Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jitender Kumar And Another vs Haryana Public Service Commission on 30 August, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Date of Decision : August 30, 2012
CWP No. 10309 of 2012
Jitender Kumar and another .... PETITIONERS
Vs.
Haryana Public Service Commission ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 10848 of 2012
Sunil Dhull .... PETITIONERS
Vs.
State of Haryana ..... RESPONDENT
CWP No. 12111 of 2012
Jai Bhagwan and others .... PETITIONERS
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 13761 of 2012
Sushil Malik .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 14501 of 2012
Rajiv @ Rajiv Vatsa .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 2 -
CWP No. 15130 of 2012
Vijender Singh .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 15192 of 2012
Ajit Singh and others .... PETITIONERS
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 15203 of 2012
Ram Niwas .... PETITIONER
Vs.
Haryana Public Service Commission ..... RESPONDENT
CWP No. 15710 of 2012
Satinder Deep Singh Boparai and ors. .... PETITIONERS
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 16232 of 2012
Narender Singh .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 16524 of 2012
Siddharth .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and another ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 15912 of 2012
CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 3 -
Manoj Kumar .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 15966 of 2012
Parveen Mann .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 15984 of 2012
Vikas Kumar Bhardwaj and another .... PETITIONERS
Vs.
Haryana Public Service Commission ..... RESPONDENT
CWP No. 15988 of 2012
Ravinder Kumar .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana through Chief Secy.etc. ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 15991 of 2012
Satish Kumar .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana through Chief Secy. etc. ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 15999 of 2012
Varsha Rani .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana ..... RESPONDENT
CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 4 -
CWP No. 16072 of 2012
Deepak Singh Goyat .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 16082 of 2012
Karamvir .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana etc. ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 16106 of 2012
Randhir Singh and others .... PETITIONERS
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 16147 of 2012
Poonam .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana etc. ..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present :
Mr. K.K.Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP No. 10309 of 2012)
Mr. V.K.Jindal, Advocate,
and Mr. Akshay Jindal, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP Nos. 10848 and 16524 of 2012)
Mr. Sanjive Peter, Advocate,
for the petitioners (In CWP Nos. 14501, 15912, 15966, 15988,
15991, 15999, 16082 and 16147 of 2012)
Mr. Satish R. Swami, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP No. 15710 of 2012)
CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 5 -
Mr. K.S.Banyana, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP No. 15203 of 2012)
Mr. Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP No. 13761 of 2012)
Mr. Sant Lal Barwala, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s) ( in CWP No. 15130 of 2012)
Mr. Mahender Singh Chahal, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP Nos. 15192 and 16106 of 2012)
Mr. Manjeet Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP No. 12111 of 2012).
Mr. Kiran Pal Singh, Advocate.
Mr. Ravi Kumar Kadian, Advocate.
Mr. H.N.Mehtani, Advocate,
and Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate, for HPSC.
Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana and
Ms.Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
By this order, I propose to dispose of CWP Nos. 10309, 10848, 12111, 13761, 14501, 15130, 15192, 15203, 15710, 16232, 16524, 15912, 15966, 15984, 15988, 15991, 15999, 16072, 16082, 16106 and 16147 of 2012, as common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions, therefore, they are being decided by this judgment. Challenge in these writ petitions is to the action of the respondent-Haryana Public Service Commission granting marks to the candidates with reference to those wrong questions in the HCS (Executive Branch) and other Allied Services Preliminary Examination, 2011 held on 25.03.2012 CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 6 -
and the result dated 05.05.2012 of the said examination declaring it to be illegal and quashing it with a further prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to hold a fresh examination of such papers where questions have been found to be wrong as was earlier done by the Commission in the Geography paper of the preliminary examination of HCS in the year 2004.
Briefly, the facts are that the Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'Commission') issued Advertisement No. 5/2011 inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up various posts by holding a common entrance test for HCS (Executive Branch) and other Allied Services Preliminary Examination, 2011. Apart from the other posts, the vacancies to be filled up for the HCS (Executive Branch) were 30, of which 19 belong to the general category, 6 scheduled caste, 3 backward class and two ex-servicemen. Last date of receipt of the application form was 27.11.2011. Petitioners, in pursuance to the said advertisement, applied for the posts. As per the said advertisement, under Clause 4 scheme of examination for the Combined Competitive Examination was given, according to which, it was divided into three stages (1) Preliminary Examination (Objective Type/Multiple Choice) for screening only (2) Main Examination (Conventional (Essay) Type) (3) Personality Test (Vive-Voce). As per Note-I, candidates 15 times the number of advertised posts including bracketed candidates, if any, in their CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 7 -
respective categories in order of merit of preliminary examination were to be admitted to the main examination. As per Note-3, candidates thrice the number of advertised posts including bracketed candidates, if any, in order of merit of main examination were to be called for Personality Test (Vive-Voce). Petitioners primarily are concerned with the recruitment to the posts of HCS (Executive Branch) only.
The Government of Haryana, vide notification dated 13.02.2008, notified the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008 regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch). Rule 11 of the said Rules provides for the Scheme of Examination, wherein 200 marks have been fixed for the preliminary examination. This consists of two papers-Paper-1 is General Studies carrying 100 marks, Paper-2 is one optional paper to be chosen by the candidates from the list of 19 subjects, which again carries 100 marks. This examination is to be objective type/multiple choice with no negative marking. The course contained for the syllabi of optional subject was to be of the Degree level/Graduation level.
Rule 12 of these Rules states that the Commission shall invite applications for appearing in the examination and the applications shall be made in such form and manner and accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed by the Commission. Rule 13 provides for including in Register-B in order CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 8 -
of merit, the names of such number of candidates as the Government may, from time to time, determine from amongst those who have been declared as qualified in the examination by the Commission subject to medical fitness.
