Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmehtab Singh & Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 30 April, 2013
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Ritu Bahri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 30.04.2013
CWP No.7570 of 2013(O&M)
Gurmehtab Singh & others ..Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana & others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Saurabh Goel, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate,
for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
Mr. K.K. Kareer, Registrar (Recruitment), Punjab &
Haryana High Court, Chandigarh-respondent No. 4.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)
This order shall dispose of the afore-mentioned writ petition along with other writ petitions mentioned in the foot note of this order, wherein challenge is to the result of the preliminary examination of Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Examination, 2012 conducted on 17.03.2013.
The petitioners are the aspirants for appointment to the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) for which advertisement was published on 17.12.2012. The petitioners appeared for the Preliminary Examination conducted for short listing the candidates for Main Examination.
Kumar Vimal 2013.05.03 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.7570 of 2013 2In these writ petitions, the answer key of 27 questions are said to be incorrect leading to incorrect result, thus, depriving the petitioners to appear in the Main Examination. The present writ petition came up for hearing before this Court on 12.04.2013, when Mr. Kareer, Registrar (Recruitment), Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh stated that the grievance of the candidates in respect of alleged wrong answer key shall be examined by the Committee and the result will be re-generated. In pursuance of the said statement, the result has been re-generated on 22.04.2013. He stated that the result has been re-generated after 3 questions i.e. question Nos.43, 102 & 111 were deleted, whereas key has been revised in respect of question Nos.1, 56, 98, 101 & 118 and as a result of which, as many as 468 candidates have become eligible and are being permitted to appear in the Main Examination. He further stated that answer key of all the questions have been re-examined by the Committee. Mr. Kareeer further stated that the revised answer key shall be put on the website of the High Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that answer key of 4 questions i.e. question Nos.10, 16, 18 & 97 is again not correct. Therefore, the Committee should be directed to reconsider the case on the said questions as well.
The scope of judicial review in the matter of appointment to public posts is not res integra. The said question has been examined by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Khatri Saurabh Satyapal Vs. Haryana Public Service Commission and another, 2009(4) S.C.T 362 in which one of us (Hemant Gupta, J.) was a member, wherein it has been held that while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Kumar Vimal 2013.05.03 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.7570 of 2013 3 Constitution, this Court is not to act as an appellate examining body to go into the details of determination of key answers.
The said question has also been examined by Supreme Court in number of judgments. The issue of revaluation of answer-sheets came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & another Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & others (1984) 4 SCC 27. The Supreme Court has held that permitting re-evaluation would lead to uncertainty regarding result of competitive examination for indefinite period of time and that such course shall be against public interest. It was held to the following effect:
"28. As pointed out by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Fatehchand Himmatlal v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 2 SCC 670, "the test of reasonableness is not applied in vacuum but in the context of life's realities". If the principle laid down by the High Court is to be regarded as correct, its applicability cannot be restricted to examinations conducted by School Education Boards alone but would extend even to all competitive examinations conducted by the Union and State Public Service Commissions. The resultant legal position emerging from the High Court judgment is that every candidate who has appeared for any such examination and who is dissatisfied with his results would, as an inherent part of his right to "fair play" be entitled to demand a disclosure and personal inspection of his answer scripts and would have a further right to ask for revaluation of his answer papers. The inevitable consequence would be that there will be no certainty at all regarding the results of the competitive examination for an indefinite period of time until all such requests have been complied with and the results of the verification and revaluation have been brought into account.
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 Kumar Vimal 2013.05.03 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.7570 of 2013 4 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 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."
Following the said judgment, the Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission (2004) 6 SCC 714 held to the following effect:
"7. We have heard the appellant (writ petitioner) in person and learned counsel for the respondents at considerable length. The main question which arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing re-evaluation of the answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper. Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re- evaluation of his answer-book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer-book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. This question was examined in considerable detail in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth case (supra). In this case, the relevant rules provided for verification (scrutiny of marks) on an application made to that effect by a candidate. Some of the students filed writ petitions praying that they may be allowed to inspect the answer-books and the Board be directed to conduct re-evaluation of such of the answer-books as the petitioners may demand after inspection. The High Court held that the rule providing for verification of marks gave an implied power to the Kumar Vimal 2013.05.03 13:03 examinees to demand a disclosure and inspection and also to seek re-I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.7570 of 2013 5
evaluation of the answer-books. The judgment of the High Court was set aside and it was held that in absence of a specific provision conferring a right upon an examinee to have his answer-books re-evaluated, no such direction can be issued. There is no dispute that under the relevant rule of the Commission there is no provision entitling a candidate to have his answer-books re-evaluated. In such a situation, the prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition was wholly untenable and the learned Single Judge had clearly erred in having the answer-book of the appellant re- evaluated.
