Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarun Walia And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 15 July, 2013
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Fateh Deep Singh
CWP No.13624 of 2013 & other connected cases 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision:15.07.2013
(1) CWP No.13624 of 2013 (O & M)
Tarun Walia and others ....Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
(2) CWP No.13669 of 2013 (O & M)
Ravneet Kaur Mannan and others ....Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
(3) CWP No.13688 of 2013 (O & M)
Ravdeep Kaur ....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
(4) CWP No.13700 of 2013 (O & M)
Rishabh Kapoor and another ....Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
(5) CWP No.13704 of 2013 (O & M)
Navjeet Kaur ....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
(6) CWP No.13747 of 2013 (O & M)
Simirjot ....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
Kumar Vimal
2013.07.15 18:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CWP No.13624 of 2013 & other connected cases 2
(7) CWP No.13750 of 2013 (O & M)
Navdeep Goyal ....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
(8) CWP No.13837 of 2013 (O & M)
Rohit Gupta ....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
(9) CWP No.13876 of 2013 (O & M)
Vishal Gupta and others ....Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
(10) CWP No.13961 of 2013 (O & M)
Gursher Singh ....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
(11) CWP No.13968 of 2013 (O & M)
Ruchi Walia and others ....Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
(12) CWP No.13970 of 2013 (O & M)
Dhairya Vrishaparvaa ....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
Kumar Vimal
2013.07.15 18:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CWP No.13624 of 2013 & other connected cases 3
(13) CWP No.13982 of 2013 (O & M)
Davy Gupta ....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
(14) CWP No.14017 of 2013 (O & M)
Neeru Bala ....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
(15) CWP No.14145 of 2013 (O & M)
Rohit Sharma and others ....Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
(16) CWP No.14207 of 2013 (O & M)
Rajat Bansal ....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
(17) CWP No.14248 of 2013 (O & M)
Ricky Chodha ....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
(18) CWP No.14311 of 2013 (O & M)
Gagandeep Singh ....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
Kumar Vimal
2013.07.15 18:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CWP No.13624 of 2013 & other connected cases 4
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr.Atul Goyal, Advocate Mr.Rahul Chhatwal, Advocate Mr.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate Mr.Sourabh Goel, Advocate Mr.Harish Goyal, Advocate Mr.Ajaivir Singh, Advocate Mr.Ravinder Singh Randhawa, Advocate Ms.G.K.Mann, Advocate Mr.Ashok Tyagi, Advocate Mr.Maninder Arora, Advocate Mr.Pardeep Goyal, Advocate Mr.Sharan Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner(s) Mr.K.K.Kareer, Registrar (Recruitment) Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. Hemant Gupta J.
This order shall dispose of bunch of writ petitions wherein challenge is to the result generated of the preliminary examination for the purpose of the shortlisting the candidates for Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) main examination.
An advertisement was issued to start the process of selection in respect of 71 posts of Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch). The examination is to be conducted in three stages firstly the Preliminary examination followed by the main written examination and viva voce. The Preliminary Examination is for shortlisting of candidates to appear in the main examination.
The preliminary examination was conducted on 08.06.2013. It consisted of 125 multiple choice questions. All the petitioners have Kumar Vimal 2013.07.15 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.13624 of 2013 & other connected cases 5 appeared in the said examination and are aggrieved in respect of the result generated on account of allegedly wrong answer keys.
On 08.07.2013, Mr.K.K.Kareer learned Registrar (Recruitment) stated that the Committee of this Court shall re-examine the answer key of questions No.9, 16, 23, 27, 35, 49, 57, 64, 83, 86, 87, 96, 98, 99, 100, 109, 110, 114, 116 and 119. Today, Mr.Kareer has pointed out that the Committee has examined the questions and corrected answer keys in respect of question Nos.27 and 114. However, it was stated that answer keys in respect of all other questions is correct.
