- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Gurmehtab Singh & Others Petitioners v. State Of Haryana & Others S
Factual and Procedural Background
This order, delivered orally by Hemant Gupta, J., disposes of the writ petition referred to at the outset together with other writ petitions listed in the footnote of the order. The petitions challenge the result of the Preliminary Examination for appointment to the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Examination, 2012, which was held on 17.03.2013.
The petitioners are aspirants who appeared for the Preliminary Examination (advertised on 17.12.2012) seeking short-listing for the Main Examination. They contended that the published answer key contained incorrect answers to 27 questions, which produced an incorrect result and deprived them of eligibility to appear in the Main Examination.
On 12.04.2013, Mr. Kareer, Registrar (Recruitment), Punjab and Haryana High Court, stated that the grievance as to the alleged wrong answer key would be examined by a Committee and that the result would be re-generated. Pursuant to that statement, the result was re-generated on 22.04.2013 after the Committee deleted three questions (Nos. 43, 102 and 111) and revised the key for five questions (Nos. 1, 56, 98, 101 and 118). As a result, 468 additional candidates became eligible and were being permitted to appear in the Main Examination. Mr. Kareer also stated that the revised answer key would be put on the High Court's website.
Learned counsel for the petitioners asserted that the answer key remained incorrect in respect of four questions (Nos. 10, 16, 18 and 97) and urged that the Committee be directed to reconsider those questions as well.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in the context of competitive/public service examinations, the court should direct re-consideration or re-evaluation of particular answer keys/questions in the absence of statutory provision for re-evaluation.
- What is the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution in relation to evaluation of answer sheets and determination of answer keys for competitive examinations — specifically, whether the Court may act as an appellate examining body to reassess answer keys.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The published answer key contained incorrect answers to a number of questions (initially asserted as 27), producing an incorrect result and depriving petitioners of eligibility for the Main Examination.
- After the Committee's re-examination and re-generation of results, four questions (Nos. 10, 16, 18 and 97) remained incorrect in the petitioners' view; the Committee should be directed to reconsider those questions as well.
Respondent's Representation (Registrar / Committee)
- The Registrar (Recruitment) informed the Court that the alleged wrong answer key would be examined by a Committee and that the result would be re-generated.
- The Committee re-examined all questions, deleted three questions (Nos. 43, 102 and 111), revised keys for five questions (Nos. 1, 56, 98, 101 and 118), and re-generated the result on 22.04.2013, thereby making 468 additional candidates eligible for the Main Examination.
- The revised answer key was to be uploaded on the High Court website.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Khatri Saurabh Satyapal v. Haryana Public Service Commission, 2009 (4) S.C.T 362 | While exercising judicial review under Article 226, the Court is not to act as an appellate examining body to go into the details of determination of key answers. | The Court relied on this principle to emphasise the limited scope of judicial review and to decline to re-open detailed evaluation of the answer key. |
| Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27 | Permitting re-evaluation/inspection as a right would cause indefinite uncertainty in competitive examination results and be against public interest; courts should be cautious in ordering re-evaluation. | The Court cited this decision (including paras 28–29) to support refusal to permit re-evaluation that would undermine finality and public interest. |
| Fatehchand Himmatlal v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 2 SCC 670 | Context noted that the test of reasonableness is applied in the context of life's realities (quoted in Sheth). | Referred to within the Sheth quotation as part of the doctrinal basis for limiting re-evaluation and maintaining practical finality of results. |
| Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 714 | In absence of a specific rule allowing re-evaluation, a candidate has no right to re-evaluation; courts should not order re-evaluation where rules do not permit it; such orders create practical problems and delay. | The Court applied this principle to hold that re-evaluation directions are unwarranted where statutory or rule-based provision for re-evaluation is absent. |
| President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa v. D. Suvankar, (2007) 1 SCC 603 | The court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views for those of technical/professional examiners; results of public examinations should have finality; avoid decisions that render the system unworkable. | The Court invoked this authority to justify deference to the Committee's technical re-examination and to decline further judicial interference. |
| Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur, (2010) 6 SCC 759 | Reiterates the principles restraining judicial re-assessment of academic/technical evaluation where the procedure followed is not shown to be violative, mala fide or arbitrary. | Used as part of the chain of authority reinforcing the limited scope for court intervention in evaluation matters. |
| Sanchit Bansal v. Joint Admission Board, (2012) 1 SCC 157 | Evaluation, ranking and selection are technical academic matters; courts will interfere only if there is (i) violation of enactment/rules, (ii) mala fides/ulterior motives, or (iii) arbitrary and capricious procedure. | The Court applied this standard to assess whether intervention was warranted and concluded no such grounds for interference were shown. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded in the following analytical steps, as reflected in the oral order:
- The Court recorded the Registrar's statement that a Committee would examine the alleged incorrect answer key and that the result would be re-generated. The Committee re-examined all questions, deleted three questions (Nos. 43, 102 and 111) and revised keys for five questions (Nos. 1, 56, 98, 101 and 118). This process produced additional eligible candidates (468) who were to be permitted to sit in the Main Examination and the revised key was to be published on the website.