8. Adopting such a course as was done by the learned Single Judge will give rise to practical problems. Many candidates may like to take a chance and pray for re-evaluation of their answer-books. Naturally, the Court will pass orders on different dates as and when writ petitions are filed. The Commission will have to then send the copies of individual candidates to examiners for re-evaluation which is bound to take time. The examination conducted by the Commission being a competitive examination, the declaration of final result will thus be unduly delayed and the vacancies will remain unfilled for a long time. What will happen if a candidate secures lesser marks in re-evaluation? He may come forward with a plea that the marks as originally awarded to him may be taken into consideration. The absence of clear rules on the subject may throw many problems and in the larger interest, they must be avoided."
In President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa Vs. D. Suvankar (2007) 1 SCC 603, the Supreme Court held that 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 was held to the following effect:
"5. The Board is in appeal against the cost imposed. As observed by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth case (supra), it is in the public interest that the results of public examinations when published should have some finality attached to them. If inspection, verification in the presence of the candidates and re-evaluation are to be allowed as of right, Kumar Vimal it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the 2013.05.03 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.7570 of 2013 6 relative ranking, etc. of the candidates, besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process. 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 would 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 which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to pragmatic one was to be propounded. In the above premises, it is to be considered how far the Board has assured a zero-defect system of evaluation, or a system which is almost foolproof.
6. Award of marks by an examiner is to be fair, and considering the fact that re-evaluation is not permissible under the statute, the examiner has to be careful, cautious and has a duty to ensure that the answers are properly evaluated. No element of chance or luck should be introduced. An examination is a stepping stone on career advancement of a student. Absence of a provision for re-evaluation cannot be a shield for the examiner to arbitrarily evaluate the answer script. That would be against the very concept for which re-evaluation is impermissible."
The abovesaid principle of law was also reiterated in a later judgment reported as Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur (2010) 6 SCC 759. Recently in another judgment reported as Sanchit Bansal Vs. Joint Admission Board (2012) 1 SCC 157 relating to admission to professional Engineering Colleges, the Supreme Court observed that process of evaluation, the process of ranking and selection of candidates are of technical matters in academic field and the courts will not interfere in such processes. The Court will interfere only if there is violation of any enactment, statutory rules and regulations; malafides or ulterior motives to assist or enable private gain to someone or cause prejudice to anyone; or where the procedure adopted is arbitrary and capricious. The Court held to the following effect:
Kumar Vimal 2013.05.03 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.7570 of 2013 7"27. Thus, the process of evaluation, the process of ranking and selection of candidates for admission with reference to their performance, the process of achieving the objective of selecting candidates who will be better equipped to suit the specialised courses, are all technical matters in academic field and the courts will not interfere in such processes. The courts will interfere only if they find all or any of the following: (i) violation of any enactment, statutory rules and regulations; (ii) mala fides or ulterior motives to assist or enable private gain to someone or cause prejudice to anyone; or where the procedure adopted is arbitrary and capricious."
In view thereof, we do not find that the respondents can be directed to re-consider the answer key of 4 questions mentioned above particularly when the correctness of all the questions have been re-examined by the Committee.
The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
30.04.2013 (RITU BAHRI)
G.Arora/Vimal JUDGE
Sr. Case No. Parties Name
No.
1. C.W.P No. 7714 of 2013 JINDER PAL SINGH RAJPUT V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND OTHERS
2. C.W.P No. 7722 of 2013 NAMIT KHURANA AND OTHERS V/S STATE
OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
3. C.W.P No. 7831 of 2013 TANVEER KAUR AND ORS. V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND ORS.
4. C.W.P No. 7997 of 2013 GANGA DUTT SHARMA & ORS. V/S STATE
OF HARYANA & ORS.
5. C.W.P No. 8069 of 2013 LOKESH KUMAR AND ANR V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND ORS
6. C.W.P No. 8078 of 2013 VIPIN KUMAR V/S STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS.
Kumar Vimal
2013.05.03 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CWP No.7570 of 2013 8
Sr. Case No. Parties Name
No.