With the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Kareer, we have gone through the questions and find that stand of the respondents in respect of certain questions cannot be said to be incorrect in any manner in respect of questions No.8,9, 23,72,83,99,109,110 and 116. However, we find that the answer keys in respect of questions No.35, 49, 57, 64, 86 are ambiguous and vague which were sufficient to mislead the candidates so as to answer the multi choice questions appropriately. We are conscious of the fact that the power of judicial review of this Court is limited while examining the answer keys and that this Court will not sit over the wisdom of the examiner in respect of answer keys so finalized. But if the bare perusal of the statutes lead to a conclusion that the choices are vague, ambiguous and can mislead a candidate, this Court is duty bound to intervene and suggest the corrective measures. The questions said to be either vague or ambiguous are mentioned below:
35. In the trial of summons case by a Magistrate:-
a. charges must be framed b. charges need not be framed c. charges can be framed provided d. only substance of accusation is to accused does not object be stated.Kumar Vimal
2013.07.15 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.13624 of 2013 & other connected cases 6
49. Proof of a fact depends on:-
a. accuracy of the statement and b. not upon the accuracy of the not upon the probability of its statement but upon the probability existence. of its existence.
c. artificial probative value d. rigid mathematical
assigned to a fact. demonstration.
57. The evidence unearthed by the sniffer dog falls under:-
a. oral evidence b. documentary evidence c. hearsay evidence d. scientific evidence
64. For an offence of Criminal Conspiracy under Section 120-A of IPC, the parties involved should agree to do or cause to be done an act:-
a. the ultimate object of which is b. which is not illegal, but by illegal illegal. means.
c. which is illegal but by legal d. 'a' and 'b' means
86. In Islamic Law, a bequest to an heir:-
a. cannot be made at all. b. can be made subject to the consent of other heirs.
c. can be made without the consent d. can be made if the senior-most of other heirs. heir permits.
Question No.35 relates to Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In view of the provisions of the Code, both the options 'B' and 'D' are correct. In fact, the correct answer has been bifurcated into two parts. Thus, the options and the answer key becomes misleading.
Question No. 49 relates to the Section 3 of the Evidence Act. The expression 'Proved' has been defined as to when the Court either believes a fact to exist or considers its existence probable, to act up on the supposition that it exists. The answer key gives option 'A' as the correct answer, whereas in terms of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, the correct answer is option 'B'.
In respect of question No.57, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sucha Singh & another Vs. State of Punjab 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 284, wherein reliance was placed upon the judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Kumar Vimal 2013.07.15 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.13624 of 2013 & other connected cases 7 Dinesh Borthakur Vs.State of Assam (2008) 5 SCC 697, wherein it has been held that evidence of a sniffer dog is hearsay evidence. As per the answer key, the correct answer is option 'D'. But such option is contrary to the interpretation of law. Thus the answer key generated is obviously incorrect.
The option 'A' and option 'C' given against question No.64, are same though worded with slight variation. The answer as per key is 'D' that is option 'A' and 'B' are correct. Since the options are overlapping and option 'B' may not be correct, giving rise to vagueness and ambiguity.
In respect of question No.86, Mr.Kareer relies upon a judgment in "Ghulam Mohammad vs. Ghulam Husain and others" AIR 1932 Privy Council 81. The grievance of the petitioners is that 'Shias' and 'Sunnis' are governed by separate Islamic law, therefore the choices are vague. A perusal of the judgment of Privy Council referred by Mr.Kareer shows that it was dealing with a case governed by law of 'Hanafi'. Therefore, whether such judgment would be relevant and applicable in view of The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, needs to be examined by the Committee in the light of the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners.
We have found that the answer key in respect of the some of the questions is incorrect which may affect large number of students, therefore, we leave it to the committee to revise the result by correcting the answer key or delete the questions while preparing the revised result. The needful be done by 19.07.2013.
Lastly, some of the learned counsel for the Petitioners pointed that in some States there is a practice that before the result is declared after Kumar Vimal 2013.07.15 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.13624 of 2013 & other connected cases 8 examination, the answer key is displayed and the objections are invited from the candidates. Such opportunity to the candidates before finalizing the final answer key would avoid the possibility of the revision of the result at subsequent stage and invocation of the jurisdiction of the Courts by way of writ petitions after the result is generated. It is for the respondents to examine the said aspect so as to streamline the functioning of the examination.
The writ petitions stand disposed of.
15.07.2013 (Hemant Gupta)
neenu/Vimal Judge
(Fateh Deep Singh)
Judge
Kumar Vimal
2013.07.15 18:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh