Mukesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 17566 P&H

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.214                           Civil Writ Petition No.2962 of 2022
                                     Date of Decision : December 22, 2022

Mukesh Kumar                                                   ...Petitioner

                                         Versus

State of Haryana and others                                    ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL

Present:     Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

             Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, AAG, Haryana,
             for respondents No.1 & 3.

             Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate,
             for respondent No.2.
             ***

SUDHIR MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner is a Post-Graduate Teacher Level-II. His subject

is Computer Science. Haryana Teacher Eligibility Test-2021 (HTET-2021)

for PGT Level-III in the subject of Computer Science was held on

18.12.2021 wherein, the petitioner also appeared. Draft answer key was

uploaded on the very next day i.e. 19.12.2021 and objections were invited

vide notice dated 20.12.2021. Within the time provided for filing

objections, the petitioner objected to two questions on 23.12.2021. The

objections were rejected and result was declared on 28.01.2022. The

petitioner failed to make the cut as he scored 89 marks whereas the

requirement was of 90 marks. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed

with the grievance that the answers given in the final answer key to

questions were wrong.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

1 of 2

Civil Writ Petition No.2962 of 2022 --2--

answers given by the petitioner to questions No.113 and 133 were in fact

the correct answers. She has referred to a text book on Programming in

C++ with reference to question No.113 and to wikipedia with reference to

question No.133.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that on receipt of

objections from all candidates, the matter was considered by a Committee of

Experts on two separate occasions. Both times the decision was that the

draft answer key uploaded on 19.12.2021 contained the correct answers.

The Court is not a subject expert. Respondent No.2 is on

record on solemn affirmation stating that the draft answer key uploaded is

correct and that after review by the subject experts, the answers to which

objections were raised by the petitioner as well as other candidates were not

found erroneous. Answers to questions No.16 & 17 were found to be

erroneous and credit for the same has been given to the candidates including

the petitioner. The Court cannot sit in judgment over the opinion of the

subject experts. Despite this position in law, I have thought it fit to examine

the material placed on record by the petitioner and I find that the submission

made on the basis thereof is not correct.

In view of the above, the writ petition has no merit and is

dismissed.

December 22, 2022                                           (SUDHIR MITTAL)
Ankur Goyal                                                      JUDGE


Whether speaking/reasoned                 Yes/No

Whether Reportable                        Yes/No




                                 2 of 2