14 or 8? Calcutta High Court dismisses aspirant’s plea over this tricky reasoning question

While the petitioner argued that the correct answer should be eight, the recruiting authority treated fourteen as the correct answer.

Justice Amrita Sinha

Arguments

The counsel for the petitioner relied upon various answers given to this question generated by artificial intelligence and argued that on each occasion, the answer is eight children.

The petitioner contended that the recruiting authority had invited objections only after publication of the provisional answer key, despite there being no such provision mentioned in the recruitment advertisement.

It was argued that although several candidates raised objections even after the final answer key was published, the authority failed to consider them.

He further submitted that the report relied upon by the authority merely set out bare conclusions without any supporting documents, making it difficult for the court to ascertain the basis on which the disputed answer was evaluated.

The petitioner also challenged the reasoning of the recruitment committee in rejecting post-final answer key objections on the ground that even with an additional mark, candidates would not fall within the zone of consideration, arguing that such reasoning did not apply to him as he had missed the qualifying cutoff by just one mark.

Opposing the plea, the high court administration submitted that objections to the provisional answer key were invited and duly considered. It informed the court that multiple objections were examined by the paper setter and placed before the recruitment and promotion committee, which ultimately concluded that fourteen was the correct answer.

‘No error’

The court noted that the petitioner’s objection had been considered and rejected by the competent authority, and the decision had received approval from the Chief Justice.

“The objection raised by the petitioner was duly considered by the authority and the stand of the petitioner has been negated by the Committee. The said decision was duly approved by the Hon’ble Chief Justice,” the court noted.

The court rejected the petitioner’s contention that documents in support of the report have not been annexed.

“In a public recruitment process, there may be several documents that may be required to be considered by the authority. Each and every document is not required to be made public. The fact that the objection filed by the petitioner was duly considered is enough for a job aspirant,” the court remarked.

The court held that the petitioner failed to make out a case of illegal or arbitrary process. It noted that there was no error in the recruitment process.

“The Court does not find any error in the recruitment process. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the instant writ petition,” the court observed while dismissing the plea.

Supreme Court’s ruling

• In another case, the Supreme Court said that individual hardships cannot override uniform selection procedures, holding that “grace, charity or compassion ought to stay at a distance” in such matters.
• A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing an appeal by the Delhi Police against orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Delhi High Court that had allowed an aspirant a second chance to take the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test (PE and MT).
• “Grace, charity or compassion ought to stay at a distance in matters of public employment, if a fair level playing field is to be secured,” the top court said on April 2.
• Setting aside both orders, the Supreme Court emphasised that the terms of recruitment were explicit and non-negotiable.