Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: September 26 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 1 October, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
2024:HHC:9456
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 8084 of 2024
.
Reserved on: September 26 , 2024
Decided on: October 01 , 2024
Shivam Chauhan & ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
through Secretary (Education) & ors. ...Respondents
Coram:
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioners : Mr. K.S. Gill, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate
General for respondent No. 1-State.
Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondents
No. 2 & 3-HPPSC.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Petitioners (32 in number) are aggrieved against the
result of the H.P Administrative Service Competitive (Preliminary)
Examination-2024, hence, the writ petition.
2. Facts
2(i) Respondents No. 2 & 3 i.e. the Himachal Pradesh Public
Service Commission (in short 'HPPSC') on 05.04.2024 advertised
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2024:HHC:9456
for filling up several posts in different Departments of Government
of Himachal Pradesh through the H.P. Administrative Service
.
Competitive Examination-2024 (in short the 'HPASC Examination-
2024'). A total of 32,371 applicants were provisionally admitted for
undertaking the examination. Out of them, 18700 candidates
appeared in the H.P. Administrative Service Competitive
(Preliminary) Examination-2024 [in short the 'HPASC (Preliminary)
Examination-2024'], held on 30.06.2024.
2(ii) The HPASC (Preliminary) Examination-2024 consisted of
Paper-I (General Studies) and Paper-II (Aptitude Test). Paper-II was
qualifying in nature. Provisional Answer Keys of these two papers
were uploaded on the website of the HPPSC vide Public Notice
dated 02.07.2024 as well as online on the user ID's of all the
candidates who had appeared in the examination. The Provisional
Answer Keys were displayed as per provisions of the Himachal
Pradesh Public Service Commission (Procedure and Transaction of
Business) Rules, 2023. In terms of the aforesaid Rules, Provisional
Answer Keys were displayed inviting objections, if any, from the
participating candidates within five days with supportive documents/
references through online mode.
The HPPSC received large number of objections from the
candidates who undertook the HPASC (Preliminary) Examination-
2024:HHC:9456
2024. It also received objections from petitioners Nos. 2, 4, 20, 26,
27, 30 & 31 through online mode. No objection was received
.
against the Provisional Answer Keys/questions from the remaining
petitioners.
2(iii) The objections received from the candidates who had
appeared in the preliminary examination including the objections
filed by petitioners Nos. 2, 4, 20, 26, 27, 30 & 31 were got verified
by the HPPSC from the Subject Expert/Paper Setter. Based on the
opinion/decision of the Subject Expert/Paper Setter to the objections
raised by the candidates:-
(a) Question No. 52 in General Studies (Paper-I) and
Questions No. 23 & 48 in Aptitude Test (Paper-II) were
scrapped;
(b) Questions No. 64 & 65 in General Studies
(Paper-I) and Question No. 54 in Aptitude Test (Paper-
II) were changed;
(c) In respect of the scrapped Questions, no credit
was given to any candidate and passing marks in
Paper-II were proportionately reduced from 66 marks to
64.67 marks.
In view of above rectification, the Provisional Answer Keys
were finalized and on the basis of Final Answer Keys the final
result was prepared and declared on 23.07.2024. Total 534
2024:HHC:9456
candidates qualified the preliminary examination for appearing in
the main examination.
.
2(iv) Names of the petitioners did not appear in the list of
candidates who qualified the HPASC (Preliminary) Examination-
2024 for appearing in the main examination. Feeling aggrieved,
petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following substantive
reliefs:-
"I. That issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of
mandamus to revise the result and grant grace mark to
the petitioner(s) for the question which were out of
syllabus and for which Commission failed to offer bilingual
choices for the examination i.e. English or Hindi, in some
of the questions from Paper-II Aptitude Test (Code No.
02).
II. That issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of
mandamus to direct the respondent Commission for
redressing the grievances of the petitioner(s) by
appointing high level committee and giving opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner(s) by fixing date and time, in
terms of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission
(Procedure and Transaction of Business) Rules, 2023,
dated 3rd May, 2023.
