Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yogesh Sharma vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission on 11 December, 2023
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158408
CWP-24186-2018 2023:PHHC:158408 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(220) CWP-24186-2018
Date of Decision : December 11, 2023
Yogesh Sharma .. Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Staff Selection Commission .. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Navnit Sharma, Advocate, for
Mr. R.S. Dhull, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. In the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is
that certain questions were incorrect in the written examination which was
conducted while selecting the candidates for the post as advertised vide
Advertisement dated 01.12.2015 (Excise Inspector).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner had
raised the grievance qua the answer to certain questions and without
adverting to the said objections, the selection process has been finalized,
which has caused prejudice to the petitioner.
3. In reply to the writ petition, the respondents have mentioned
that certain objections were raised qua certain questions with regard to the
written test which was conducted while making selection to the post of
Excise Inspector and the objections received were forwarded to the Chief
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158408
Examiner and after considering all the objections, a report was submitted by
the Chief Examiner, which report was taken into account to amend the
answer key and the amended answer key was implemented for preparing the
result of the written examination and therefore, once the petitioner claim has
already been evaluated as per the revised answer key, which was put into
operation keeping in view the Expert Committee's report, no further
grievance can be raised by the petitioner.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
5. The question whether, the Court can adjudicate upon the
grievance being raised qua the answer to the questions raised in the written
examination, has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India while passing order in Civil Appeal No.367 of 2017 titled as Ran
Vijay Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P, decided on 11.12.2017. The
paragraph 32 and 34 of the said judgment are as under:
"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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158408
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 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.
34. Having come to the conclusion that the High Court
(the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench) ought
to have been far more circumspect in interfering and deciding
on the correctness of the key answers, the situation today is
that there is a third evaluation of the answer sheets and a third
set of results is now ready for declaration. Given this scenario,
the options before us are to nullify the entire re-evaluation
process and depend on the result declared on 14th September,
2010 or to go by the third set of results. Cancelling the
examination is not an option. Whichever option is chosen,
there will be some candidates who are likely to suffer and lose
their jobs while some might be entitled to consideration for
employment".
6. The claim of the petitioner is to be examined as per the settled
principle of law noticed hereinbefore. In the present case, the objections
raised by the petitioner have already been sent to the experts and it is only
after the report of the experts, the final answer key was published by the
respondents and all the candidates including the petitioner has also been
evaluated by the same answer key as recommended by the experts after
considering all the objections. That being so, no further adjudication can be
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158408
done by this Court qua the grievance that answer in the answer key remain
vague even after the report of the expert.
7. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,
even if there is a grey area after the report/opinion of the expert committee,
the benefit will go in favour of the Commission and not to the candidate.
That being the settled position of law, this Court will not like to interfere in
the selection process undertaken, which has already attained finality since
long.
8. Dismissed.
December 11, 2023 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158408
4 of 4