The preliminary examination was held on 25.03.2012 by the Commission at various centres. All candidates were supplied with a booklet during the preliminary examination of HCS (Executive Branch) and other Allied Services Preliminary Examination, 2011. On the front page were the instructions to be followed by the candidates. At Sr. No. 9, it was provided that a representation regarding questions and answers could be submitted by a candidate in writing to the Centre Supervisor just after the examination is over, thereafter, it will not be entertained. After the examination was over for the General Studies and for the optional papers, many candidates submitted representations pointing out the mistakes in the questions.
Result of the preliminary examination was declared on 05.05.2012, which was posted on the website of the Commission. In the end of the Press- Note containing the result of the preliminary examination, it was mentioned for the information of the candidates, who had represented to the Commission pointing out the errors in the question papers, that the same had been duly considered by the Commission and benefit of marks have been given to all the candidates in their respective subjects as per the recommendations of the paper setter. This grant of the marks CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 9 -
by the Commission to the candidates in the respective subjects where the questions have been admitted to be wrong resulting in their deletion is challenged by the petitioners through these writ petitions and the consequential result dated 5.5.2012 of the Preliminary Examination.
The grounds of challenge are that the commission is an implementing agency of the rules and regulations and thus, have no jurisdiction to act beyond the statutory Rules in the absence of any enabling provision, which provide for relaxation or for exercising discretion as no deviation from the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008 can be made as these rules do not provide for any such provision for giving any grace marks for the wrong questions, if found in the question papers. The scheme of examination for selection of the candidates has been provided under these Rules but without any provision for relaxation or exercise of discretion. Even the advertisement issued for holding the preliminary examination did not provide for any such power, authority or discretion to be exercised by the Commission. Thus, the Commission did not have the jurisdiction to award grace marks and, therefore, once such a mistake is found, the Commission had no option but to hold a fresh paper for such a subject. Another ground, which has been taken, is that on an earlier occasion, while holding the preliminary examination in the year 2004 when some mistakes in question paper of CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 10 -
Geography had come to the notice of the Commission, fresh examination for the said paper was held, therefore, deviation by the Commission this time despite there being a previous precedent and that too, without any authority cannot be sustained. It has further been asserted that grant of these grace marks to the candidates of the respective subjects, where questions have been found to be wrong, has given them a head start over the candidates of the other optional papers as without attempting the said questions, they have been granted marks on the assumption that if attempted by them, the answers would have been correct. It has been demonstrated by asserting that in Electrical Engineering, 2 questions have been found to be wrong or discrepant and in Geography 5, in Physics 1 and in Political Science & International relations 3, so the candidates, who had chosen these optional paper, have been granted these many marks without even attempting the questions, which benefit has not been granted to the candidates of the optional papers where no question was found to be discrepant/wrong. This, according to the petitioners, is patently illegal, irrational and unjustified as this would amount to discrimination granting grace marks to the undeserving candidates. Each mark is very valuable, which is apparent from the fact that at the cut off marks of 134 for the general category, there are 134 candidates bracketed, therefore, the action of the Commission amounts to treating the candidates of one optional paper unequal to the candidates of other optional CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 11 -
papers. Apart from this action of the Commission referring the representations submitted by the candidates pointing out discrepancies in the questions to the paper setters is not justified as these paper setters had personal interest and would take all steps to save their own skin and would not admit their mistakes in the questions. If they accepted their mistakes, they would probably loose future assignments of being paper setters with the Commission. Whoever accepted their mistakes, which were in the subjects of General Studies, Electrical Engineering, Geography, Physics and Political Science & International Relations, had recommended to give grace marks, which the respondent- Commission accepted without application of its mind. It has been asserted that the representations should have been referred to the Committee of Experts, who, on evaluation of the same, would have made their recommendations, which were for the Commission to consider and thereafter, take a decision thereon. It has further been stated that the Commission should have made public the answer keys so that the petitioners and other candidates were made aware of their marks which they have obtained by cross checking it, which would have avoided the unnecessary confusion and doubt which has crept in the minds of the candidates especially when questions have admittedly been found to be incorrect or discrepant. If there can be mistakes in the question papers, there can also be a possibility of mistakes in the answer keys as well. The respondent-Commission has not CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 12 -
disclosed the same and by not disclosing the same, denied the petitioners an opportunity of representing against the mistakes in the answer key. The intention of the Commission should not be to go about the process of selection by holding the examination but the intent should be to get the best merit available to the elite services of the State, which is being compromised by the respondents. On this basis, it has been prayed that the papers, wherein mistakes have been found, should be cancelled, fresh examination of those papers be held and thereafter, the merit prepared and the main examination held and till then, the main examination, which is now slated for 02.09.2012, be postponed.
Upon notice reply has been filed by the respondent- Commission, wherein it has been stated that the decision taken by the Commission, which is under challenge in these writ petitions, is fully justified and is in accordance with law. The Commission is a constitutional authority and has been assigned the responsibility of conducting the examination and after the selection recommending the names of the candidates, so selected, to the competent authority for appointing them. For the purpose of holding the examination, to select the candidates unless the statutory Rules specifically provide for a particular procedure to be followed, the Commission is authorized and entitled to in exercise of its inherent powers to take decisions, actions and steps which would be in consonance with the purpose of holding examination and with it, all the powers, which would be essential for CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 13 -
successfully performing it. The power to regulate would include the power to adopt any method in accordance with which the purpose of holding the examination successfully is completed. The Commission, in exercise of this power, has acted in a very just and fair manner without causing any prejudice to any candidate. All the representations, which were received either at the examination centre by the Centre Supervisor or which were received in the office of the Commission were referred to the paper setters, who, on considering the same, submitted their comments, wherever discrepancies were found in the questions, the same were acknowledged by the paper setters and recommended the deletion of those questions and the adding of equal marks to the candidates of the said subject. This is in consonance with the principle of equality for the reason that the candidates of the subjects, where the questions have been deleted, would loose an opportunity of attempting the said questions and, therefore, need to be compensated for that. Accordingly, the marks assigned for the said questions were given to the candidates, which cannot be termed as grace marks. The grace marks are those, which are awarded to the candidates to bring them up to the minimum requirement, which was never the intention or purpose of the Commission as all the candidates were granted these marks because of deletion of the questions in the respective subjects. In the General Studies, 7 questions were found to be discrepant and, therefore, those questions were CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 14 -
deleted and all candidates were granted 7 marks. No prejudice has been caused to any of the candidates. Similarly, in the optional papers of Electrical Engineering, Geography, Physics and Political Science and International Relations, 2, 5, 1 and 3 marks were granted to the candidates because of deletion of these number of questions respectively. No prejudice was caused to the candidates. By resorting to this method, the Commission has balanced equities of the candidates, for which the petitioners cannot have any grouse. It has further been asserted that the petitioners having been unsuccessful in clearing the preliminary examination have now approached this Court to delay the process of selection and are praying for re-examination with the intention to have a second chance to compete, which is not permissible. The representations have been sent to the paper setters because they are the best judges. They have acted in a most reasonable and just manner while considering the representations, which is apparent from the fact that the paper setters in the subjects of General Studies, Electrical Engineering, Geography, Physics, Political Science & International Relations, have accepted their mistakes/discrepancies in the questions and very gracefully recommended deletion of these questions and grant of marks to the candidates, who are deprived of an opportunity of attempting the said questions. It has been asserted that in the preliminary examination of 2004, in one of the subjects i.e. Geography (Optional), 8 questions did not have the correct responses. The CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 15 -
Commission, at that time after taking into consideration the report of the paper setter, decided to hold fresh examination for the subject of Geography (Optional). The Commission has not relaxed the rule in order to granting the grace marks, as alleged by the petitioners and the petitioners have proceeded to project that they have been prejudiced on purely hypothetical, irrelevant and vague premises. The action of the respondents is in consonance with law and is most just and reasonable without causing any prejudice to any candidate and, therefore, the challenge to the action of the respondents cannot sustain and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.
Counsel for the petitioners have argued their cases on the basis of the above referred pleadings and during the course of hearing, has demonstrated to the Court by referring to examples the prejudice, which has been caused to the candidates who did not opt for the papers where questions have been found to be discrepant/incorrect. Reference has also been made to the judgment of the Patna High court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13022 of 2011 titled as Manoj Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and others, decided on 04.01.2012, where in similar circumstances, the matter was first referred to a Committee of Experts, who, on examining the questions and model answers, submitted its findings to the Court and thereafter, the Court directed a fresh evaluation of all the answer sheets of the candidates, who had participated in the preliminary examination CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 16 -
by weeding out wrong questions and to declare the result afresh. Reliance has also been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in a writ petition i.e. WP (C) No. 449 of 2012 titled as Gunjan Sinha Jain vs. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi, decided on 09.04.2012, wherein the High Court had, on considering the questions which were pointed out and found to be discrepant, concluded in para 75 by putting the questions where discrepancies were found in three categories, firstly where the answers reflected in the answer key were correct, secondly where questions, in respect of which option shown to be correct in the answer key, were found to be incorrect and the third category was where the questions were out of syllabus or questions where answers in the answer keys were debatable or questions where more than one correct options were available or questions, in respect of which, none of the options were correct and questions, which were confusing or did not supply compete information for a clear answer. There the Court proceeded to give different directions with regard to these categories of questions. An assertion has also been put forth by referring to certain help books to contend that the questions have been taken enblock from those help books without verifying the authenticity and correctness of the options given therein. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur University through Vice Chancellor and others vs. Samir Gupta and others, 1984 (4) SCC 309, wherein the Hon'ble CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 17 -
Supreme court has held that in the system of multiple choice/objective type test, care must be taken to see that questions having unambiguous options should not set in papers. The questions should be clear and invocational and there should be no doubt with regard to the questions. It is accordingly prayed that the writ petitions deserves to be allowed.
On the other hand, Mr. Mehtani, appearing for the Commission, has referred to Articles 315 and 320 of the Constitution of India to contend that the Haryana Punjab Service Commission is a constitutional authority and a duty has been cast upon the Commission to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the State and in pursuance thereto the Commission has in a bona-fide manner proceeded to take a decision in the situation it was faced with. No mala-fides have been alleged by the petitioners against the Commission. He has also referred to rules 11, 12 and 13 of the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008 to contend that the responsibility has been placed upon the Commission to take the examination and to recommend the candidates for appointment. Since a constitutional mandate and responsibility has been placed upon the Commission to conduct the examination for appointment to the service, it has the jurisdiction, power and authority to take all the necessary steps which are essential for successfully performing and giving effect to this mandate. In doing so, the Commission has ancillary and incidental powers which are implied CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 18 -
and need not be provided statutorily in specific terms. In support of this contention reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Tileshwar Ram and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 1986(4) SLR 487 and upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in P.Subbarao and others vs. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, Hyderabad, AIR 1961 Andhra Pradesh 378. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of R.Gnanasekar vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Madras, AIR 1994 Madras 8 to contend that the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has no jurisdiction to interfere lightly with the internal affairs of the procedure and practice in conducting examination for recruitment into State service by the Commission.
