Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana Public Service Commission vs Jitender Kumar And Another on 3 December, 2012
Bench: A.K.Sikri, Rakesh Kumar Jain
LPA No.1338 of 2012 [1]
*****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA No.1338 of 2012
Date of decision:03.12.2012
Haryana Public Service Commission ...Appellant
Vs.
Jitender Kumar and another ...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K.Sikri, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. H.N.Mehtani and Mr. Kanwal Goel, Advocates,
for the appellant.
Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate with
Mr. Akshay Kumar Jindal, Advocate,
for respondents in LPA Nos.1338, 1553 & 1559 of 2012.
Mr. Ajaib Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1
in LPA No.1549 of 2012.
Mr. Manjeet Singh, Advocate, for the respondents
in LPA Nos.1566 and 1591 of 2012.
Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate, for the respondents
in LPA No.1575 of 2012.
Mr. Rajiv Singh Doon, Advocate, for the respondents
in LPA No.1591 of 2012.
Mr. Kiran Pal Singh, Advocate, for the respondents
in LPA Nos.1581 and 1568 of 2012.
Mr. K.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents
in LPA No.1338 of 2012.
Mr. Satish R. Swami, Advocate, for the respondents
in LPA No.1558, 1550 & 1578 of 2012.
Mr. Sant Lal Barwala, Advocate,
for the respondents in LPA No.1560 of 2012.
Mr. Karamveer Singh Banyana, Advocate,
for the respondents in LPA No.1570 of 2012.
Mr. Sanjiv Peter, Advocate, for the respondents
in LPA Nos.1552, 1567 & 1581 of 2012.
*****
LPA No.1338 of 2012 [2]
*****
A.K.Sikri, CJ. (Oral)
By way of this order, we shall dispose of LPA Nos.1338, 1549 to 1554, 1558 to 1561, 1566 to 1570, 1575, 1578 to 1581 and 1591 of 2012.
The appellant herein, namely, Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission"), conducted HCS (Executive Branch) and Allied Services Preliminary Examination, 2011 which was held on 25.03.2012 and the result whereof was declared on 05.05.2012. A series of writ petitions came to be filed by the unsuccessful candidates alleging various infirmities in the conduct of the said examination. Primarily, it was their grievance that many questions in the papers were found to be wrong and even answer key of some of the questions was incorrect because of which those candidates suffered prejudice and were declared unsuccessful. All these writ petitions were heard together by the learned Single Judge and finding substance in some of the submissions predicated on the aforesaid grounds, the learned Single Judge has disposed of these writ petitions vide common judgment dated 30.08.2012, giving following directions:
In view of the above, these writ petitions are allowed with following directions:-
(i) The Haryana Public Service Commission shall constitute a Committee of Experts to consider the 151 representations received by the Commission in pursuance to Clause 9 of the booklet of question papers and submit its report to the Commission. Commission shall consider the same and take steps in accordance with the law;
(ii) The Haryana Public Service Commission shall LPA No.1338 of 2012 [3] ***** publish the answer key of the preliminary examination within a period of three days from today, call for the representations from the candidates within a reasonable time, on receipt thereof, if any, the same be referred to a Committee of Experts, which shall consider these representations and submit its opinion to the Commission which shall thereafter take a decision thereon and take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
In case, discrepancies are found in the question papers/answer keys as per the report of the Committee of Experts, corrective measures be taken by the Commission and the following be also taken into consideration, i.e. wherever the question(s) in respect of which the option shown to be correct in the answer key is incorrect and instead another option as determined by the Committee of Experts is found to be correct, answer key be corrected. Question(s) in respect of which the answer in the answer key is debatable or question(s) in respect of which there is/are more than one correct option or questions in respect of which none of the options is correct or question(s) which is/are confusing or do not supply complete information for a clear answer, would have to be removed from the purview of examination. In the case of paper of General Studies, answers be evaluated accordingly of all the candidates.
