The High Court of Gujarat on Thursday pulled up the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) over its affidavit on a petition filed by a candidate, observing that the commission’s affidavit was “nothing but contempt”.
At previous hearings, justice Nirzar S. Desai had raised questions about the procedure adopted by the commission for authenticating online material before using it to frame questions in examinations conducted by the public service recruitment body. But it did not get a clear response.
“My order was very specific. What I have asked has not been answered. This is nothing but contempt, according to me. I propose to issue contempt against your Secretary and Chairman both,” justice Desai said in an oral observation on April 2.
The bench is hearing a case filed by a candidate who failed to clear the exam by one mark and challenged the correctness of the answer stipulated by the recruitment body for a question on the Arthashastra, Kautilya’s classical treatise on economics and politics.
In previous proceedings, the high court had asked GPSC to produce the original book from which the question was framed, the 1915 English translation of the Arthashastra.
{{/usCountry}}In previous proceedings, the high court had asked GPSC to produce the original book from which the question was framed, the 1915 English translation of the Arthashastra.
{{/usCountry}}When GPSC informed the court that the physical copy of the book was not available and that the commission had relied on an online version of the book downloaded from the internet.
The court then asked the commission to explain whether questions could be framed from material downloaded from the internet and whether any policy existed for authenticating such material before using it in question papers for recruitment examinations.
The commission also attempted to shift the responsibility for the questions to the subject experts assigned by the commission to decide the question paper and the answer key. But the high court did not let the commission off the hook, questioning whether there were specific provisions that absolved it of its responsibility.
The court directed GPSC to file a detailed affidavit by April 7, clearly stating whether any policy exists for authenticating material downloaded from the internet, and on what basis the online material used to frame the question was treated as an authentic source.