He has referred to the written statement filed by the Commission to contend that the Commission has acted in a most transparent and just manner as it had on the booklet of question papers invited representations from the candidates regarding questions and answers which were to be submitted to the Centre Supervisor after the examination in writing. The Commission proceeded with an open mind so that no prejudice is caused to any candidate because of any discrepancy in the question papers. On receipt of the representations, as these indicated errors apparent on record and it would have amounted to review of the questions, the Commission in its wisdom referred the said CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 19 -
representations to the concerned paper-setters so that there is no grievance left of the representationists. On receipt of the comments of the paper-setters and the recommendations made by them, the questions, which were found by the paper-setters to be either incorrect or discrepant, were deleted and equivalent marks added to the scores of all the candidates balancing the equities as by deletion of the questions the candidates of that optional subjects would have lost the opportunity to attempt one question, which would have amounted to granting them zero marks. As the mandate of the rule was to assess the candidates for 100 marks each, for Paper-I and Paper-II, the marks were added to the candidates of that optional papers where the questions were found to be discrepant. Citing example of subject of Geography optional paper, where 5 questions were found to be discrepant and, therefore, ordered to be deleted, the candidates would have to be assessed for 95 marks, to give them the equal playing field, 5 marks were given to them for the deleted questions so that they are assessed for 100 marks. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioners as they have been assessed for their full 100 marks.
Referring to the chart attached along with the reply, he has contended that 41366 candidates appeared in the compulsory paper of General Studies and in the various optional papers 41390 candidates had appeared. Only 145 representations were received from the Centre Supervisor and 6 representations were received CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 20 -
in the office of the Commission which comes to total 151 representations. These representations indicate that very less number of candidates had any objection with regard to the questions, which has also been taken care of by the Commission and wherever some discrepancy was found, remedial steps were taken in a just and reasonable manner and a rational criteria had been evolved and given effect to while awarding marks of the deleted questions. He further contends that only in those optional papers where questions have been found to be discrepant proportionate benefit of marks has been granted to the candidates who had opted for that paper. In General Studies (common paper for all candidates) 7 questions were found to be discrepant which were deleted and for that all candidates have been granted equal marks. It has been stated that the key of the question papers cannot be made public as it relates to confidentiality of the examination process and the Commission in its wisdom has not made the answer key public. Prayer has accordingly been made for dismissal of the writ petitions.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone the records of the case.
Advertisement No.5/2011 issued by the respondent- Commission invited applications from the eligible candidates for recruitment to the service/posts of Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch), Dy. S.P., E.T.O., District Food and Supplies CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 21 -
Controller, Tehsildar 'A' Class, Assistant Registrar Co-Operative Society, Assistant Excise & Taxation Officer, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Traffic Manager, District Food & Supplies Officer and Assistant Employment Officer. As per Note 3(i), the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Allied Services, examination was to be conducted in accordance with the provisions contained in the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Allied Services Rules, 2008 as amended from time to time and Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Allied Service and Other Services Common/Combined Examination Act, 2002. In the present case, the candidates are basing their claim to the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) where there are 30 posts. Out of which 19 are for the General Category, 6 for the Scheduled Castes of Haryana, 3 for the Backward Classes of Haryana and 2 for the Ex-Servicemen of Haryana. Under Clause- 4 of the said advertisement, scheme of examination has been provided, which reads as under:-
"4. SCHEME OF EXAMINATION: The examination will be combined competitive Examination (CCE) comprising of the following stages;
(i) Preliminary Examination (Objective Type/Multiple choice) for screening only
(ii) Main Examination (Conventional (Essay) Type)
(iii) Personality Test (Viva-voce) Note 1: Candidates fifteen times the number of advertised posts including bracketed candidates, if any, in their respective categories CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 22 -
in order of merit of the Preliminary Examination will be admitted to the Main Examination.
Note 2: As per provision of HCS (Ex.Br.) & Other Allied Services Rules, 2008, the question papers for Pre-Examination will be set in English Only.
Note 3: Candidates thrice the number of advertised posts including bracketed candidates, if any, in order of merit of Main Examination will be called for Personality Test (Viva-voce).
Note 4: Candidates who qualify for the Main Examination will have to apply again on the separate application form which will be supplied by the Haryana Public Service Commission free of cost."
Since the claim of the petitioners is to the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) service/posts, the relevant rules are Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008 which were notified by the Government of Haryana on 13.2.2008. The relevant rules for the purpose of the present writ petition are rules 11, 12 and 13 which read as follows:-
"11. (1) The examination hereinafter called the competitive examination for the post of Haryana Competitive Civil Service (Executive Branch), the scheme of examination to be held yearly for selection of which is given below, shall be held at any place in candidates for Register B Haryana each year as per Schedule given in Annexure-III for the purpose of selection by competition of as many candidates for the Service as the Government may determine:-
Scheme of Examination (I) Preliminary Examination 200 marks (for screening only) CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 23 -
(II) Main Written Examination 600 marks
(III) Personality Test 75 marks
(I) Preliminary Examination
The Preliminary Examination shall comprise of two papers: (Total 200 marks) (Objective Type/Multiple choice. There shall be no negative marking) Paper 1 : General Studies 100 marks One Optional 100 marks Subject to be chosen by the candidate from the list of 19 subjects (List at Annexure 1) Note :
(i) Both the question papers shall be of the Objective type (multiple choice questions)
(ii) Both the question papers shall be set in English only.
(iii) The course content of the syllabi for the optional subjects shall be of the degree level (Graduation level).
(iv) Each paper shall be of two hours duration.
(II) Main Written Examination:
It shall comprise of 5 papers =(Total 600 marks) Paper I : English (including =100 marks English Essay) Paper II : Hindi (including = 100 marks Hindi Essay) (in Devnagri Script) Paper III: General Studies 100 marks Paper IV and V: Two subjects 150 each To be selected from the list of 23 optional subjects.
(List at Annexure II) CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 24 -
Note:
(i) The question papers for the examination shall be of conventional (essay) type.
