Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mukesh Rao Son Of Shri Kehar Singh vs State Of Haryana Through Its Chief ... on 13 May, 2013
Author: K.Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.13661 of 2005 (O&M)
Date of decision: 13.05.2013
Mukesh Rao son of Shri Kehar Singh, R/o 25, Radha Swami
Colony, Rewari.
...Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana through its Chief Secretary, Government of
Haryana Civil Secretariat, Haryana, Chandigarh, and another.
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kartar Singh, DAG, Haryana,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. H.N.Mehtani, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No.
----
K.Kannan, J.
1. The writ petition contains a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the viva voce test of the Haryana Civil Services exam of 2004 and seeking for mandamus to re- evaluate the answer sheet of the petitioner in the subjects of "Law" Civil Writ Petition No.13661 of 2005 (O&M) -2- and "General Studies" by an independent and impartial examiners. The petitioner has complained of several malpractices that had taken place during the examination and suspects that by virtue of several irregularities and rampant corruption, the entire process of viva voce and the manner of evaluation of answer-sheets are highly suspect. The petitioner refers to several newspaper reports about the widespread complaints of the corrupt practices indulged by the Haryana Public Service Commission pursuant to the advertisement notification for the examination held on 23.05.2004.
2. It appears that there had been several other writ petitions contending similar relief and this Court had directed the investigation to be conducted in CWP No.2130 of 2009-Bharat Bhushan Versus State of Haryana and in a subsequent order in COCP No.1224 of 2011-Shakti Singh Versus Shrimati Urvashi Gulati, Chief Secretary Government of Haryana, the Court had directed the completion of enquiry in two months. The petitioner has filed additional documents to show that the State Vigilance Bureau had given a report that there were large scale deficiencies and irregularities in the selection process for which the Haryana Public Service Commission was fully responsible. The report records the fact that pursuant to the complaint, FIRs had also been registered but the investigation has still not been completed. Normally there will be no scope for re-evaluation in an examination Civil Writ Petition No.13661 of 2005 (O&M) -3- unless a very strong case is made for doubting the correctness of the selection process. The Supreme Court has held in H.P. Public Service Commission Versus Mukesh Thakur and another-AIR 2010 SC 2620 that the High Court would not be entitled to examination the question papers and answer-sheets, unless there is a provision under statutory rules and regulations, the High Court would not normally direct re-evaluation of answer-sheets. The direction for re-evaluation itself would arise only in case where statutory rules and regulations provide for such a process. In view of the law laid, I shall not make any direction for reevaluation but having regard to the fact that vigilance ordered by this Court in COCP No.1224 of 2011 has resulted in an adverse report about the nature of selection process, the petitioner cannot be without remedy.
3. I am truly handicapped in this case, for, I have secured no assistance from the State as to the nature of action proposed to be taken pursuant to the vigilance enquiry. After the case was adjourned sine die on 01.09.2005 when the investigation had been directed, the case was being brought for orders on several dates from 11.09.2012. On 10.10.2012, I had directed the State counsel to take instructions on the outcome of the action taken on the report given by the Director, State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana. The State took time to secure instructions and consequently, it was adjourned to 01.11.2012. The State again sought for time and posted for Civil Writ Petition No.13661 of 2005 (O&M) -4- 16.11.2012 finally. When no instructions had been directed, I had directed notice of motion for 13.02.2013 and when the case was brought up for hearing on 13.02.2013, the counsel again sought for time for reply. Neither the first respondent nor the second respondent has any information about the nature of action taken.
4. The decision of the Government about the status of the selection made pursuant to the examination in the year 2004 shall be communicated to the petitioner and if the selected candidates have already been allowed to continue, the petitioner shall have the benefit for being given an opportunity for another test in the same pattern as was originally announced. The selection shall be constituted along with any other case that has arisen and adopt the transparent procedure that would evoke public confidence. The entire exercise shall commence within a period of 8 weeks and the result of the selection communicated within a further period of 8 weeks. This direction, needless to say, is available only to the petitioner, who has approached this Court and not to all candidates who had taken the exam and who were not selected.
5. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 13.05.2013 sanjeev