III. That issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of
certiorari quashing the final answer key of HP
Administrative Service Competitive Examination 2024
paper-II Aptitude Test (Code No. 02) (Annexure P-7)."
2024:HHC:9456
3. Submissions
3(i) Learned Counsel for the petitioners referring to the
.
advertisement dated 05.04.2024 issued by the HPPSC inviting
applications from the candidates for appearing in HPASC
(Preliminary) Examination-2024, drew attention to the following table
drawn under Sr. No. 'K' (Scheme of Examination) of the
advertisement:-
Paper Detail of questions Syllabus
and marks
Paper-I
r ... ...
...
Paper-II Aptitude This paper shall be Comprehension.
Test (Code No. 02) of 200 marks and Interpersonal skills and
there shall be 100 analytical ability.
objective type
Decision making and problem
(multiple choice)
solving.
questions.
General mental ability.
Basic numeracy (numbers and
their relations, orders of
magnitude etc (Class X level),
Data interpretation (Charts,
graphs, tables, data sufficiency
etc. - Class X level).
English Language
Comprehension skills (Class X
level)
It was submitted that Paper-II (Aptitude Test) was to have
questions inter alia about 'Basic numeracy (numbers and their
relations, orders of magnitude etc., Data interpretation (charts,
graphs, tables, data sufficiency etc. - Class X level)'. English
2024:HHC:9456
language comprehensive skills of the level of Class-X were also to
be tested. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners
.
that Questions No. 81, 87, 88, 90, 91 and 97 in Paper-II were not of
the level of Class-X, rather level of these questions was that of
Class-XI or Class-XII. Learned counsel in support of this contention
placed reliance upon text book of NCERT.
Further, contention raised was that Questions No. 56 to 60
were required to be printed in Hindi language as well, however in
violation of settled norms, bilingual system was not followed while
drawing Paper-II which resulted in petitioners' not getting the
requisite marks in the Preliminary Examination. Reliance in support
of his submissions was placed upon Prabhu Dayal Sesma vs.
Rajasthan Public Service Commission2; Kamlinder Grewal & ors. vs.
Punjab University through its Registrar & ors. 3; Madhumala Bisoyee
& ors. vs. Odisha Public Service Commission & anr. 4; Kishna Ram &
ors. vs. State of Rajasthan through Secretary & ors.5; and Union of
India & ors. vs. Mahendra Singh6.
3(ii) Per contra, learned Counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3
submitted that the Advertisement dated 05.04.2024 was strictly
1991 (2) WLC 648; 1991 (2) WLN 360
CWP No. 14299 of 1990, decided on 04.02.1991(P&H High Court)
WP(C) Nos. 10842 & 13086 of 2015, decided on 28.07.2015 (Orissa High Court)
CWP No. 18677 of 2019, decided on 10.02.2021(Rajasthan High Court)
C.A. No. 4807 of 2022, decided on 25.07.2022 (Supreme Court)
2024:HHC:9456
adhered to in conducting the HPASC (Preliminary) Examination-
2024:-
.
(a) The objections of the Petitioners No. 2, 4, 20, 26, 27,
30 & 31 in respect of Questions No. 81, 87, 88, 90, 91
& 97 being out of syllabus were referred to the Subject
Expert. The Subject Expert did not find any substance in
the objection. Rather the Paper Setter specifically
clarified that the Questions were framed on the basis of
syllabus containing logical reasoning, analytical ability,
decision making based on mathematical approach, up
to Class-X level numeracy & data interpretation.
(b) It was further submitted that the other petitioners
did not file any objection against the Provisional Answer
Keys or the Questions within the stipulated time through
the prescribed mode.
(c) In respect of Questions No. 56 to 60 it was
submitted that HPPSC has the discretion to publish/print
Question Paper in one language. Rules/Instructions and
Rules of Business of the HPPSC nowhere provide for
Question Paper to be bilingual. In any case, the
Question Paper was actually bilingual, however,
Questions No. 56 to 60 pertained to communication
2024:HHC:9456
skills which were in English language only. This was for
the reason that the State as well as the HPPSC expect
.
from the candidates appearing for the premier service
of the State to have sufficient knowledge in the English
language as well. It was also submitted that objection to
Questions No. 56 to 60 being not in Hindi language was
raised only by one candidate i.e. petitioner No. 26 who
otherwise holds an Engineering Degree. The other
petitioners had not raised this objection.
4. Consideration
Heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the
case file.
4(i) Reference may first be made to the following authorities
cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners:-
In Prabhu Dayal Sesma vs. Rajasthan Public Service
Commission2 the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court after perusing the
question paper was of the view that more than 50 percent of the
questions set out in the paper of 'Arithmetic' were actually questions
relating to Algebra, Geometry and Statistics and the examiner who
prepared the question paper was ignorant of the fact that such
questions should have been confined to Arithmetic only but instead
he took paper of Mathematics and included questions relating to
2024:HHC:9456
Algebra, Geometry and Statistics in that paper and therefore, the
question paper of Arithmetic was not in accordance with the syllabus
.
and a clear illegality had been committed by the respondent asking
the candidates to answer the questions relating to Algebra,
Geometry and Statistics.
In Madhumala Bisoyee & ors. vs. Odisha Public Service
Commission & anr.4 the Hon'ble Orissa High Court while dealing with
a case wherein there were defects in setting up of question paper
including spelling mistakes, printing errors and even discrepancies in
the questions having doubtful/wrong answers, took into
consideration the report of the Expert Committee constituted by the
Orissa Public Service Commission and observed that it was a case
where admittedly, out of 100 questions, 24 questions were wrong
and thereby rejected the plea of the respondents to award pro-rata
marking and to proceed with the selection process. The Court also
emphasized the role of Public Service Commission in light of
provisions of Article 315 of the Constitution of India where the
Commission is bound by the Rules framed by the State to conduct
the examination for appointment to service of the State, however, it
is free to evolve the procedure for doing the same and it must
conduct the examination in a fair and transparent manner keeping
in view the principles of fair play. Further highlighting that the Courts
2024:HHC:9456
would not ordinarily interfere unless the procedure adopted by the
Commission is arbitrary or against the known principles of fair play, it
.
was finally held that as large chunks of questions were erroneous
and the number of students were limited to 1879, therefore injustice
cannot be caused to the candidates by awarding them marks on pro-
rata basis, rather fresh preliminary written examination would meet
out the ends of justice.
In Kishna Ram & ors. vs. State of Rajasthan through
Secretary & ors.5 the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court after being
satisfied that several questions were out of syllabus and on the basis
of the application moved by the respondent State proposing a
'solution to the problem' directed them to take adequate steps to
redress the grievance of the petitioners. Consequently, they were
directed to delete the questions which were out of syllabus and then
proportionately distribute the marks of such questions in the rest of
the questions of respective papers, as was proposed by them and
thereafter re-evaluate the marks obtained by the candidates and
declare their result.
In Union of India & ors. vs. Mahendra Singh6, wherein the
respondent had used different language for filling up the Application
Form and the OMR answer book, the Hon'ble Apex Court while
rejecting the contention of the respondent that the use of different
2024:HHC:9456
language was not followed by any consequence, therefore it was not
mandatory, held that the language chosen by the candidate is
.
relevant to ensure that the candidate who had filled up the
application form alone appears in the written examinations as well to
maintain probity and hence the answer sheet has to be filled in the
language chosen by the candidate in the application form. The Court
while referring to Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor7, highlighted that
when a particular procedure in filling up the application form is
prescribed, then it should be filled up following that procedure only.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the candidature of the
respondent was held to be rightly rejected by the Appellants.
4(ii) The above citations have no applicability to the facts of
the present case. The examination in question is the Himachal
Pradesh Administrative Service Competitive (Preliminary)
Examination-2024. This examination consisted of Paper-I and
Paper-II. Paper-I pertained to General Studies and Paper-II related
to Aptitude Test. The grievance of the petitioners is in respect of
questions in Paper-II.
