Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Above titled bunch of 46 petitions is being disposed of vide common order since facts as well as issues involved therein are similar.

2. Succinct factual narrative first. For the sake of brevity, same is being taken from CWP-15672-2021.

3. This is second foray of litigation before this Court for many of the petitioners, hopefuls of becoming clerks in State of Haryana. Despite earlier orders Annexures P-16 and P-20, passed by this Court, respondent Commission rejected the right of the petitioners for awarding marks, allegedly for wrong evaluation of their answers. Three questions of the paper Code A, subject matter of lis herein, were correctly marked as per First Answer Key (Annexure P-13). However, in the final answer key in paper code R, U and T (of the petitioners), evaluation qua same very questions was later changed. While for the same very questions, candidates of paper Code 'A', who gave same answers as many of the petitioners herein in paper code R, U and T, have been selected finally on the basis of awarding of marks for those questions. Hence the petitioners, having been denied marks despite same answers, are before this court.

8. Apropos above, a short reply dated 22.04.2022 has been filed by the Under Secretary of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, inter alia, stating as below:-

"13. That the Respondent Commission has received the report from the Chief-Examiner. Copy of report is annexed herewith as Annexure R-2/1. The relevant part of the report is reproduced as under:-
"We have cross checked the objection raised by few candidates on the final answer keys for few sets of the Question paper in few sessions. However, to reconfirm the answer keys for all the 5 sessions, we have assigned a team to check the answer keys of all the 24 versions in all the 5 sessions in which the exam was conducted. The Question paper was jumbled in 24 versions and Options were also jumbled for all the 24 versions. That the written exam for post in question was conducted in five sessions i.e. "Paper Code E-1 (21st Sept 2019-Evening Session) Paper Code M-1 (22nd Sept 2019-Morning Session) Paper Code E-2 (22nd Sept 2019-Evening Session) Paper Code M-2 (23rd Sept 2019-Morning Session) Paper Code E-3 (23rd Sept 2019-Evening Session) Please find below the summary of the changes post checking the entire 5 session of the Question paper and Answer keys.
15. That from the above report and tables it is clear that misevaluation of the questions as contended by the petitioners in all the writ petitions mentioned in para no.8 as well as other questions as observed by the experts (mentioned in the report) has happened in revised answer key. It is submitted that the Commission had solely relied upon the expert decision for the evaluation of the answer sheets based on the answer key provided by the Chief-examiner previously and the answer sheets has been evaluated by the evaluators based on revised answer key provided by the Chief-examiner. Therefore, due to inadvertent technical error, the OMR sheets has been misevaluated."

14. What emerges is that, it seems to have become a habit of the Commission to commit such mistakes, given the nature of litigation pending in this Court wherein Haryana Staff Selection Commission is directly involved. Each time they come up with some moonshine defense, one illustration is herein itself, that due to the malfunction of the software, mistake happened on its own and personnel of commission are not 11 of 13 CWP-15672-2021 (O&M) and other connected cases responsible. On the contrary, it is no rocket science to observe that apparently preparation of a wrong answer key has nothing to do with the software. It is a clear mistake on the part of the examiner who prepared the answer key. The job of identifying the human resource, including examiner or chief-examiner, is with the Commission. The Commission ought take the entire responsibility and must be more careful rather than shifting of burden from one shoulder to the other.