(ii) Each paper shall be of three hours duration
(iii) Candidates shall have the option to answer all the question papers, except the language or literature papers, in English or Hindi.
(III) Personality Test: : 75 marks
(i) The total number of candidates to be admitted to the Main Written Examination shall be 15 times the number of advertised vacancies. Similarly the total number of candidates to be called for personality test shall be three times of the advertised vacancies. Ex-Servicemen and dependents of the Ex-Servicemen shall also have to appear in the all papers including optional subjects.
(ii) No candidate shall be called for the viva-voce test unless he attains at least forty five percent marks in the aggregate of all the written papers and a score of minimum 33% marks each in Hindi and English Language (compulsory papers). The final selection shall be based on the merit list to be prepared on the basis of total marks obtained by the candidates in the Main Written CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 25 -
Examination and Personality Test i.e. out of 675 marks. The candidates shall write their answers in Hindi or English (except in language or literature papers. The papers in General Knowledge and optional subjects unless otherwise directed, shall be answered either in Hindi Language or in English Language depending upon the option exercised by a candidate but no candidate shall be permitted to answer any one paper partly in Hindi and partly in English. The candidates shall not be allowed the option to answer these papers in an other medium but the papers except Hindi language or literature papers shall be set in English only.
(iii) The syllabi both for Preliminary as well as Main Written Examination which shall be of graduate level shall be notified by the Government. Thereafter, the Government in consultation with the Commission may change/amend/revise the syllabus for the Preliminary or Main examination after notifying in Official Gazette.
(iv) The cost of application form and examination fee shall be decided by the Commission in consultation with the Government. Failure to deposit the fee prescribed for the examination CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 26 -
by last date of receipt of application form will render a candidate ineligible to appear in the examination.
Provided that the Government for reasons to be recorded in writing dispense with the requirement of holding the examination in a particular year.
(2) Notice of the date fixed for examination shall be published in the Haryana Government Gazette.
12. (1) The Commission shall invite applications for Admission of candidates appearing in the examination. The to examination applications shall be made in such form and manner and accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed by the Commission.
(2) No person shall be allowed to sit in the examination-
(a) who is less than twenty one years or more than forty years of age or such age limit as may from time to time be fixed by Government for entry into service, on or before the first day of January next preceding the last date appointed by the Commission for the submission of applications :
Provided that the age limit for a person belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes shall be such as may be fixed by Government from time to time.
CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 27 -
(b) who does not possess a degree of Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Science, or Bachelor of Commerce or an equivalent degree of a recognised University.
(3) A Government servant, who is holding an appointment either in a substantive or officiating (excluding ad-hoc) capacity under the Haryana Government or the High Court or any court, subordinate thereto, shall be eligible to appear in the examination if he possesses a degree of Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Science or Bachelor of Commerce or an equivalent degree of a recognised University, and has not attained the age of forty five years and also has not less than four years service whether in a substantive or officiating (excluding ad-hoc) capacity under the Haryana Government or the High Court or any Court subordinate thereto, on or before the Ist day of January, next preceding the last date for the submission of application subject to a limit of three chances in addition to those which he might have availed of under sub- rule(2). Any person, who is eligible under this sub-rule and wishes to appear in the examination, shall submit his application in the prescribed form through the Head of his office, to the Commission.
CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 28 -
13. Subject to the medical fitness , the Governor of Haryana may include in register B in order of Selection of candidates for merit, the names of such number of candidates Register B as it may from time to time determine, from amongst those who have been declared as qualified in the examination by the Commission." Perusal of the statutory rules and the relevant portion of the advertisement would lead to a conclusion that the examination primarily consists of 3 stages, the first stage being preliminary examination of 200 marks of which there would be two papers viz. Paper-I which is common to all i.e. General Studies consisting of 100 marks; the second paper would be again of 100 marks, but the candidate has a choice of one optional subject out of 19 subjects listed in Annexure-I to the rules. Both the question papers shall be of the objective type (multiple choice questions) and there shall be no negative marking. The preliminary examination is for the purpose of screening only and total number of candidates to be admitted to the main written examination shall be 15 times the number of advertised vacancies. Since we are concerned with this stage only, rest two stages need not be referred to in detail except for providing for the nature of the examination and the marks to be assigned as also the marking to be not negative.
Under the statutory rules and the advertisement it has been laid down that the said examination would be held by the Commission which shall invite applications from the candidates for CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 29 -
appearing in the examination and shall also prescribe the form and manner the application should be made and accompanied by the documents as may be prescribed by the Commission. The Commission, after conclusion of the examination, is required to forward the names of the candidates in order of merit to the Government who are declared as qualified in the examination by the Commission. This leaves no manner of doubt that the process of examination, the conduct of examination, which includes all the three stages, is the responsibility of the Commission and for fulfilling this mandate the Commission obviously is entitled to take all necessary steps/actions/decisions so that the selection process is concluded successfully as per the mandate of the rules.
That apart Commission being a Constitutional Authority, which has been given the duty to conduct examination for appointment to the services of the State under Article 320 of the Constitution, has an onerous responsibility to conduct the same fairly and successfully. It is by now settled proposition of law that where an Act or the Rules confer a jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts and/or employing such means as are essentially necessary to its execution. Thus, to discharge the duties effectively which have been conferred on a Constitutional/Statutory Authority/Body, the power to take such steps, decisions or actions are inherent in the statute if they are to essentially carry out the effect of the objects of the statute/rules. The responsibility to conduct the preliminary CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 30 -
examination and that too successfully and subsequently the main examination and personality test is upon the Commission. In doing so even if there is no specific power conferred upon the Commission to take a decision or to act in a particular manner, would not leave the Commission powerless to take appropriate steps/actions as and when any such situation arises.
In the light of the above, it cannot be said that the Commission did not have power to take such a decision which would be essentially necessary for the execution of the purpose for which the Commission has been constituted and has been assigned the duty to conduct the examination under the Constitution as also under the statutory rules. For exercising such authority no specific power is required to be conferred on the Commission as the said power/authority is inherent in the Commission. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the Commission did not have any jurisdiction or authority to take any action in the absence of the specific powers conferred on it cannot be accepted. However, the decision which has been taken by the Commission, the consequences and effect thereof and the process of such decision making is always open to judicial review.
After having held that the Commission has the jurisdiction to take a decision which is essential for fulfilling the duty and responsibility conferred on the Commission, the decision so taken when it is not alleged to be with a malafide intention may not be open to question, but the decision making process the CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 31 -
effect and consequences thereof obviously is amenable to judicial review and it is in this context that the action taken by the Commission and the prejudice caused because of the same has to be tested. The facts as has been narrated above lead us to a conclusion that the questions which were set for the papers were open to objections. This is apparent from Clause 9 of the booklets of question papers which were given to the candidates when the HCS (Executive Branch) and other Allied Services Preliminary Examination, 2011 was held on 25.3.2012, according to which, any representation regarding questions and answers could be given by a candidate in writing to the centre supervisor just after the examination was over. In pursuance thereto, 151 representations were received which included representations not only received from the centre supervisors, but in the office of the Commission as well. These were referred to the paper-setters of the respective papers. The stand of the Commission is that this was done as it would amount to review as the discrepancies which were pointed out were apparent on the record. This action of the Commission although bonafide, but is not acceptable for the reason that the paper-setters are interested parties. They have their own self-interest involved, if they accept their mistake that they had set the questions wrong, they were likely to face the consequences which would be even debarring them from future responsibility of paper setting. It would not be out of way to mention here that representations were received in all subjects CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 32 -
except two, i.e. Agriculture and Civil Engineering out of 20. The details thereof have been given in Anneuxre-R-1, which has been appended alongwith reply filed by the Commission. For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein below :-
Sr. Name of the No. of the No. of No. of Questions No. Subject candidates representations representations found to appeared received from received from be Centre the candidates discrepant Supervisors in the office A. General Studies 41366 70 3 7 1 Agriculture 232 - - -
Animal - -
Husbandry and
Veterinary
2 Science 120 1
3 Botany 583 5 - -
4 Chemistry 878 2 - -
Civil - - -
5 Engineering 151
Commerce and - -
6 Accountancy 3016 4
7 Economics 1765 4 - -
Electrical -
8 Engineering 894 44 2
9 Geography 3744 65 - 5
10 Indian History 8373 7 - -
11 Law 2774 3 - -
12 Mathematics 1710 7 - -
Mechanical - -
13 Engineering 945 2
14 Physics 804 3 1 1
Political Science
& International
15 Relations 3036 15 1 3
16 Psychology 1050 1 - -
Public -
17 Administration 7224 5 1
18 Sociology 2991 4 - -
19 Zoology 805 3 - -
CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 33 -
This action of the Commission is violative of the well settled principle of natural justice, according to which, a person cannot be a judge in his own cause. Here is a situation where the questions set by a question-setter was being challenged to be incorrect or discrepant which generally by instinct leads a person to defend himself and his acts. Instead of proceeding with an open mind, the paper-setter would have taken it negatively and defended his questions. In the above situation, it would have been just and reasonable that the said representations should have been referred to a Committee of Experts, who could have gone into the questions and thereafter would have submitted its repot to the Commission for its consideration. This step of referring the matter, where such a situation has arisen, to a Committee of Experts has been followed by the Patna High Court in Manoj Kumar's case (supra) wherein it has been held as follows :-
"10. BPSC is a constitutional body and it has an obligation to ensure holding of a free and fair examination, maintaining the utmost standards and probity without giving any leeway for any kind of doubt, dispute or controversy being raised with regard to results of any examination conducted by them. The Court however is not unmindful of the fact that the Commission has no mechanism to set questions for various examinations, which they hold and they have to rely on outside agencies or a panel of so-called CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 34 -
experts, whose services are taken from time to time.
Unfortunately in the present case, BPSC is facing a flak not because of any failure on their part but because of certain omission or failure on the part of the experts, who provided the question bank as well as the so-
called model answers. But, it is the credibility of the BPSC which is at stake as they are the body saddled with responsibility to hold such examination to fill up public / civil posts under the constitutional provision.
The Court has been told that to prevent any leakage of question papers they cannot scrutinize the correctness of the questions or answers until examination is held.
11. It may be so, therefore the Court would want BPSC to review the list of so-called experts and weed out the elements who have caused such embarrassment and litigation, at least for the future examinations. It will be in their interest to do so.
12. Coming to the question whether the contention of the petitioners that the present cut off marks/qualifying marks should be reduced by the number of questions which have been found to be erroneous and be made the basis for declaration of the result afresh or whether the evaluation should be re-
done on the basis of total correct answers which the CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 35 -
Commission has now zeroed down as per the second experts panel opinion, is the crux of the dispute now.
13. This Court does not find any rationale in the demand for reducing the minimum qualifying marks by as many marks on the basis of questions which have been found to be wrong in the present case, by the second expert committee because the final evaluation has to be made on the basis of the final tally of correct set of questions which now remain. Evaluation has to be made across the board on the basis of the correct answers, to correct questions, which have to be considered now. Reducing the cut-off marks across the board will bring within its ambit a large number of candidates by giving them a kind of unfair advantage without any scientific basis defeating the very objective of holding a preliminary examination.
14. In the opinion of this Court, the proper mechanism to be adopted would be to carry out a fresh evaluation of all the answer sheets of the candidates who have participated in the preliminary examinations by weeding out the wrong questions which have now been accepted to be wrong by the 2nd expert committee and which the Commission has gracefully accepted by way of the affidavit filed by them on 11.11.2011."
CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 36 -
By this process of referring the question papers to a Committee of Experts, the Commission would be in a position to find out the discrepancy(s) in questions fairly. But the process which was followed by the Patna High Court, i.e. to delete the said questions and to carry out the fresh evaluation would be possible in the present case to Paper-I, i.e. General Studies only as the same is common for all the candidates, but cannot be applied to the optional papers as the candidates are different therein as per the option given.
The action of the Commission to delete the questions which were admitted by the paper-setters to be discrepant and granting marks to the candidates for the said questions, as far as the paper of General Studies is concerned, can be said to be justified as the said paper was common to all the candidates and, therefore, no prejudice has been caused to them as all discrepant questions have been deleted and the benefit of those questions were granted in the form of equal marks to all the candidates. No undue benefit was thus conferred on any of the candidates, but this parameter would not pass the test of reasonableness and equality when it is applied to the optional papers where discrepancies have been found in the Electrical Engineering, Geography, Physics and Political Science & International Relations, wherein 2, 5, 1 and 3 questions respectively were found discrepant and were deleted because of which as many marks were given to the candidates of said optional papers. The effect CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 37 -
thereof was that the candidates of these optional papers without attempting the questions were given full marks proceeding on the assumption that they would have given correct answers to these questions and thus were assigned full marks. An argument can be raised that by deleting these questions, they would be deprived of an opportunity to attempt these number of questions and, therefore, they have been compensated by the marks on deletion of the said questions. But this cannot be accepted as each mark counts in a competition especially when it has been so pleaded and admitted that in general category at the cut off marks of 134, there are 134 candidates bracketed. So each mark is important. There is always a possibility that if the candidates of these optional papers when called upon to attempt the new set of questions in place of the deleted questions, they could have got any number of marks. But then undue benefit has been conferred upon the candidates of these optional papers which may have the possibility of excluding meritorious candidates from the zone of consideration. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that the preliminary examination is only a screening test i.e. a step towards taking the main examination which would determine the eligibility of a candidate for moving on to the next step of personality test (viva-voce). In the light of the above, it cannot be said that no prejudice has been caused to the candidates of other subjects by grant of marks to the candidates of the optional subjects where the questions have been found to be CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 38 -
incorrect/discrepant. The only option under these circumstances is to hold re-examination for the said optional papers. But this step can be taken only after the Committee of Experts has submitted its report to the Commission.
During the course of hearing, this Court had asked counsel for respondents to provide subject-wise break-up of the merit of the candidates in which questions have been found to be incorrect/discrepant. In response thereto, the said information has been supplied. In the subject of Geography, 5 marks have been assigned to the candidates because five questions have been deleted. The cut-off marks in the general category are 134. If we add up five marks to this 134, the cut-off marks would become 139 for the candidates of Geography which would suggest that 105 candidates have got entry into the list because of these five marks. In the category of scheduled castes where the cut-off marks are 120, 19 candidates have made the cut-off marks. In the BC category, 8 candidates and in the ex-servicemen category, one candidate. In Political Science & International Relations where three questions are wrong, after deducting three marks, 31 candidates in the general category did make the grade, 11 in SC category, 5 in BC category and 3 in ESM category. Similarly, in Physics where there is one wrong question, two candidates have made it to the list of cut-off candidates in the general category. In the Electrical Engineering, none of the candidates has been benefited. This would demonstrate the impact of the marks CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 39 -
granted to the candidates of the optional subjects in which the questions have been found to be erroneous when deleted. More the number of wrong questions more the candidates have crossed the cut-off marks. This highlights the effect of the decision of the Commission. The Court is aware of the fact that by the decision of the Commission to delete the incorrect questions, the candidates have been deprived of the right to attempt those questions. But when the equity is balanced, it cannot be presumed that all candidates in these optional subjects, where the questions are found to be wrong, would have answered those questions correctly, especially when each mark has an overwhelming effect on the cut-off marks for moving on to the next step of the examination.
There is yet another aspect which needs to be dealt with by this Court keeping in view the discrepancies which have been pointed out by the representationists apart from the petitioners, which has been duly accepted by the respondents. When it has been accepted that there are discrepancies in the question papers, the possibility of there being wrong answers in the answer key also cannot be ruled out. Although, a presumption is attached to the correctness of the said answer key as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanpur University Versus Sameer Gupta's case (supra), but in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes all the more necessary that the answer key be made public so that the candidates are aware CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 40 -
of their respective positions. This action of the Commission would be just, fair and equitable. After publishing the said answer key, the Commission should in all fairness call for representations from the candidates within some specified time which representations received, if any, be also referred to the Committee of Experts, who may also go into this aspect and submit its report to the Commission. For guiding the Committee and the Commission with regard to the questions and the action to be taken therein, reference can be made to the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Gunjan Sinha Jain (supra) wherein it has been held as follows :-
"75. In view of the above discussion, the questions would fall into three categories. The first being those questions where the answers reflected in the Answer Key are correct. This category would include all those questions which have not been discussed above (i.e., questions in respect of which there was no challenge at the hearing) and those questions in respect of which the answers shown in the Answer Key have been found to be correct by us. The second category comprises of those questions in respect of which the option shown to be correct in the Answer Key is incorrect and instead another option as determined above is correct. The third category of questions covers (1) questions out of syllabus; (2) questions in respect of which the CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 41 -
answer in the Answer Key is debatable; (3) questions in respect of which there are more than one correct option; (4) questions in respect of which none of the options is correct; and (5) questions which are confusing or do not supply complete information for a clear answer.
76. As regards the first category, no change in the Answer Key is required. The Answer Key in respect of the second category of questions would have to be corrected and the OMR answer sheets would have to be re-evaluated. Insofar as the third category is concerned, questions falling in this category would have to be removed from the purview of the examination."