7. C.W.P No. 8160 of 2013 DEEPAK MITTAL AND ORS. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
8. C.W.P No. 8194 of 2013 PRIYANKA SHARMA AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
9. C.W.P No. 8219 of 2013 TUSHAR KAUR THIND AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
10. C.W.P No. 8267 of 2013 SRISHTI SAXENA V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
11. C.W.P No. 8269 of 2013 MANOHAR LAL AND ANR. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
12. C.W.P No. 8270 of 2013 NAVEEN SINGLA AND ANR. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
13. C.W.P No. 8271 of 2013 DEEPALI GAMBHIR AND ORS. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
14. C.W.P No. 8272 of 2013 KIRANPREET KAUR AND ORS. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
15. C.W.P No. 8275 of 2013 SONU V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
16. C.W.P No. 8276 of 2013 GAURAV ARORA V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
17. C.W.P No. 8277 of 2013 SATISH KUMAR V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
18. C.W.P No. 8278 of 2013 RINKU JAIN & ORS. V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
19. C.W.P No. 8279 of 2013 SONIA V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
20. C.W.P No. 8284 of 2013 ANITA RANI & ORS. V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
21. C.W.P No. 8287 of 2013 SANCHITA SINGH & ANR. V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
22. C.W.P No. 8291 of 2013 KULVINDER KAUR & ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
23. C.W.P No. 8292 of 2013 ROHAN GUPTA & ORS. V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
24. C.W.P No. 8293 of 2013 HARDEEP SINGH AND ORS. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
25. C.W.P No. 8297 of 2013 AMIT MISHRA AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
26. C.W.P No. 8298 of 2013 ARUN SHORI AND ORS. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
27. C.W.P No. 8303 of 2013 AMRINDER SINGH AND ORS. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
28. C.W.P No. 8308 of 2013 RAM BILAS AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS Kumar Vimal 2013.05.03 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.7570 of 2013 9 Sr. Case No. Parties Name No.
29. C.W.P No. 8309 of 2013 NARENDER KUMAR AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
30. C.W.P No. 8310 of 2013 HEMANT V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
31. C.W.P No. 8311 of 2013 HIMANSHU JAIN AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
32. C.W.P No. 8313 of 2013 AAKANKSHA KALIA AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
33. C.W.P No. 8314 of 2013 ADITYA SINGH YADAV AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
34. C.W.P No. 8315 of 2013 ANMOL JINDAL AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
35. C.W.P No. 8318 of 2013 MOHIT CHAUDHARY V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
36. C.W.P No. 8319 of 2013 SALONI GUPTA AND ANR. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
37. C.W.P No. 8320 of 2013 VARUN SHARMA AND ORS. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
38. C.W.P No. 8322 of 2013 INDU RANI V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
39. C.W.P No. 8338 of 2013 MUKUL GOYAL V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
40. C.W.P No. 8340 of 2013 KULDEEP SHARMA V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
41. C.W.P No. 8347 of 2013 SIMARVEER SINGH & ANR. V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
42. C.W.P No. 8349 of 2013 ANTERPREET SINGH V/S PB AND HRY HIGH COURT & ANR
43. C.W.P No. 8350 of 2013 CHETESH GUPTA AND ANR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
44. C.W.P No. 8366 of 2013 RATTANDEEP KAUR PLAHA & ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
45. C.W.P No. 8367 of 2013 KAWALDIP SINGH AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
46. C.W.P No. 8374 of 2013 LAVEENA PASSI V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
47. C.W.P No. 8382 of 2013 ABHINAV KIRAN V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
48. C.W.P No. 8383 of 2013 RAJDEEP SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
49. C.W.P No. 8384 of 2013 ANIRUDH GARG AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
50. C.W.P No. 8385 of 2013 VISHAVJYOTI SHARMA V/S STATE OF Kumar Vimal 2013.05.03 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.7570 of 2013 10 Sr. Case No. Parties Name No. HARYANA AND ORS
51. C.W.P No. 8386 of 2013 INDERJOT SINGH AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
52. C.W.P No. 8388 of 2013 DAVINDER SINGH & ANR V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
53. C.W.P No. 8389 of 2013 SEHRAJ SINGH VIRK V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
54. C.W.P No. 8391 of 2013 ROHIT KARWASRA AND ANR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
55. C.W.P No. 8392 of 2013 SANDEEP KAUR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
56. C.W.P No. 8396 of 2013 RAHUL SINGH DAGAR AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
57. C.W.P No. 8401 of 2013 VIKRAM SINGH NEHRA & ANR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
58. C.W.P No. 8402 of 2013 DEEPAK CHAHAL V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
59. C.W.P No. 8424 of 2013 KULDEEP SINGH V/S PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AND ANR
60. C.W.P No. 8440 of 2013 PUNEET KUMAR BANSAL V/S PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AND ANR
61. C.W.P No. 8493 of 2013 CHARU DUREJA V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS Kumar Vimal 2013.05.03 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh