that candidates must be informed of the method of evaluation, and that courts may intervene where the selection process is legally flawed.
Coal India Limited submitted that the selection process had been conducted in accordance with the applicable cadre scheme and notified procedure. The company explained that the original examination had been cancelled because of deficiencies attributable to the external agency and that a fresh computer-based test had been conducted in 2021 in the interests of fairness and transparency, using the same eligible candidates and the same syllabus. The respondents maintained that every candidate had been given an opportunity to object to the model answer key. The objections received were considered by subject experts, who concluded that 19 questions were either erroneous or outside the syllabus.
Respondents contended that awarding grace marks is an acceptable practice which has been taken recourse to by different examining bodies in competitive examinations when questions were found to be either wrong or out of syllabus. Since the same marks were awarded to every candidate, no candidate had received a special advantage over another. The respondents also argued that the petitioners cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time, such conduct attracted the principles of acquiescence, waiver and estoppel.
Decision and Analysis
The Court first noted that the petitioners had participated in the fresh computer-based test without raising any objection concerning the procedure. After publication of the model answer key, only Petitioner 2 had raised objections to certain questions, while Petitioners 1 and 3 had not raised any objection. The expert body subsequently considered the objections and found that certain questions were wrong or outside the syllabus. The Court considered the fact that there was no negative marking in the computer-based test. Marks were awarded only for correct answers, and an incorrect or unattempted question did not result in deduction of marks. In these circumstances, the Court held that awarding marks uniformly for the disputed questions did not cause prejudice to the petitioners. Had negative marking been applicable, the position might have been materially different because candidates who attempted and incorrectly answered a defective question could have suffered a loss of marks.
The Court rejected the argument that awarding marks to all candidates constituted a change in the rules of the game. However, the Court distinguished the present case on the basis that the uniform award of marks did not confer an additional competitive advantage upon any particular class of candidates. Every candidate received the same treatment, and therefore the alleged change did not materially affect the relative position of the candidates.
The contention of the petitioners that 19 questions which were disputed were actually correct and within the syllabus cannot be adjudicated by the writ court. The same was in the exclusive domain of the expert examiners. When marks have been awarded in respect of such disputed questions to all candidates uniformly, it does not appear that any of the candidates, including the petitioners, have been prejudiced in any manner whatsoever. Had wrong answers carried negative marking, then only there would have been some difference in the competitiveness of the candidates, adding marks uniformly to all candidates hardly makes any difference.
The Court rejected the argument concerning the timeline fixed by the Bombay High Court. It held that non-completion of the process within the stipulated timeline could not, at this stage, constitute a sufficient ground for interfering with a promotion process that had already been concluded and acted upon. The Court also considered the petitioners’ reliance on the case K. Manjusree and Tej Prakash Pathak and concluded that the factual circumstances of the present case did not establish an impermissible alteration of the selection rules. Similarly, the decision in D. Sundara Raju was distinguished because it involved a situation where candidates were not informed that a substantial portion of the assessment would be based on interview performance.
The Court placed substantial emphasis on the fact that the selection process had been completed in 2022 and that the successful candidates had already been promoted and had served in their promotional posts for more than four years. Since those promotees had not been impleaded, any order setting aside or disturbing the selection process could adversely affect their rights without giving them an opportunity of hearing. The Court found the decision to award uniform marks for defective questions to be a reasonable and balanced response to the objections raised by candidates. Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the petitioners had failed to establish that the selection or promotion process was arbitrary, discriminatory or illegal. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed both writ petitions and declined to interfere with the selection process.
[Ganesh Tiwari v. Coal India Ltd., WPO No. 3171 of 2022, decided on 10-8-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Amrita Sinha
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Arjun Ray Mukherjee, Debapriya Mitra, Joyjeev Medhi, Advocates
For the Respondent: Pradip Kumar Roy, Senior Advocate, Varun Kedia, Avee Jaiswal, Advocates
