Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shri Rajneesh Chauhan vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 7 October, 2021
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Satyen Vaidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
.
ON THE 7th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
Between:-
r to
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6283 of 2021
MS. SAPNA CHAUHAN, W/O
SHRI RAJNEESH CHAUHAN,
R/O DHIRAJ APARTMENT,
BELOW HIMFED BUILDING,
BCS NEW SHIMLA, DISTRICT
SHIMLA, H.P. ......PETITIONER.
(BY SH. ROMESH VERMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF H.P., THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY (POWER), TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA.
2. THE HIMACHAL PRADESH, STAFF SELECTION
COMMISSION, HAMIRPUR, THROUGH
ITS SECRETARY, HAMIRPUR, H.P.
3. SHRI SHUBHAM KUMAR, C/O
H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION,
HAMIRPUR, THROUGH HIS
ROLL NO. 788001309. ......RESPONDENTS.
(SH.ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL
WITH SH. RAJINDER DOGRA,
SENIOR ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL,
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:11:26 :::CIS
2
SH. VINOD THAKUR, SH. SHIV PAL MANHANS,
SH. HEMANSHU MISRA, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERALS AND
.
SH. BHUPINDER THAKUR,
DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL,
FOR RESPONDENT-1)
(SH. ANGREZ KAPOOR, ADVOCATE,
FOR RESPONDENT-2)
This petition coming on for admission after
notice this day, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh
Chauhan, passed the following:
ORDER
The instant petition has been filed for grant of
the following substantive reliefs:-
"(a) That the final results, dated 16.09.2021,
Annexure-P-3 may kindly be quashed and set-
aside.
(b) That after granting .50 marks to the petitioner
under Question No. 46, Series (C), the result of the
petitioner may be revised and she may be declared
selected under Code No.788.
(c) That after revising the result of the petitioner,
she may be declared as selected candidate and she
may be appointed as Junior Officer under Code
No.788, with the H.P. Power Corporation Limited."
2. The Himachal Pradesh Pradesh Staff Selection
Commission, Hamirpur, (for short 'Commission') advertised
different posts in various departments, vide Advertisement
No. 36-1/2020, dated 02.03.2020. The Code No. 788 deals
with the H.P. Power Corporation Limited in which six posts
.
for Junior Officer (Supervisory Trainee-F&A) were advertised.
Out of the aforesaid six posts, four posts were meant for
General Category, one post for OBC and one post was
meant for SC Category. The petitioner applied for the post
of Junior Officer on 10.03.2020 via online under General
Category and Code No. 788. The petitioner participated in
the examination held on 17.01.2021. After declaration of
result, the petitioner was shown in the waiting list of
General Category at Serial No.4 with total aggregate of
60.90 marks. Thereafter, the petitioner personally visited
office of respondent No.2 and registered her objections with
the Commission relating to Question Nos.46, 90,115 and
161. The Board, in turn, got these questions vetted by the
Expert Panel and the same was made available to the
petitioner.
3. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that some
of the questions, more particularly, question number 46 as
answered by the Experts, is still incorrect, hence, this
petition.
4. What would be the scope of judicial review in
the given facts and circumstances of the case has recently
.
been considered by this Bench in CWP No. 4999 of 2021,
titled Upanshu Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
and another and connected matter, wherein it was
observed as under:-
"12. The powers of this Court to have opinion
different to that of the experts, in the matter of
evaluation of answers in competitive examination, is
well defined. In this context, reference can be made
to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary
and Higher Secondary Education and another
vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others
(1984) 4 SCC 27, wherein it has held as under:
"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."
13. In Himachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur and another
(2010) 6 SCC 759, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held as under:
"20. In view of the above, it was not
permissible for the High Court to examine
the question paper and answer sheets
itself, particularly, when the Commission
had assessed the inter-se merit of the
candidates. If there was a discrepancy in
framing the question or evaluation of the
answer, it could be for all the candidates
appearing for the examination and not for
respondent No.1 only. It is a matter of
chance that the High Court was examining
the answer sheets relating to law. Had it
been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry
and Mathematics, we are unable to
understand as to whether such a course
could have been adopted by the High
Court. Therefore, we are of the considered
opinion that such a course was not
permissible to the High Court."
14. In Central Board of Secondary Education
through Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/Pre-
Dental Entrance Examination and others vs.
Khushboo Shrivastava and others (2014) 14
SCC 523, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while noticing
the judgment in Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education
case (supra) has held as under:
.
"11. In our considered opinion, neither the
learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench
of the High Court could have substituted
his/its own views for that of the examiners
and awarded two additional marks to
Respondent 1 for the two answers in
exercise of powers of judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution as these are
purely academic matters......."
15.
A Division Bench of this Court in Rustam
Garg and others vs. Himachal Pradesh Public
Service Commission, ILR 2016 Vol. (2), 591,
while dealing with an identical proposition has held
as under:
"17. In view of the aforesaid exposition of
law, we have no doubt in our mind that even
when the revised key answers are impugned
with respect to questions relating to the
subject of law, it is not permissible for this
Court to examine the question papers and
answer sheets itself, particularly when the
Commission has assessed the inter se merit
of the candidates. It is not for the Court to
take upon itself the task of the statutory
authorities and substitute its own opinion for
that of the experts."
5. The similar reiteration of law can be found in
another decision of the learned Division Bench of this
Court, authored by one of us (Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
in Bhupinder Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
and another 2021 (1) Him. L.R. (DB) 6.
6. We may, at this stage, refer to a fairly recent
judgment rendered by three Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme
.
Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta and another vs. State of
Rajasthan and others (2021) 2 SCC 309 wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that though re-evaluation can
be directed, if rules permit, however, deprecated the
practice of re-evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by
the Courts which lack expertise and it was further held that
it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the
question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when
the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the
candidates. Courts have to show deference and
consideration to the recommendations of the Expert
Committee, who have expertise to evaluate and make
recommendations. It shall be apposite to refer to the
relevant observations as contained in paragraphs 13 to 17
which read as under:-
"13. The point that arises for the consideration of
this Court is whether the revised Select List dated
21.05.2019 ought to have been prepared on the
basis of the 2nd Answer Key. The Appellants contend
that the Wait List also should be prepared on the
basis of the 3rd Answer Key and not on the basis of
the 2nd Answer Key. The 2nd Answer Key was
released by the RPSC on the basis of the
.
recommendations made by the Expert Committee
constituted pursuant to the directions issued by the
High Court. Not being satisfied with the revised
Select List which included only a few candidates,
certain unsuccessful candidates filed Appeals before
the Division Bench which were disposed of on
12.03.2019. When the Division Bench was informed
that the selections have been finalized on the basis
of the 2nd Answer Key, it refused to interfere with
the Select List prepared on 17.09.2018. However,
the Division Bench examined the correctness of the
questions and Answer Keys pointed by the
Appellants therein and arrived at a conclusion that
the answer key to 5 questions was erroneous. On
the basis of the said findings, the Division Bench
directed the RPSC to prepare revised Select List and
apply it only to the Appellants before it.
14. Though re-evaluation can be directed if rules
permit, this Court has deprecated the practice of re-
evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the
courts which lack expertise in academic matters. It
is not permissible for the High Court to examine the
question papers and answer sheets itself,
particularly when the Commission has assessed the
inter se merit of the candidates (Himachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur (2010)
6 SCC 759. Courts have to show deference and
consideration to the recommendation of the Expert
Committee who have the expertise to evaluate and
make recommendations (See- Basavaiah v. H.L.
Ramesh (2010) 8 SCC 372.
.
15.Examining the scope of judicial review with
regards to re-evaluation of answer sheets, this Court
in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. (2018) 2 SCC 357
held that court should not re-evaluate or scrutinize
the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no
expertise in the matters and the academic matters
are best left to academics. This Court in the said
judgment further held as follows: (Ran Vijay Singh
case9, SCC pp. 369-70, paras 31-32)
r "31. On our part we may add that sympathy or
compassion does not play any role in the
matter of directing or not directing re-
evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is
committed by the examination authority, the
complete body of candidates suffers. The entire
examination process does not deserve to be
derailed only because some candidates are
disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some
injustice having been caused to them by an
erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All
candidates suffer equally, though some might
suffer more but that cannot be helped since
mathematical precision is not always possible.
This Court has shown one way out of an
impasse -- exclude the suspect or offending
question.
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several
decisions of this Court, some of which have
been discussed above, there is interference by
the courts in the result of examinations. This
places the examination authorities in an
unenviable position where they are under
scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a
massive and sometimes prolonged examination
exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty.
While there is no doubt that candidates put in a
tremendous effort in preparing for an
examination, it must not be forgotten that even
the examination authorities put in equally great
.
efforts to successfully conduct an examination.
The enormity of the task might reveal some
lapse at a later stage, but the court must
consider the internal checks and balances put
in place by the examination authorities before
interfering with the efforts put in by the
candidates who have successfully participated
in the examination and the examination
authorities. The present appeals are a classic
example of the consequence of such
interference where there is no finality to the
result of the examinations even after a lapse of
r eight years. Apart from the examination
authorities even the candidates are left
wondering about the certainty or otherwise of
the result of the examination -- whether they
have passed or not; whether their result will be
approved or disapproved by the court; whether
they will get admission in a college or
university or not; and whether they will get
recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation
does not work to anybody's advantage and
such a state of uncertainty results in confusion
being worse confounded. The overall and larger
impact of all this is that public interest suffers."
16. In view of the above law laid down by this Court,
it was not open to the Division Bench to have
examined the correctness of the questions and the
answer key to come to a conclusion different from
that of the Expert Committee in its judgment dated
12.03.2019. Reliance was placed by the Appellants
on Richal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission
(2018) 8 SCC 81. In the said judgment, this Court
interfered with the selection process only after
obtaining the opinion of an expert committee but did
not enter into the correctness of the questions and
.
answers by itself. Therefore, the said judgment is
not relevant for adjudication of the dispute in this
case.
17. A perusal of the above judgments would make it
clear that courts should be very slow in interfering
with expert opinion in academic matters. In any
event, assessment of the questions by the courts
itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible.
The delay in finalization of appointments to public
posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases
challenging selections pending in courts for a long
period of time. The cascading effect of delay in
appointments is the continuance of those appointed
on temporary basis and their claims for
regularization. The other consequence resulting
from delayed appointments to public posts is the
serious damage caused to administration due to lack
of sufficient personnel."
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid exposition of law,
the reliefs, as claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted,
more particularly, when objections of the petitioner have
already been considered by a panel of Experts. The
petitioner has not been able to show any provision
governing the process of selection from which she may
derive the reliefs as claimed. The reliefs as claimed in this
petition are not permissible and cannot be granted to the
petitioner.
.
8. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition
and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their
own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed
of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
r (Satyen Vaidya)
Judge
7th October, 2021.
(krt)