- The petitioners contended that four questions (Nos. 10, 16, 18 and 97) remained incorrectly keyed and asked for further reconsideration by the Committee.
- The Court examined the legal position and emphasised that the scope of judicial review in appointment and competitive examination matters is not res integra. It relied on a line of decisions (including Khatri Saurabh Satyapal, Maharashtra State Board v. Sheth, Pramod Kumar Srivastava, President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, Himachal Pradesh PSC v. Mukesh Thakur and Sanchit Bansal) that counsel restraint. The Court noted reasons given by the Supreme Court: permitting re-evaluation as of right leads to indefinite uncertainty regarding results, delays and practical difficulties, and courts should be reluctant to substitute their views for those of professional examiners unless there is statutory violation, mala fides, or arbitrary procedure.
- Applying these principles, and noting that the Committee had re-examined all questions and re-generated the result, the Court concluded that it could not direct reconsideration of the four specified questions purely on the petitioners' contention that those keys remained incorrect.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The writ petitions are dismissed.
Implications:
- Direct effect on the parties: The Committee's re-generation of the result (which deleted three questions and revised keys for five questions) stands; 468 additional candidates were held to have become eligible and were to be permitted to appear in the Main Examination as a consequence of the re-generated result.
- The Court declined to order further reconsideration of the four questions (Nos. 10, 16, 18 and 97) sought by the petitioners, primarily on the basis of established precedent limiting judicial re-evaluation of technical academic matters.
- No new legal precedent was created by this order; the Court applied and relied upon existing authorities emphasizing finality of examination results and narrow grounds for judicial interference (statutory violation, mala fides, or arbitrary procedure).
This summary is drawn exclusively and only from the contents of the provided opinion. Sections have not introduced facts or inferences beyond those expressly stated in the opinion.
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.
In 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 v. Haryana Public Service Commission, 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 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 v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth(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 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 v. 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 examinees to demand a disclosure and inspection and also to seek re CWP No. 7570 of 2013 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 v. 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, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the CWP No. 7570 of 2013 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 v. Mukesh Thakur(2010) 6 SCC 759. Recently in another judgment reported as Sanchit Bansal v. 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:
“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.
Sr. No. Case No. Parties Name
1. C.W.P No. 7714 of 2013 JINDER PAL SINGH RAJPUT v. STATE OF HARYANA
2. C.W.P No. 7722 of 2013 NAMIT KHURANA v. STATE OF HARYANA
3. C.W.P No. 7831 of 2013 TANVEER KAUR v. STATE OF HARYANA
4. C.W.P No. 7997 of 2013 GANGA DUTT SHARMA v. STATE OF HARYANA
5. C.W.P No. 8069 of 2013 LOKESH KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA
6. C.W.P No. 8078 of 2013 VIPIN KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA
7. C.W.P No. 8160 of 2013 DEEPAK MITTAL v. STATE OF HARYANA
8. C.W.P No. 8194 of 2013 PRIYANKA SHARMA v. STATE OF HARYANA
9. C.W.P No. 8219 of 2013 TUSHAR KAUR THIND v. STATE OF HARYANA
10. C.W.P No. 8267 of 2013 SRISHTI SAXENA v. STATE OF HARYANA
11. C.W.P No. 8269 of 2013 MANOHAR LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA
12. C.W.P No. 8270 of 2013 NAVEEN SINGLA v. STATE OF HARYANA
13. C.W.P No. 8271 of 2013 DEEPALI GAMBHIR v. STATE OF HARYANA
14. C.W.P No. 8272 of 2013 KIRANPREET KAUR v. STATE OF HARYANA
15. C.W.P No. 8275 of 2013 SONU v. STATE OF HARYANA
16. C.W.P No. 8276 of 2013 GAURAV ARORA v. STATE OF HARYANA
17. C.W.P No. 8277 of 2013 SATISH KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA
18. C.W.P No. 8278 of 2013 RINKU JAIN v. STATE OF HARYANA
19. C.W.P No. 8279 of 2013 SONIA v. STATE OF HARYANA
20. C.W.P No. 8284 of 2013 ANITA RANI v. STATE OF HARYANA
21. C.W.P No. 8287 of 2013 SANCHITA SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA
22. C.W.P No. 8291 of 2013 KULVINDER KAUR v. STATE OF HARYANA
23. C.W.P No. 8292 of 2013 ROHAN GUPTA v. STATE OF HARYANA
24. C.W.P No. 8293 of 2013 HARDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA
25. C.W.P No. 8297 of 2013 AMIT MISHRA v. STATE OF HARYANA
26. C.W.P No. 8298 of 2013 ARUN SHORI v. STATE OF HARYANA
27. C.W.P No. 8303 of 2013 AMRINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA
28. C.W.P No. 8308 of 2013 RAM BILAS v. STATE OF HARYANA
29. C.W.P No. 8309 of 2013 NARENDER KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA
30. C.W.P No. 8310 of 2013 HEMANT v. STATE OF HARYANA
31. C.W.P No. 8311 of 2013 HIMANSHU JAIN v. STATE OF HARYANA
32. C.W.P No. 8313 of 2013 AAKANKSHA KALIA v. STATE OF HARYANA
33. C.W.P No. 8314 of 2013 ADITYA SINGH YADAV v. STATE OF HARYANA
34. C.W.P No. 8315 of 2013 ANMOL JINDAL v. STATE OF HARYANA
35. C.W.P No. 8318 of 2013 MOHIT CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF HARYANA
36. C.W.P No. 8319 of 2013 SALONI GUPTA v. STATE OF HARYANA
37. C.W.P No. 8320 of 2013 VARUN SHARMA v. STATE OF HARYANA
38. C.W.P No. 8322 of 2013 INDU RANI v. STATE OF HARYANA
39. C.W.P No. 8338 of 2013 MUKUL GOYAL v. STATE OF HARYANA
40. C.W.P No. 8340 of 2013 KULDEEP SHARMA v. STATE OF HARYANA
41. C.W.P No. 8347 of 2013 SIMARVEER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA
42. C.W.P No. 8349 of 2013 ANTERPREET SINGH v. PB AND HRY HIGH COURT
43. C.W.P No. 8350 of 2013 CHETESH GUPTA v. STATE OF HARYANA
44. C.W.P No. 8366 of 2013 RATTANDEEP KAUR PLAHA v. STATE OF HARYANA
45. C.W.P No. 8367 of 2013 KAWALDIP SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA
46. C.W.P No. 8374 of 2013 LAVEENA PASSI v. STATE OF HARYANA
47. C.W.P No. 8382 of 2013 ABHINAV KIRAN v. STATE OF HARYANA
48. C.W.P No. 8383 of 2013 RAJDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA
49. C.W.P No. 8384 of 2013 ANIRUDH GARG v. STATE OF HARYANA
50. C.W.P No. 8385 of 2013 VISHAVJYOTI SHARMA v. STATE OF HARYANA
51. C.W.P No. 8386 of 2013 INDERJOT SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA
52. C.W.P No. 8388 of 2013 DAVINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA
53. C.W.P No. 8389 of 2013 SEHRAJ SINGH VIRK v. STATE OF HARYANA
54. C.W.P No. 8391 of 2013 ROHIT KARWASRA v. STATE OF HARYANA
55. C.W.P No. 8392 of 2013 SANDEEP KAUR v. STATE OF HARYANA
56. C.W.P No. 8396 of 2013 RAHUL SINGH DAGAR v. STATE OF HARYANA
57. C.W.P No. 8401 of 2013 VIKRAM SINGH NEHRA v. STATE OF HARYANA
58. C.W.P No. 8402 of 2013 DEEPAK CHAHAL v. STATE OF HARYANA
59. C.W.P No. 8424 of 2013 KULDEEP SINGH v. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
60. C.W.P No. 8440 of 2013 PUNEET KUMAR BANSAL v. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
61. C.W.P No. 8493 of 2013 CHARU DUREJA v. STATE OF HARYANA
Alert