Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdeep Singh Sahi vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 August, 2014
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
CWP No. 13562 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(1) CWP No. 13562 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of decision: August 26, 2014
Sukhdeep Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others
...Respondents
(2) CWP No. 16140 of 2014 (O&M)
Sudhanshu Anand
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and another
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. RK Girdhar, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CWP No. 13562 of 2014 .
Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CWP No. 16140 of 2014
Ms. Anju Bansal, Advocate, for
Ms. Vandana Sharma, Advocate,
for the Union of India.
Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate,
for the CBSE.
PREM SINGH
2014.09.02 11:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CWP No. 13562 of 2014 2
K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)
1. This order may be read treated as in continuation of the order passed on 25.8.2014 in the above mentioned cases. After examining the responses given by the experts, the petitioners reiterate that their answers were also correct and they have given the textual references to vouch for their correctness. They are, however, not able to affirm that the expert responses are scientifically incorrect. It is the incorrectness of the key answers, in my view, that could allow for a further reference to ascertain whether the experts have given a incorrect responses. If the petitioners' could only have a case that their answers are also correct, while the experts view which have prevailed for evaluation have stuck to the correctness of their own responses, judicial intervention cannot avail unless the evaluation has proceeded on the basis of experts responses which were proved to be incorrect. If such affirmation is not possible, I will find that there can be no justification for a court to make any further intervention. This is in conformity with the view taken by the Supreme Court in Kanpur University and others Versus Samir Gupta and others 1983 AIR Supreme Court 1230 that held that the experts key answer must be demonstrated to be wrong. It was in the context of a case where the students had answered correctly and there was an error in key answer to the question paper. It was demonstratively a wrong key answer and only the answer given by the student was correct. I pointed out already that the case of the petitioner is not, after examining the experts responses, that the responses are wrong. On PREM SINGH 2014.09.02 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 13562 of 2014 3 the other hand, the petitioners' contention is that their own perception of the correct answer obtained from some text books source. It does not get the students a right of reappraisal to their benefit. The writ petitions are dismissed.
August 26, 2014 (K.KANNAN)
prem JUDGE
PREM SINGH
2014.09.02 11:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh