Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amit Kumar And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 25 April, 2022
Author: Arun Monga
Bench: Arun Monga
CWP-15672-2021 (O&M) and other connected cases
253+122+260 (last case)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision:25.04.2022
CWP-15672-2021 (O&M)
AMIT KUMAR AND OTHERS ...Petitioners
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents
2) CWP-10531-2021
PAWAN KUMAR ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
3) CWP-15944-2021
AJNISH KUMAR ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents
4) CWP-16468-2021
SATYADEV AND OTHERS ...Petitioners
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
5) CWP-16602-2021
RAJAT GANDHI ... Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR ...Respondents
6) CWP-16603-2021
AJAY ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents
7) CWP-16604-2021
BALRAM ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR ...Respondents
8) CWP-16607-2021
MUKESH KUMAR ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR ...Respondents
9) CWP-16608-2021
PAWAN KUMAR ...Petitioner
Page 1 of 13
1 of 13
::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 19:42:02 :::
CWP-15672-2021 (O&M) and other connected cases
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR ...Respondents
10) CWP-16611-2021
BHOOPENDER ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
11) CWP-16612-2021
SURENDER PAL ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR ...Respondents
12) CWP-16885-2021
HEMANT ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents
13) CWP-16954-2021
BHIM SAIN ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents
14) CWP-17273-2021
SUNIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER ...Petitioners
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
15) CWP-17286-2021
VISHNU ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents
16) CWP-17293-2021
NITIN ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
17) CWP-17473-2021
SANJAY KUMAR ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
18) CWP-17489-2021
IQBAL KHAN AND OTHERS ...Petitioners
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents
19) CWP-17505-2021
MANOJ KUMAR ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
20) CWP-18621-2021
ASHISH ...Petitioner
Page 2 of 13
2 of 13
::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 19:42:02 :::
CWP-15672-2021 (O&M) and other connected cases
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR ...Respondents
21) CWP-18858-2021
RANJEET PATHANIA ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
22) CWP-19481-2021
DEEPAK ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
23) CWP-19615-2021
PARVESH SHARMA ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents
24) CWP-20123-2021
AASHISH DHULL AND ANOTHER ...Petitioners
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
25) CWP-21405-2021
MUKESH ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
26) CWP-21705-2021
AJAY GREWAL ...Petitioner
Vs.
HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION ...Respondent
27) CWP-21993-2021
RAKESH ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR ...Respondents
28) CWP-23158-2021
LOKESH ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents
29) CWP-25101-2021
OMBIR ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
30) CWP-3793-2021
SARITA AND ANOTHER ...Petitioners
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
31) CWP-19769-2020
NASEEB AND ANR ...Petitioners
Vs.
Page 3 of 13
3 of 13
::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 19:42:02 :::
CWP-15672-2021 (O&M) and other connected cases
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR ...Respondents
32) CWP-22177-2020
ANKUR VERMA ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents
33) CWP-19723-2020
JATIN ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR ...Respondents
34) CWP-14641-2020
MOHIT ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
35) CWP-14869-2020
AJNISH ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR ...Respondents
36) CWP-15254-2020
KAVITA ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
37) CWP-15292-2020
NARENDER ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR ...Respondents
38) CWP-3763-2022
SURAJ ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents
39) CWP-7136-2022
PAWAN KUMAR ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
40) CWP-14261-2020
RAMESH KUMAR ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ...Respondents
41) CWP-4114-2022
PARDEEP AND OTHERS ...Petitioners
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
42) CWP-6703-2022
SANJEEV KUMAR ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR ...Respondents
Page 4 of 13
4 of 13
::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 19:42:02 :::
CWP-15672-2021 (O&M) and other connected cases
43) CWP-14636-2020
SUNIL ...Petitioner
Vs.
HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION ...Respondent
44) CWP-3109-2021
HARDIP ...Petitioner
Vs.
HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION ...Respondent
45) CWP-6874-2022
PARDEEP KUMAR ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents
46) CWP-8363-2022
YOGESH ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present: Mr. Vikram Sheoran, Advocate,
Mr. K.S. Virk, Advocate,
Mr. Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate,
Mr. R.S. Dhull, Advocate,
Mr. J.S. Saneta, Advocate,
Mr. Akshat Mittal, Advocate,
Mr. Rahul Pathania, Advocate,
Mr. Arjun Attri, Advocate,
Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate,
Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate,
Mr. Rajesh Nain, Advocate,
Mr. Anil Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate,
Ms. Anuradha, Advoate,
Mr. S.S. Sahu, Advocate,
Mr. Kuldeep Sharma, Advocate,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Bajaj, Advocate,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra (Sirsa), Advocate,
Mr. Shokeen Singh Verma, Advocate,
Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate,
Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, Advocate,
Mr. S.K. Goyat, Advocate,
Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate,
Mr. Amit Rana, Advocate,
Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate,
Mr. S.K. Malik, Advocate,
Page 5 of 13
5 of 13
::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 19:42:02 :::
CWP-15672-2021 (O&M) and other connected cases
Mr. Rahul Makkar, Advocate,
Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sihmar, Advocate,
For the petitioner(s).
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana with
Mr. Dikansh Goel, Law Officer, HSSC
Ms. Sukhwinder Kaur, ADA, HSSC and
Ms. Kamaljeet, Law Officer, HSSC.
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
Above titled bunch of 46 petitions is being disposed of vide common order since facts as well as issues involved therein are similar.
2. Succinct factual narrative first. For the sake of brevity, same is being taken from CWP-15672-2021.
3. This is second foray of litigation before this Court for many of the petitioners, hopefuls of becoming clerks in State of Haryana. Despite earlier orders Annexures P-16 and P-20, passed by this Court, respondent Commission rejected the right of the petitioners for awarding marks, allegedly for wrong evaluation of their answers. Three questions of the paper Code A, subject matter of lis herein, were correctly marked as per First Answer Key (Annexure P-13). However, in the final answer key in paper code R, U and T (of the petitioners), evaluation qua same very questions was later changed. While for the same very questions, candidates of paper Code 'A', who gave same answers as many of the petitioners herein in paper code R, U and T, have been selected finally on the basis of awarding of marks for those questions. Hence the petitioners, having been denied marks despite same answers, are before this court.
Page 6 of 13
6 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 19:42:02 ::: CWP-15672-2021 (O&M) and other connected cases
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners unanimously all argue that if the aforesaid mistake is rectified by the Commission, then the petitioners too would be in the zone of consideration.
5. In the aforesaid backdrop, issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari and/ or otherwise qua their rejection pursuant to the selection carried out in terms of advertisement No.5/ 2019 dated 26.06.2019 (Annexure P-1) and further issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus has also been sought directing the respondent-Commission to award marks for three questions at Sr. No.42, 61 and 72 of question paper-book Code 'R' question No.14, 33 and 44 of paper Code "U" and question No. 23, 43 and 54 of paper code "T" at par with paper code A and Final Answer Key for paper Code "A question No. 24, 62 and 9, respectively.
6. Further prayer is also to direct the respondent commission to revise the final result dated 03.09.2020 (Annexure P-12) and result of waiting candidates dated 17.05.2021 (Annexure P-22) by including the names of the petitioners in the selection list after revising/correcting the final answer key of Paper Code "R, U and T" of the petitioners, respectively and place the petitioners at the appropriate place in the merit list of their respective categories of BCA and General Category.
7. Notice of motion was issued by this Court vide an order dated 16.08.2021 and following order was passed:
"Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that different candidates were given different sets of questions, speaking illustratively he contends that questions No. 41, 61 and 72 of Code "R" and questions No.14, 33 and 44 of Code "U" and questions No.23, 43 and 54 of Code "T" (Annexures P-8 to P-10) due to the Page 7 of 13 7 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 19:42:02 ::: CWP-15672-2021 (O&M) and other connected cases variation contained therein, the answers thereto would also vary. And yet, while marking the answers, same answers were treated as correct for all the aforesaid three sets of questions, resulting in anomaly of awarding the marks.
Learned counsel further contends that approach of checking the answer sheets, by disregarding the change in question, is highly casual and discriminatory.
Notice of motion.
Notice regarding stay, as well.
On advance service of copy of the petition, learned State counsel joins the proceedings and accepts notice on behalf of State of Haryana.
Adjourned to 28.08.2021, for the limited purpose of enabling the learned State counsel to get instructions with regard to the aforesaid submissions. Filing of return to follow later."
8. Apropos above, a short reply dated 22.04.2022 has been filed by the Under Secretary of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, inter alia, stating as below:-
"13. That the Respondent Commission has received the report from the Chief-Examiner. Copy of report is annexed herewith as Annexure R-2/1. The relevant part of the report is reproduced as under:-
"We have cross checked the objection raised by few candidates on the final answer keys for few sets of the Question paper in few sessions. However, to reconfirm the answer keys for all the 5 sessions, we have assigned a team to check the answer keys of all the 24 versions in all the 5 sessions in which the exam was conducted. The Question paper was jumbled in 24 versions and Options were also jumbled for all the 24 versions. That the written exam for post in question was conducted in five sessions i.e. "Paper Code E-1 (21st Sept 2019-Evening Session) Paper Code M-1 (22nd Sept 2019-Morning Session) Paper Code E-2 (22nd Sept 2019-Evening Session) Paper Code M-2 (23rd Sept 2019-Morning Session) Paper Code E-3 (23rd Sept 2019-Evening Session) Please find below the summary of the changes post checking the entire 5 session of the Question paper and Answer keys.
Clerk Post (5 Sessions)-Change in Final Keys (Result processed)-2019 Sr. Session Version Question Total No. Number/No. of Keys Questions Chang ed Page 8 of 13 8 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 19:42:02 ::: CWP-15672-2021 (O&M) and other connected cases 1 E-1 (Day 1 G 46 1 Evening) 52 1 2 M 46 1 52 1 3 S 52 1 4 E-2 (Day 2 H,I,M 1 Question Each 3 Evening) 5 B,F,J,K,N,P,U, 2 Question Each 18 V,X 6 C,D,E,G,L,O,Q 3 Question Each 24 ,R 7 S,T,W 3 Question Each 9 8 M-2 (Day 3 C 39 1 Morning) 60 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXX
15. That from the above report and tables it is clear that misevaluation of the questions as contended by the petitioners in all the writ petitions mentioned in para no.8 as well as other questions as observed by the experts (mentioned in the report) has happened in revised answer key. It is submitted that the Commission had solely relied upon the expert decision for the evaluation of the answer sheets based on the answer key provided by the Chief-examiner previously and the answer sheets has been evaluated by the evaluators based on revised answer key provided by the Chief-examiner. Therefore, due to inadvertent technical error, the OMR sheets has been misevaluated."
9. In the aforesaid premise, without adverting any further on the merits of the case, which is not necessary in view of the candid admission now made by the Commission that during evaluation of the answer sheets, mistakes have indeed taken place on the part of the examiner. Though a lame excuse is being given to justify it, ostensibly on the ground of software failure. Be that as it may, the impugned result declared by the commission Page 9 of 13 9 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 19:42:02 ::: CWP-15672-2021 (O&M) and other connected cases shall have to be set aside, with fresh evaluation of the aforesaid three questions qua all the candidates across board.
10. In any case, the impugned result, to say the least, flies in the face of the stand taken in the return filed by Commission and cannot be sustained. It is accordingly, directed that the Commission shall carry out re-evaluation of all the candidates across board, who had participated in the selection process and declare their result afresh and thereafter prepare a new merit-list. The result dated 03.09.2020 (Annexure P-12), impugned herein, is thus quashed.
