Hemant Gupta, J.:— This order shall dispose of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 236, 237, 243 and 244 of 2009 arising out of judgment of learned Single Judge dated 01.04.2009 deciding bunch of writ petitions challenging the Preliminary Examination conducted by the Haryana Public Service Commission (for short “the Commission”) in the year 2008 for recruitment to the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch).

2. An advertisement was published by the Commission on 14.09.2008 inviting applications for 78 posts of Civil Judges (Junior Division) in Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch). 6381 candidates applied for the said posts. 5170 candidates appeared in the preliminary examination required to be conducted in terms of the advertisement so issued. Out of said candidates, 830 candidates have been shortlisted in the result declared on 18.11.2008 in respect of said 78 vacancies. Two writ petitions i.e CWP No. 678 and 180 of 2009 were filed in the month of January, 2009 whereas all other writ petitions were filed in the later half of March, 2009. The challenge to the Preliminary Examination-2008 is primarily on two grounds. Firstly, certain questions were out of syllabus contemplated for the examination and, therefore, the entire process of examination is not proper. Secondly, i??? a writ petition filed by the appellant in LPA No. 236 of 2009, the allegation was that answer to one question in respect of life of Presidential Ordinance is incorrect, therefore, the examination process is not fair and reasonable.

3. However, during the pendency of writ petitions, on production of question paper, the appellant in LPA No. 237 of 2009, pointed out that 45 questions were out of syllabus, whereas in respect of five questions, the answers were incorrect. It was pointed out by the appellant in Annexure P-7 that most of the said 45 questions pertain to Constitution of India, International Law, Jurisprudence, Criminology, Arbitration Act, Law of Torts, Negotiable Instruments Act and Freedom of Information Act but such subjects were not part of the syllabus. Therefore, 45 questions enumerated in Annexure P-7 could not have been taken into consideration in determining the eligibility of the candidate for appearing in the Main Examination. It is also pointed out that Question No. 62, 72, 73, 108 and 111 had wrong answers.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Dhindsa, learned counsel appearing for the Commission, has produced the original answer sheets of the appellants. He has pointed out that the appellants in LPA No. 236 and 237 of 2009 have attempted the four questions, the answers of which the learned Single Judge has found to be incorrect as well as Question No. 108 in respect of life of Presidential Ordinance. It is contended that having attempted to answer the questions, it is not open to the appellants to raise an argument that the answers were incorrect. It is further pointed out that had the appellants not answered the questions and come out with a plea that the answers are incorrect, one can understand the prejudice caused to the appellants but having attempted the questions and correctly as well, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been, caused to the petitioners. It is pointed out that Mr. Gaurav Jain, appellant in LPA No. 237 of 2009 has attempted two question correctly out of four questions as well the answer to question No. 108 was attempted correctly. The appellant in LPA No. 236 of 2009, attempted three questions correctly but the question No. 108 was answered incorrectly i.e Life of Presidential Ordinance was said to be three months as against key answer of six months. Similarly, Harkirat Singh Ghuman-appellant in LPA No. 243 of 2009 and Parveen Chauhan-appellant in LPA No. 244 of 2009, have attempted three questions correctly out of four questions found to be incorrect answers by the learned Single Judge and the fourth question was answered wrongly by both the candidates. The answer to question No., 108 was answered by both these candidates correctly as well. Therefore, after implementing the directions of the learned Single Judge, in fact, overall marks of the appellants stand reduced as to what was granted by the Commission earlier. Mr. Dhindsa has also pointed out that, in fact, one of the instructions which were communicated to all the candidates were to the following effect:—

“4. Each question has four responses and of these, only one is most appropriate, which is required to be marked by blue/black point/gel pen by the candidate by darkening appropriate circle completely.”

5. On the strength of such instruction, it is argued that the “most appropriate” answer was to be marked by a candidate. In other words, it was argued that it need not be precisely correct. Answer to Question No. 108 as Six months is the correct key in view of the fact that there could not be gap of more than six months between two sessions of Parliament and, therefore, six months is the most appropriate answer of Question No. 108.

6. Mr. Sehrawat, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Abhijit Sen v. State of U.P, (1984) 2 SCC 319 and also relied upon a Division Bench decision of Delhi High Court in Surjit Saurabh v. High Court of Delhi, W.P (C) 8028 of 2008 decided on 01.12.2008, in support of his argument. Mr. Sehrawat has also relied upon judgment of Supreme Court reported as Special Reference No. 1 of 2002, (2002) 8 SCC 237 : AIR 2003 SC 87 to contend that gap of six months between two sessions of Legislative Assembly is not a mandatory requirement and, therefore, six months period as the key answer is not the correct option. Mr. Dahiya, on the other hand, relied upon the following observation of the Supreme Court in L. Lokanadham v. Chairman, Telecom Commission, (2008) 5 SCC 155:

“……… Furthermore, assuming there was some ambiguity in the prescribed syllabus, it would have been for an expert body to clear the same and in the event it is found that any question has been put out of syllabus, only those who could not answer the same might have been entitled to any relief. No relief in case a case of this nature could have been granted on assumptions. It was not for the Tribunal to pass an order only on the supposition that the appellant did not prepare themselves well owing to some misunderstanding in regard to the extent of syllabus.”

