Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sh. Vinay Anand vs State Of H.P. And Others on 9 October, 2023
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 987 of 2023
Decided on : 09.10.2023
.
Sh. Vinay Anand ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
of
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the petitioner : M/s J.P. Sharma and Devin,
Advocates.
rt
For the respondents : M/s Rupinder Singh Thakur and
Pushpender Jaswal, Additional
Advocate General with M/s
Ranjna Patial and Sumit
Sharma, Deputy Advocate
Generals for respondents No. 1
and 3.
: M/s Vikrant Thakur and Vishal
Singh Thakur, Advocates, for
respondent No. 2.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:-
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the Present Petition may kindly b allowed and annexure P-9 may kindly be quashed and aside;
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2023 20:34:28 :::CIS 2
Or respondents may be directed to redraw the merit list after deduction the marks of 34 .
questions which were given out of syllabus prescribed in R&P Rules. Or Question paper Annexure P-7 to the extent of questions which are out of syllabus may kindly of be quashed and set aside;
Question paper Annexure P-7 may kindly be rt directed to Examine by the expert committee."
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the petition are that in terms of Advertisement P-1, Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, advertised various posts, including that of Motor Vehicle Inspector. Last date for applying for the post by submitting online applications was 30.06.2022. The petitioner applied for the post and also participated in the written examination which was held on 16.10.2022. Thereafter, when the result of the selection process was declared by the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission vide Annexure P-6 by way of notification dated 8th December, 2022, the petitioner finding his name not amongst the candidates shortlisted, filed this ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2023 20:34:28 :::CIS 3 petition inter alia on the ground that 34 questions in the Question Paper were out of syllabus.
.
3. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and learned Counsel for respondent-Commission, this Court is of the considered view that no interference with the process, in terms of the of prayer made in the petition, is called for in the present case.
4. It is a matter of record that when the petitioner rt participated in the written examination which was held on 16.10.2022, he did not raise any objection that the questions in the Question Paper were out of syllabus. In terms of the reply that has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, even after holding of the Written Objective Type Screening Test, no representation relating to any question was made by the petitioner to the then authorities of the Erstwhile Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur after provisional answer key was uploaded. A perusal of the advertisement Annexure P-1 demonstrates that Clause 14 thereof which dealt with Screening Test/Examination/ Documentation etc inter alia provided that the provisional answer key of each Written Screening Test (objective type) will be uploaded on the official website after the freezing of the answer sheets of the ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2023 20:34:28 :::CIS 4 candidates for calling objections from the candidates and seven days' time shall be given for inviting objections in the .
answer key, if any and the objections will be got vetted through an expert panel and the result will be finalized as per the revised answer key.
5. When this was provided in the advertisement of itself, then why objection was not raised by the petitioner at that stage, has not been spelled out in the petition. Therefore, rt when the petitioner (a) failed to raise any objection at the time of appearing in the Screening Test that certain questions were out of syllabus; and (b) failed to file any objection within the period provided in clause 14 (iii) of the advertisement, this belated attempt of the petitioner by filing this writ petition in the month of January, 2023, i.e. after the declaration of the result of the process, cannot be entertained.
6. A three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Another vs. State of Rajasthan and Others2, after referring to the earlier pronouncements of it on the subject, has been pleased to hold that Courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters and in any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct 2 (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 309 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2023 20:34:28 :::CIS 5 answers is not permissible. Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that the delay in finalization of appointments to public .
posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a long period of time and the cascading effect of delay in appointments is the continuance of those appointed on temporary basis and of their claims for regularization and delayed appointments to public posts is the serious damage caused to rt administration due to lack of sufficient personnel.
Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not been able to make out any case for interference with the selection process and the petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
October 09, 2023 Judge
(narender)
::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2023 20:34:28 :::CIS