In Brief
A Public Service Commission issued advertisement for Agriculture Development Officer posts and conducted written and viva-voce examinations. After discovering that answer keys for two questions were wrong, the Commission cancelled those questions and awarded pro-rata marks (2 marks total) to all candidates equally. One unsuccessful candidate filed a petition claiming she answered both questions correctly while a selected candidate answered only one correctly, and sought individual re-evaluation. The Supreme Court held that the Commission's uniform pro-rata decision applied fairly to all candidates was not arbitrary. Re-evaluation of only selected candidates would undermine fairness. The Court quashed the High Court's order directing re-evaluation and restored the single judge's dismissal of the petition.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.