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, we do nt fnd that the appellants are entitled to any indulgence in the present appeals. Before we examine the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellants that 45 questions were out of syllabus, relevant clause from the advertisement needs to be reproduced:—

“12. Scheme of Examination:

The examination shall be conducted in three stages, namely, (i) Preliminary Examination, (ii) Main Examination, and (iii) Viva Voce,

(a) Preliminary Examination:—

The Preliminary Examination will be of two hours duration and will have 120 question. Each correct answer will carry four marks and for every wrong answer one mark will be deducted. However, no credit or discredit will be given for the questions not attempted. Questions in preliminary examination shall be from the syllabus prescribed for the main examination in terms of broad rubric of five papers for the main examination. Candidates shall be expected to have a general and basic knowledge of the main subjects and also the ability to answer questions on current events of National and International importance, Indian Legal and Constitutional History and goverance. Candidates shall also be tested for their analytical skills and aptitude. The candidates equal to 10 times the number of vacancies, on the basis of their performance in the Preliminary Examination, will be admitted to the main examination.”

8. It may be noticed that instructions were issued and supplied by the Commission to the candidates along with the application form. Instruction No. 11 deals with Syllabus of the main examination which is as per Rule 9 of Part C of Rules relating to the appointment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Haryana. Clause 12(a) of the Instructions reproduced above shows that questions in preliminary examination shall be from the syllabus prescribed for the main examination but also the candidates shall be expected to have a general and basic knowledge of the main subjects and also the ability to answer questions on current events of National and International importance, Indian Legal and Constitutional History and governance. According to the appellants, the questions which are said to be out of syllabus relate to the Constitution of India, International Law, Jurisprudence, Torts and other statutes. It cannot be said that such questions are out of syllabus as the candidates were made aware that they should have the ability to answer questions on current events of National and International importance, Indian Legal and Constitutional History and goverance. It may be noticed that such examination is for recruitment of Judicial Officers in the State of Haryana. The questions are about the Constitution of India or other statutes. It cannot be said that such questions are pot relevant to determine the aptitude and analytical mind of a candidate. The questions asked are not of physics, chemistry or economics unconnected with the syllabus or the purpose for which examination is being conducted. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellants that 45 questions were out of syllabus.

9. Reliance of the appellants on the judgment of the Delhi High Court has no application to the facts of the present case when the instructions clearly contemplate the scope of Preliminary Examination. Therefore, the first argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that certain questions were out of syllabus is without any merit. In fact, learned Single Judge has not recorded any categorical finding that any of questions is out of syllabus. Though before parting with the judgment, learned Single Judge had issued certain directions but in the absence of any categorical finding of any question out of syllabus, the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants lack any substance.

10. In respect of the argument that answers to certain questions were incorrect, suffice it to say that the appellants have attempted most of the questions and attempted them right. To argue that such questions should be excluded from the marking of all the candidates would be meaningless when the appellants themselves have attempted most of the questions correctly. Even otherwise, Instruction No. 4, as reproduced above, clearly stipulate that one of the answers is most appropriate which need not be precisely the correct answer. Therefore, we do not find that the appellants have suffered any prejudice on account of alleged wrong answers to the questions coulled out by the learned Single Judge.

11. Another argument needs to be examined, which is vehemently raised by Mr. Sehrawat. The said argument is in respect of Question No. 108 i.e Life of Presidential Ordinance. Relying upon the provisions of Article 85 of the Constitution of India, the argument is that all the questions are correct in as much as the President can withdraw the Ordinance at any time, therefore, three months period as life of an Ordinance by the appellant in LPA No. 236 of 2009 is the correct answer and, thus, the key answer is incorrect.

12. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is the argument so as to interpret the constitutional provisions in the court of law. The key answer of six months was the appropriate answer as the short abstract question was “How long can a President's Ordinance remain in force ?” Since more than six months cannot intervene between two sessions of Parliament in terms of Article 85 of the Constitution of India, key answer of six months is the appropriate answer. Therefore, it cannot be said that the key answer was palpably incorrect, demonstrably erroneous or absurd which is liable to be excluded from the purposes of determine suitability for the main examination. As a matter of fact, Supreme Court in judgment reported as L. Lokanandham (supra) has held that the Courts have limited jurisdiction in these matters and it for the experts to clear that ambiguity and that no relief can be granted on assumptions. It was found that a candidate who could not answer incorrect questions would be entitled to any relief. 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. Appellants in LPA Nos. 236 and 244 of 2009, have attempted Question No. 108 incorrectly; whereas appellants in LPA Nos. 237 and 243 of 2009 have given correct answer as per key. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment, the appellants are not entitled to any indulgence in the present appeals.

13. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in these Letters Patent Appeals. The same are dismissed. A copy of the order, under the signatures of Special Secretary of this Court, shall be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties.

14. Appeals dismissed.