4(iii) The HPAS Competitive (Preliminary) Examination-2024
was conducted on 30.06.2024. Provisional Answer Keys of this
Examination were displayed on the website of the HPPSC on
AIR 1936 PC 253; 1936 SCC OnLine PC 41
2024:HHC:9456
02.07.2024 inviting objections, if any, from all those who had
appeared in the test, within five days alongwith supportive
.
documents/references through online mode. It is an admitted factual
position that no objection to the Provisional Answer Keys/Questions
was made by Petitioners No. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28 & 29. These petitioners
who had not objected either to the Provisional Answer Keys or the
questions are in no position to question the same after having been
declared unsuccessful in the result of the examination. Writ Petition
on behalf of these petitioners, therefore, cannot be said to be
maintainable.
4(iv) Insofar as petitioners No. 2, 4, 20, 26, 27, 30 & 31 are
concerned, admittedly these petitioners had preferred objections to
the Provisional Answer Keys/Questions. Their objections were that
Questions No. 81, 87, 88, 90, 91 & 97 in Paper-II of the HPAS
Competitive (Preliminary) Examination-2024 were out of syllabus.
That in terms of Advertisement dated 05.04.2024 issued by the
HPPSC, questions from Basic numeracy (numbers and their
relations, orders of magnitude etc., Data interpretation (charts,
graphs, tables & data sufficiency etc. were to be of Class-X level.
According to the petitioners the above numbered questions in
Paper-II of the examination were not of Class-X level, rather they
2024:HHC:9456
were of Class-XI & Class-XII level for which the petitioners deserved
to be compensated. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended
.
that petitioners had prepared for the Competitive Examination on
the basis of syllabus prescribed by the respondents; These
questions which were required to be of Class-X level actually
pertained to Class-XI & Class-XII level and this had caused injustice
to the petitioners.
4(iv)(a) Before discussing the merits of the contentions raised by
the learned Counsel for the petitioners, it would be appropriate to
take note of:-
● Rustam Garg & ors. vs. Himachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission8, where the grievance of the petitioners, inter
alia, was that "in the multiple choice questions, there were
certain questions where even the revised key answers as
given are wrong and some of the questions are even beyond
the syllabus. The petitioners have given details of the
questions... ...". The moot question in the petition was as to
whether the "court can act as an expert... ...". After taking into
consideration law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh
2016 SCC OnLine HP 314; CWP No. 699 of 2016, decided on 29.03.2026 (HP High Court)
2024:HHC:9456
Thakur9 and by this Court in Vivek Kaushal vs. H.P. Public
Service Commission10, it was held as under:-
.
"18. 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."
In Rekha Devi vs. State of H.P. & ors. 11, placing reliance
●
upon Upanshu Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh &
connected matters12 and Vikesh Kumar Gupta vs. State of
Rajasthan13, the Division Bench of this Court held that it will
not be permissible for the Court to examine the question
papers and answer sheets particularly when the Commission
had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. It is not for
the Courts to take upon itself the task of statutory authorities
and substitute its opinion for that of the experts.
(2010) 6 SCC 759
CWP No. 9169 of 2013, decided on 17.07.2014 (HP High Court)
2021 SCC Onine HP 8249; CWP No. 7441 of 2021, decided on 02.12.2021 (HP High Court)
CWP No. 4999 of 2021, decided on 07.09.2021 (HP High Court)
(2021) 2 SCC 309
2024:HHC:9456
● In Siddharth Mishra & ors. vs. Union Public Service
Commission14, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the decision
.
as to what question needs to be included in the paper and
what should be the nature and complexion of such question
remains in the exclusive domain of the academic experts.
That it is not for the Court to examine or question the wisdom
of panel of experts who had prepared the question paper and
assessed the relative merits of the questions. It was held that
the Court cannot sit in appeal against the considered
decision of such a panel of academic experts unless such
decision is demonstrated to be manifestly arbitrary, malafide
or illegal. Relevant observations of the Court are as under:-
"14. Before the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the UPSC
had referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in
Ranjan Kumar vs. State of Bihar 15; Bedanga Talukdar vs.