11. However, since the selected candidates, in the interregnum have already been appointed and are not party before this Court, in order to balance the equities, it is made clear that they shall be allowed to continue in service, subject of-course to their being found meritorious on preparation fresh merit-list as aforesaid. In case, any of the candidates already selected does not make the cut as per the fresh merit-list, he/she shall be issued notice prior to taking any adverse action qua him/her. Needless to say, such a candidate shall be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy, in accordance with law, if so advised. Needful exercise be carried out within a period of two months from today.
12. For some of the petitioners, it is second round of lis before this Court as they had earlier also sought indulgence under writ jurisdiction. Pursuant thereto vide a speaking order dated 17.11.2020 (Annexure P-17), their case was reconsidered. However, their claim was again rejected stating Page 10 of 13 10 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 19:42:02 ::: CWP-15672-2021 (O&M) and other connected cases that after careful perusal of the result, no fault has been found in the impugned result. It is rather intriguing that in the second round before this court, now a complete somersault has been taken. In the return filed, Commission has instead candidly admitted that yes, indeed, not only the mistakes have happened in evaluation of the result, but also revised key contributed to wrong evaluation. The scapegoat is thus a software malfunction and not the Commission, is the argument. As if the commission is not responsible for the revised answer key and/or the software it got prepared for the examination. Same old nonchalant, shrug it off most casually and lackadaisical approach !
13. In the peculiar circumstances, learned counsels for petitioners rely on order/judgment dated 16.07.2018 passed in CWP-26012-2017 and insist that costs of the litigation be paid to the petitioners as they have been needlessly made to run from pillar to post, first before the various officials of the Commission, followed by giving representations, which were given no heed and then leading to filing the first writ petition bearing CWP No. 15223- 2020 and now the second set of writ petitions.
14. What emerges is that, it seems to have become a habit of the Commission to commit such mistakes, given the nature of litigation pending in this Court wherein Haryana Staff Selection Commission is directly involved. Each time they come up with some moonshine defense, one illustration is herein itself, that due to the malfunction of the software, mistake happened on its own and personnel of commission are not Page 11 of 13 11 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 19:42:02 ::: CWP-15672-2021 (O&M) and other connected cases responsible. On the contrary, it is no rocket science to observe that apparently preparation of a wrong answer key has nothing to do with the software. It is a clear mistake on the part of the examiner who prepared the answer key. The job of identifying the human resource, including examiner or chief-examiner, is with the Commission. The Commission ought take the entire responsibility and must be more careful rather than shifting of burden from one shoulder to the other.
15. This Court highly deprecates the apathetic and indifferent approach adopted by the Commission. The Commission is censured to be careful in future.
16. As regards the costs in the present case is concerned, though the actual expenses borne by the petitioners cannot possibly be awarded, given the large number of petitions. It is but natural that the entire exercise of the evaluation shall now have to be carried out all over again. Resultantly, many some would get job, who are not at fault but yet deprived to be in service/earnings, while their counterparts have been earning ever since. In the peculiar premise, real losses suffered by the petitioners cannot be computed in terms of money. The costs which may have to be paid will put colossal burden on the state.
17. In the parting, I may hasten to add this Court was though inclined to impose heavy costs, but on the repeated requests made by the learned State counsel, as a one-time measure, same are not being awarded but with a caution that in future, such mistakes would leave the court with no choice but Page 12 of 13 12 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 19:42:02 ::: CWP-15672-2021 (O&M) and other connected cases to impose heavy penal costs, including qua loss of salary to the candidates who unnecessarily suffer for not fault of theirs.
18. After the re-evaluation is carried out, needless to say that entire exercise of further rounds, including scrutiny of documents shall also be carried out all over again. It is made clear that in case, after declaration of the fresh result, those petitioners who make the cut and yet not appointed and forced to invoke third round of litigation, either before this Court or anywhere else, they shall be liable to be compensated not only for the salary for which they would be deprived, being out of job, but also the actual litigation costs. The young job aspirants are still to make their first earning in life and they can barely ill afford to take recourse to multiplicity of repeated litigation.
19. Disposed of in the above terms.
20. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
21. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case files.
(ARUN MONGA)
JUDGE
25.04.2022
vandana
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Page 13 of 13
13 of 13
::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 19:42:02 :::