After taking a decision thereon in this regard, the Commission should proceed to take action in accordance with law. This would not only restore the faith of the candidates in the Commission, but would increase credibility of this constitutional authority which has an obligation to ensure holding of free and fair examination by maintaining highest standards, leaving no manner of doubt in the minds of the aspiring candidates and would bring in transparency in the working of the Commission and its actions. Much of the confusion has been created on the part of the Commission by not making public the answer key. Had the Commission done so, the things would have been much more CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 42 -
clearer, removing doubts in the minds of the candidates. The purpose and intent of the Commission is not to stand on hollow esteems or to make a prestige issue in such matters. With the increase in education, awareness of the rights and expectancy of the youth of this country, the Commission should stand apart and take the challenges by accepting responsibility and bringing in transparency in its functioning, instead of seeking protection and cover under the cloak of secrecy of the examination process. Most of the State Public Service Commissions and even the Union Public Service Commission make the answer key public, but still the Haryana Public Service Commission is averse to the same, especially when it has been asserted in the Court that it has nothing to hide. The Commission should therefore, proceed to make the answer key public, call for the representations, if any, against them and thereafter refer them to the Committee of Experts for their opinion and on receipt of the same, take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
Mr. Mehtani has referred to a judgment of this Court passed in the case of Virender Sharma and others Versus State of Haryana and others (arising out of CWP No. 15781 of 2010), decided on 22.9.2010, wherein the petitioners were seeking a writ of mandamus for holding a separate examination of Paper-V i.e. Local Rules and Public Works Accounts or in the alternative for awarding 21 grace marks to them in the said paper on the ground that part of questions were out of criteria/syllabus in the CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 43 -
examination conducted by the Commission. This Court, after referring to judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Versus Mukesh Thakur and another, (2010) 6 SCC 759, Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. Versus Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao, (1996) 7 SCC 499, Govt. of Orissa Versus Hanichal Roy, (1998) 6 SCC 626, LIC Versus Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar, (1994) 2 SCC 718 and A. Umarani Versus Coop. Societies, (2004) 7 SCC 112, proceeded to sum up the law on the subject as follows :-
" The law, thus, can be summed up to say that the Courts can not take on the role of examiner or the evaluator or that of the Selection Board to examine discrepancies either in the question papers or the answer sheets. Courts can not also examine the question paper or the answer sheet itself. Obviously, if the Courts would start doing so, they would assume the role of examiner, paper setter and evaluator, which is to be left to the expert body. It is with reason and purpose that the courts are to assume the answer given in the `key answer' to be correct. Any interference in this regard would tend to make them to take on the role of paper setter, which would be beyond the purview of judicial review. As is well understood, the judicial review generally speaking is not directed against a decision but is directed against the `decision making process'. Any exercise to observe that a particular question is discrepant or the answer in the key answer is not correct, would tend to be going beyond the permissible grounds of judicial review. As observed in the case, of Public Utilities CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 44 -
Commission of the District of Columbia Vs. Pollak, (1951) 343 US 451, the judicial process demands that a Judge moves within the frame work of relevant legal rules and the covenanted modes of thought for ascertaining them. The fact is that on the whole Judges do lay aside private views in discharging their judicial functions."
It would not be out of way to mention here that the facts in the present case are different from those which were prevalent in Virender Sharma's case (supra). But there can be no dispute to the above summing up the law on the issue, however in the light of the above facts and circumstances of the present case, these principles, as laid down by this Court in Virender Sharma's case (supra), would support this judgment as the Court can exercise of its power of judicial review test the decision making process, impact and effect of the decision on the anvil of the principles as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
As stated above, the course adopted by the Commission has resulted in discrimination to many of the aspiring and deserving candidates as in the process of weeding out a small cause of inequality, it has infected the roots of the pious tree of equality which has led to destroying the tree itself. This has resulted in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and thus unsustainable.
CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 45 -
In view of the above, these writ petitions are allowed with following directions :-
(i) The Haryana Public Service Commission shall constitute a Committee of Experts to consider the 151 representations received by the Commission in pursuance to Clause 9 of the booklet of question papers and submit its report to the Commission. Commission shall consider the same and take steps in accordance with the law;
(ii) The Haryana Public Service Commission shall publish the answer key of the preliminary examination within a period of three days from today, call for the representations from the candidates within a reasonable time, on receipt thereof, if any, the same be referred to a Committee of Experts, which shall consider these representations and submit its opinion to the Commission which shall thereafter take a decision thereon and take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
In case, discrepancies are found in the question papers/answer keys as per the report of the Committee of Experts, corrective measures be taken by the Commission and the following be also taken into consideration, i.e. wherever the question(s) in respect of which the option shown to be correct in the answer key is incorrect and instead another option as determined by the Committee of Experts is found to be correct, answer key be corrected. Question(s) in respect of which the answer in the answer key is debatable or question(s) in respect of CWP No.10309 of 2012 & connected matters - 46 -
which there is/are more than one correct option or questions in respect of which none of the options is correct or question(s) which is/are confusing or do not supply complete information for a clear answer, would have to be removed from the purview of examination. In the case of paper of General Studies, answers be evaluated accordingly of all the candidates.
However, in the case of optional subjects, the Commission shall have no option but to order re-examination in the said optional paper(s) if discrepancies in question paper(s)/answer key(s) is/are of such a nature where the question(s) is/are to be deleted.
The result be thereafter compiled and declared only after the above process is given effect to.
The main written examination, which is fixed for 2.9.2012 shall stand postponed till the above exercise is completed by the Commission.
Copy of this order be given dasti to Mr. Mehtani, counsel for HPSC under the signatures of the Special Secretary of this Court.
August 30, 2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) pj/pc/sjks JUDGE