Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rustam Garg & Ors vs Himachal Pradesh Public Service ... on 29 March, 2016
Bench: Chief Justice, Tarlok Singh Chauhan
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .
CWP No.699 of 2016 with CWP No.700 of 2016 Reserved on: 28.3.2016 Decided on: 29.03.2016 of CWP No.699 of 2016 Rustam Garg & ors ...Petitioners Versus Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission rt ...Respondent CWP No.700 of 2016 Divyanshu Sehgal & ors ....Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission & anr ....Respondents Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1.Yes.
For the Petitioners: Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate with Dr.Lalit Kumar Sharma and Mr. Saurav Rattan, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate.
Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr.M.A. Khan, Mr. Romesh Verma, Addl. AGs and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy AG for respondent No.2 in CWP No. 700 of 2016 Tarlok Singh Chauhan J.
Since common questions of fact and law are involved in both these petitions, therefore, they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by way of common judgment.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:59:44 :::HCHP 22. The necessary facts in nut shell are that the petitioners .
appeared in the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Preliminary Written Examination held by the respondents on 28.2.2016. The respondents, at the time of publishing the key answers, also invited objections qua the same. Petitioners filed their objections along with of documentary proof for the questions to which they are now taking exception. However, respondents went ahead and declared the result rt and published the same on their website on 15.3.2016 and thereafter displayed the revised answer keys on their website on 16.3.2016.
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that in the multiple choice questions, there were certain questions where even the revised key answers as given are wrong and some of the questions are even beyond the syllabus. The petitioners have given the details of such questions along with their version of correct answers.
4. But the moot question is as to whether this court can act as an expert and set aside the answers given in the revised key.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
5. It is vehemently argued by Sh. Ankush Sood, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Dr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, Advocate that since all the disputed questions only relate to the field of law, therefore, this court is competent to act as an expert and correct the inconsistencies in framing of the questions and evaluate the answers.
While on the other hand, Sh. D.K. Khanna, learned counsel for the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:59:44 :::HCHP 3 respondent would argue that this court cannot act as an expert even .
though the questions may be confined only to the subject of law as this is entirely within the purview and domain of the experts in the subject.
6. This court in case titled Mukesh Thakur Vs. State of of HP & others, reported in 2006 (1) Shim. L.C 134 had found inconsistency in framing of the questions relating to this very rt examination in the subject of Civil Law-II and after evaluating the same, it quashed the result prepared by the Commission.
7. However, the matter was carried in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & anr reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was not permissible for this court to have intervened and examined the question papers and answer sheets itself, even if these questions pertained to the subject of law, more particularly when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates,. It would be apt to reproduce the following observations:
"20. In view of the above, 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. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:59:44 :::HCHP 4 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."
of
8. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, it is absolutely clear that this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction has rt no power to judicially review the decision taken by the experts in so far it relates to revised key answers.
9. Similar question regarding allegation of publication of incorrect revised key answers has been repeatedly coming up before this Court and it shall be profitable to make note of some of the decisions.
10. In a batch of writ petitions, the lead case being CWP No.9169 of 2013 titled Vivek Kaushal & ors Vs. H.P. Public Service Commission, decided on 17.7.2014, this court was dealing with the key answers relating to the conduct of H.P. Administrative Services, Class-1 (gazetted) examinations and after taking into consideration the entire case law, more particularly, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukesh Thakur's case (supra), held as under:
"16. The Apex Court, after discussing the authorities, which were governing the field till the date of the decision in the case, has used the words : "......the Court should not generally direct revaluation". Meaning thereby, it suggests ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:59:44 :::HCHP 5 that if there is some mistake apparent on the face of it, the .
Court may interfere and may direct for revaluation.
17. In the instant case, the Rules do prescribe for inviting objections before the Examiner examines the papers and before declaring the result, if the candidates of files objections within seven days from displaying the key on the website. It appears that the purpose is just to examine those objections before declaring the result. rt
18. Applying the test to the instant case, it is specifically averred by the respondents, as discussed hereinabove, that they have invited the objections, asked the Experts to examine the objections, objections were examined, some mistakes were found, were rectified, the Examiners were asked to examine the papers in light of the Expert's opinion and thereafter, the result was declared. Thus, there is no case for interference. Had the Commission not invited the objections or had failed to take into account the said objections and the Expert's opinion, in that eventuality, the judicial review was permissible. Thus, on this count, these writ petitions are not maintainable.
19. The respondents have specifically pleaded that some of the petitioners have filed objections, but some have not filed the same. The respondents have furnished CWP-wise list of the petitioners, who have not represented/filed objections before the Commission, made part of the file. The respondents have also furnished opinion of Experts of Key- Committee on objected questions/key answers of the General Studies & Aptitude Test.
20. It is beaten law of land that the Courts are not Experts, have to honour the opinion of the Experts and ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:59:44 :::HCHP 6 cannot substitute the same. In the instant cases, the Experts .
have examined the questions and given their opinion.
21. We are of the considered view that the writ petitioners, who have not filed objections, have lost their right, are bound by the decision of the Commission and of cannot now file writ petitions. Thus, the writ petitions are not maintainable so far it relate to them. Further, the objections raised by the candidates have been considered rt and judicial review is not permissible."
11. Notably, the judgment rendered in Vivek Kaushal's (supra) was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Special Leave to Appeal (C ) Nos. 20992 to 20995/2014 and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 7.8.2014.
12. The above stated legal position was thereafter reiterated in a batch of writ petitions, the lead case being CWP No.6812 of 2014, titled Arvind Kumar & ors Vs. Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, decided on 16.10.2014.
13. In Ashutosh Parmar Vs. State of HP & ors, CWP No. 1118 of 2014, decided on 1.10.2015, this court was again dealing with a case seeking correction of key answers to the H.P. Judicial Service Examination and it was observed as under:
"13.In Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & anr, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759, it was specifically held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is 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 is any discrepancy in framing of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:59:44 :::HCHP 7 question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all .
candidates appearing for the examination and not for an individual candidate."
14. Notably, even the aforesaid decision in Ashutosh Parmar's case (supra) was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme of Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (C) No542/2016, however, the same was withdrawn on 18.1.2016.
15. rt Similar reiteration of the legal proposition is found in case titled Lalit Mohan Vs. H.P. Public Service Commission, CWP No. 3866 of 2015, decided on 2.11.2015.
16. The aforesaid legal position has yet again been reiterated by this court in its recent decision rendered in LPA No. 211 of 2015, titled H.P. Board of School Education, Dharamshala, Vs. Rajnesh & anr decided on 14th March, 2016. The court therein was dealing with the judgment rendered by the learned writ court wherein it had substituted the findings rendered by the expert by its own findings and this court held as under:
"2.The judgment, on the face of it, is not in tune with the judgment made by this Court in CWP No. 9169 of 2013 titled Vivek Kaushal and others versus H.P. Public Service Commission and other connected matters, decided on 10.7.2014, made by the Division Bench of this Court, and other cases. The judgment impugned is also bad in view of the judgment delivered by the apex Court in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission versus Mukesh Thakur and another reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759."::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:59:44 :::HCHP 8
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 of 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 rt opinion for that of the experts.
Having said so, we find no merit in these petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear the costs. Miscellaneous application(s), if any is/are also dismissed.
(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan), Judge.
March 29, 2016 (sl) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:59:44 :::HCHP