However, in the case of optional subjects, the Commission shall have no option but to order re-
examination in the said optional paper(s) if discrepancies in question paper(s)/answer key(s) is/are of such a nature where the question(s) is/are to be deleted.
The result be thereafter compiled and declared only after the above process is given effect to.
LPA No.1338 of 2012 [4]
***** The main written examination, which is fixed for 02.09.2012 shall stand postponed till the above exercise is completed by the Commission."
These appeals are preferred by the Commission challenging the aforesaid directions. The matter was taken up on various dates. It is not now necessary to go into the issue raised in these appeals having regard to a very fair and equitable stand taken by the Commission in order to resolve the dispute and redress the grievances of the respondents herein. The affidavit of Shri I.C. Sangwan, Secretary of the Commission is filed wherein decision taken by the Commission is disclosed and the Commission intends to proceed in the following manner:
"5. That H.P.S.C. has taken a decision that it will send those representations already received before and after the publication of answer key as mentioned in Annexure A-1 to the Committee of Experts in the respective subjects alongwith answer key and syllabus relating to the concerned subjects to consider the aforesaid representations and to submit the reports to the Commission about the questions/answers found to be discrepant by the Committee of experts in the respective subjects.
6. That on receipt of the reports from the Committee of Experts subject-wise, Commission shall consider the report and shall delete the Questions/Answers found to be discrepant and will prepare and declare the result as per report of the Expert Committee on percentile basis as soon as possible.
7. That is is further brought to the kind notice of this Hon'ble Court that the earlier qualified candidates in the Preliminary Examination who are likely to be excluded on the basis of the result now to be prepared on LPA No.1338 of 2012 [5] ***** percentile basis after the reports of the Committee of the Experts in the respective subjects shall be retained. In that event those candidates who are not before this Hon'ble Court and whose cut-off would be upto the last earlier qualified candidate likely to be retained now on the basis of the result to be prepared on percentile basis being similarly situated will also be eligible to apply for the main examination."
Along with this affidavit, Annexure-A1 is also filed which contains the consolidated statement showing the total number of representations (subject wise) received before and after publication of the answer key along with number of questions/answers alleged to be wrong by the candidates as well as serial numbers of common questions disputed therein by the candidates.
It is, thus, stated that the Expert Committee(s), which is to be constituted as per the directions of the learned Single Judge, would go into all these questions and take the decision in the manner indicated above.
Counsel for the respondents have also prepared list of questions which, according to them, are wrong or where the answer key is incorrect. Same is handed over to Mr. Bali. Mr. Bali makes a statement at the bar, on the instructions given by Mr. I.C.Sangwan, Secretary of the Commission who is present in the Court, that the Expert Committee(s) shall look into these questions/answer keys as well.
Since the aforesaid proposal/procedure/mode suggested by the Commission essentially takes care of the directions of the learned Single Judge, nothing survives in these appeals which are disposed of with the LPA No.1338 of 2012 [6] ***** directions that the Commission shall take the steps in accordance with the lines stated in the affidavit and now as indicated in this order.
We would also like to point out that this course of action is acceptable to all the counsel for the respondents except the counsel for the respondents appearing in LPA Nos.1552 and 1567 of 2012. Mr. Sanjiv Peter, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in these two appeals, submits that this Bench should not accept the aforesaid proposal and the only proper course is to scrap the entire selection process and conduct fresh examination in 4 optional subjects.
We have heard him on this aspect but are not inclined to accept this submission particularly when we find that the solution suggested above is going to take care of all the grievances of the respondents and this solution is even accepted by all other candidates/respondents.
The Commission shall constitute the Expert Committee(s) within 4 weeks. Names of members of the Committee(s) shall be placed on the record of LPA No.1338 of 2012 in a sealed cover. The said Committee(s) shall endeavour to complete the entire exercise within 4 weeks thereafter to enable the Commission to proceed further in view of the recommendations made by this Court.
We accordingly dispose of all the appeals in the aforesaid manner.
(A.K.Sikri)
Chief Justice
03.12.2012 (Rakesh Kumar Jain)
vinod* Judge