Saifudaullah Khan16; Ashok Kumar vs. State of Bihar 17; and
Union of India vs. Mahendra Singh18. The Tribunal had rightly
observed that the said judgments restrain judicial
bodies/fora from interfering with competitive selection
processes merely on the ground that some of the
candidates may have question the selection process or the
syllabus of the examination, even though they had
voluntarily participated in the examination. It is not for this
W.P.(C) 11099/2023, decided on 22.08.2023; 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5276
(2014) 16 SCC 187
(2011) 12 SCC 85
(2017) 4 SCC 357
2022 SCC OnLine SC 909
2024:HHC:9456
Court to examine or question the wisdom of the jpanel of
experts that has prepared the question paper, and re-assess
the relative merits of the questions. This Court cannot sit in
.
appeal against the considered decision of such a panel of
academic experts, unless such decision is demonstrated to
be manifestly arbitrary, malafide or illegal. Such is not the
case here.
15. The only ground set up by the petitioners to attack the
question paper is that some questions were of class XI & XII
level. Suffice it to state, the decision as to what questions
need to be included in the paper, and what should be the
nature and complexion of such questions, necessarily
remains in the exclusive domain the panel of academic
experts. Such a decision cannot be assailed before us in
judicial review, only on the ground that some questions were
out of syllabus."
The Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1985/2023 preferred
against the above decision was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court on 06.09.2023.
4(iv)(b) In the instant case, Questions No. 81, 87, 88, 90, 91 & 97
tested the aptitude of the candidates. According to the petitioners
these questions were not of the level of Class-X but were of Class-
XI & Class-XII level. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also
referred to some of the questions vis-a-vis NCERT books. It is
pertinent to note that books had not been prescribed by the HPPSC
for conducting the examination. Whether the syllabus had to be of
2024:HHC:9456
Class-X of Central Board of Secondary Education or Himachal
Pradesh Board of School Education or that of Indian Certificate of
.
Secondary Education etc. was also not in the advertisement. The
HPPSC has clearly stated in its reply that this objection of the
petitioners had been referred to the Paper Setter/ Subject Expert
and the Paper Setter had specifically clarified that the questions
were framed on the basis of syllabus containing logical reasoning,
analytical ability, decision making based on mathematical approach
up to Class-X level numeracy and data interpretation. Considering
the nature of objection, in light of the aforesaid opinion of the Subject
Expert and the settled legal position, it is not for this Court to
substitute its opinion with that of the Subject Expert to hold that
questions were out of syllabus. Point is answered accordingly
against the petitioners.
4(v) Insofar as the objection raised by Petitioners No. 2, 4, 20,
26, 27, 30 & 31 regarding Questions No. 56 to 60 having not been
printed in Hindi language is concerned, it may be noticed that the
HPPSC has been providing bilingual question papers (English &
Hindi language), however, the Rules/Instructions of the Commission
do not make it mandatory for it to provide bilingual question papers
in all its examinations. The stand taken by the HPPSC that
Questions No. 56 to 60 were for testing the communication skills of
2024:HHC:9456
candidates in English language only, hence Hindi version of these
questions was not provided, is justifiable. After all Petitioners No. 2,
.
4, 20, 26, 27, 30 and 31 were appearing for examination for the
premier service of the State - the Himachal Pradesh Administrative
Service. It is expected of them to have adequate knowledge of both
languages i.e. English & Hindi. Learned Counsel for the petitioners
has not disputed that petitioner No. 26 who raised the objection of
bilingual language with respect to Questions No. 56 to 60 holds
degree in Engineering. It cannot be accepted that grave injustice
has been caused to him or that he has suffered on account of
Questions No. 56 to 60 having not been printed in Hindi language.
Once the object of these questions was to test the communication
skills of candidates in English language, the HPPSC was within its
right not to provide Hindi language print of these questions. This
objection was not even raised by the other petitioners.
No other point was urged.
5. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this
petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending
miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua,
Judge
October 01 , 2024 (PK)
