Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shri Rajneesh Chauhan vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 7 October, 2021
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Satyen Vaidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
.
ON THE 7th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
Between:-
r to
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6283 of 2021
MS. SAPNA CHAUHAN, W/O
SHRI RAJNEESH CHAUHAN,
R/O DHIRAJ APARTMENT,
BELOW HIMFED BUILDING,
BCS NEW SHIMLA, DISTRICT
SHIMLA, H.P. ......PETITIONER.
(BY SH. ROMESH VERMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF H.P., THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY (POWER), TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA.
2. THE HIMACHAL PRADESH, STAFF SELECTION
COMMISSION, HAMIRPUR, THROUGH
ITS SECRETARY, HAMIRPUR, H.P.
3. SHRI SHUBHAM KUMAR, C/O
H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION,
HAMIRPUR, THROUGH HIS
ROLL NO. 788001309. ......RESPONDENTS.
(SH.ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL
WITH SH. RAJINDER DOGRA,
SENIOR ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL,
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:11:26 :::CIS
2
SH. VINOD THAKUR, SH. SHIV PAL MANHANS,
SH. HEMANSHU MISRA, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERALS AND
.
SH. BHUPINDER THAKUR,
DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL,
FOR RESPONDENT-1)
(SH. ANGREZ KAPOOR, ADVOCATE,
FOR RESPONDENT-2)
This petition coming on for admission after
notice this day, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh
Chauhan, passed the following:
ORDER
The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-
"(a) That the final results, dated 16.09.2021, Annexure-P-3 may kindly be quashed and set- aside.
(b) That after granting .50 marks to the petitioner under Question No. 46, Series (C), the result of the petitioner may be revised and she may be declared selected under Code No.788.
(c) That after revising the result of the petitioner, she may be declared as selected candidate and she may be appointed as Junior Officer under Code No.788, with the H.P. Power Corporation Limited."
2. The Himachal Pradesh Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, (for short 'Commission') advertised different posts in various departments, vide Advertisement ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:11:26 :::CIS 3 No. 36-1/2020, dated 02.03.2020. The Code No. 788 deals with the H.P. Power Corporation Limited in which six posts .
for Junior Officer (Supervisory Trainee-F&A) were advertised.
Out of the aforesaid six posts, four posts were meant for General Category, one post for OBC and one post was meant for SC Category. The petitioner applied for the post of Junior Officer on 10.03.2020 via online under General Category and Code No. 788. The petitioner participated in the examination held on 17.01.2021. After declaration of result, the petitioner was shown in the waiting list of General Category at Serial No.4 with total aggregate of 60.90 marks. Thereafter, the petitioner personally visited office of respondent No.2 and registered her objections with the Commission relating to Question Nos.46, 90,115 and
161. The Board, in turn, got these questions vetted by the Expert Panel and the same was made available to the petitioner.
3. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that some of the questions, more particularly, question number 46 as answered by the Experts, is still incorrect, hence, this petition.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:11:26 :::CIS 44. What would be the scope of judicial review in the given facts and circumstances of the case has recently .
been considered by this Bench in CWP No. 4999 of 2021, titled Upanshu Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another and connected matter, wherein it was observed as under:-
"12. The powers of this Court to have opinion different to that of the experts, in the matter of evaluation of answers in competitive examination, is well defined. In this context, reference can be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others (1984) 4 SCC 27, wherein it has held as under:
"29. Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defeasive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:11:26 :::CIS 5 which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that .
the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case."
13. In Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur and another (2010) 6 SCC 759, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question paper and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter-se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for respondent No.1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court."
14. In Central Board of Secondary Education through Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/Pre- Dental Entrance Examination and others vs. Khushboo Shrivastava and others (2014) 14 SCC 523, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while noticing the judgment in Maharashtra State Board of ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:11:26 :::CIS 6 Secondary and Higher Secondary Education case (supra) has held as under:
.
"11. In our considered opinion, neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court could have substituted his/its own views for that of the examiners and awarded two additional marks to Respondent 1 for the two answers in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution as these are purely academic matters......."
15. A Division Bench of this Court in Rustam Garg and others vs. Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, ILR 2016 Vol. (2), 591, while dealing with an identical proposition has held as under:
"17. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, we have no doubt in our mind that even when the revised key answers are impugned with respect to questions relating to the subject of law, it is not permissible for this Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when the Commission has assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. It is not for the Court to take upon itself the task of the statutory authorities and substitute its own opinion for that of the experts."
5. The similar reiteration of law can be found in another decision of the learned Division Bench of this Court, authored by one of us (Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan) in Bhupinder Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another 2021 (1) Him. L.R. (DB) 6.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:11:26 :::CIS 76. We may, at this stage, refer to a fairly recent judgment rendered by three Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme .
Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta and another vs. State of Rajasthan and others (2021) 2 SCC 309 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that though re-evaluation can be directed, if rules permit, however, deprecated the practice of re-evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the Courts which lack expertise and it was further held that it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendations of the Expert Committee, who have expertise to evaluate and make recommendations. It shall be apposite to refer to the relevant observations as contained in paragraphs 13 to 17 which read as under:-
"13. The point that arises for the consideration of this Court is whether the revised Select List dated 21.05.2019 ought to have been prepared on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key. The Appellants contend that the Wait List also should be prepared on the basis of the 3rd Answer Key and not on the basis of ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:11:26 :::CIS 8 the 2nd Answer Key. The 2nd Answer Key was released by the RPSC on the basis of the .
recommendations made by the Expert Committee constituted pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court. Not being satisfied with the revised Select List which included only a few candidates, certain unsuccessful candidates filed Appeals before the Division Bench which were disposed of on 12.03.2019. When the Division Bench was informed that the selections have been finalized on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key, it refused to interfere with the Select List prepared on 17.09.2018. However, the Division Bench examined the correctness of the questions and Answer Keys pointed by the Appellants therein and arrived at a conclusion that the answer key to 5 questions was erroneous. On the basis of the said findings, the Division Bench directed the RPSC to prepare revised Select List and apply it only to the Appellants before it.
14. Though re-evaluation can be directed if rules permit, this Court has deprecated the practice of re- evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the courts which lack expertise in academic matters. It is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when the Commission has assessed the inter se merit of the candidates (Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur (2010) 6 SCC 759. Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of the Expert Committee who have the expertise to evaluate and ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:11:26 :::CIS 9 make recommendations (See- Basavaiah v. H.L. Ramesh (2010) 8 SCC 372.
.
15.Examining the scope of judicial review with regards to re-evaluation of answer sheets, this Court in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. (2018) 2 SCC 357 held that court should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matters and the academic matters are best left to academics. This Court in the said judgment further held as follows: (Ran Vijay Singh case9, SCC pp. 369-70, paras 31-32) r "31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re- evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse -- exclude the suspect or offending question.
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:11:26 :::CIS 10 tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great .
efforts to successfully conduct an examination.
The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of r eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination -- whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will get admission in a college or university or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers."
16. In view of the above law laid down by this Court, it was not open to the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of the questions and the answer key to come to a conclusion different from that of the Expert Committee in its judgment dated 12.03.2019. Reliance was placed by the Appellants on Richal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (2018) 8 SCC 81. In the said judgment, this Court interfered with the selection process only after ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:11:26 :::CIS 11 obtaining the opinion of an expert committee but did not enter into the correctness of the questions and .
answers by itself. Therefore, the said judgment is not relevant for adjudication of the dispute in this case.
17. A perusal of the above judgments would make it clear that courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters. In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. 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. The cascading effect of delay in appointments is the continuance of those appointed on temporary basis and their claims for regularization. The other consequence resulting from delayed appointments to public posts is the serious damage caused to administration due to lack of sufficient personnel."
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid exposition of law, the reliefs, as claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted, more particularly, when objections of the petitioner have already been considered by a panel of Experts. The petitioner has not been able to show any provision governing the process of selection from which she may derive the reliefs as claimed. The reliefs as claimed in this ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:11:26 :::CIS 12 petition are not permissible and cannot be granted to the petitioner.
.
8. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
r (Satyen Vaidya)
Judge
7th October, 2021.
(krt)
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:11:26 :::CIS