Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rishab Gill vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission on 30 November, 2023
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152218
CWP-17812-2020 and connected cases -1- 2023:PHHC:152218
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
239+272
CWP-17812-2020
Decided on : 30.11.2023
Rishab Gill
. . . Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Staff Selection Commission
. . . Respondent
AND
CWP-11393-2020
Neeraj and others
. . . Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
. . . Respondents
AND
CWP-8185-2020 (O&M)
Tushar
. . . Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
. . . Respondent
AND
CWP-12279-2020 (O&M)
Sher Singh
. . . Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
. . . Respondent
AND
CWP-12341-2020 (O&M)
Rahul Kanwal and another
. . . Petitioner
1 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 06-12-2023 20:57:30 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152218
CWP-17812-2020 and connected cases -2- 2023:PHHC:152218
Versus
State of Haryana and others
. . . Respondents
AND
CWP-14122-2020
Sunil
. . . Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
. . . Respondent
AND
CWP-14571-2020
Yudhveer Singh and another
. . . Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
. . . Respondents
AND
CWP-8255-2020
Narveer Singh
. . . Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
. . . Respondent
AND
CWP-9525-2020
Deepak Kumar and others
. . . Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
. . . Respondents
AND
CWP-7132-2022
Ankit Kumar
. . . Petitioner
Versus
2 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 06-12-2023 20:57:30 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152218
CWP-17812-2020 and connected cases -3- 2023:PHHC:152218
State of Haryana and another
. . . Respondents
AND
CWP-6513-2022
Varun
. . . Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Staff Selection Commission
. . . Respondents
AND
CWP-12142-2022
Mohit
. . . Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
. . . Respondents
AND
CWP-36390-2009 (O&M) and
CM-11445-CWP-2021
Shweta Sheokand
. . . Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
. . . Respondents
AND
CWP-30244-2022
Suresh Kumar
. . . Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
. . . Respondents
AND
CWP-30253-2022
Deepak Kumar
. . . Petitioner
Versus
3 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 06-12-2023 20:57:30 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152218
CWP-17812-2020 and connected cases -4- 2023:PHHC:152218
State of Haryana and another
. . . Respondents
AND
CWP-3655-2023 (O&M)
Azad Singh
. . . Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Staff Selection Commission and another
. . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Garg, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Neha Matharoo and Ms. Latika Garg, Advocates
for the petitioner in CWP-17812-2020.
Mr. Shrinath A. Khemka, Advocate and
Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-8185-2020 and CWP-11393-2020.
Mr. Yashdeep Nain, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-12341-2020.
Mr. Bikram Chaudhary, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-14122-2020.
Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-14571-2020.
Mr. Shokeen Singh Verma, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-8255-2020 and CWP-30253-2022.
Mr. Sumit, Advocate for
Mr. Amit Alok, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-9525-2020.
Mr. R. S. Kundu, Advocate and
Mr. Chirag Kundu, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-7132-2022.
Mr. Devinder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-6513-2022.
Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-3655-2023.
4 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 06-12-2023 20:57:30 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152218
CWP-17812-2020 and connected cases -5- 2023:PHHC:152218
Mr. Ravinder Malik (Ravi), Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-13947-2020.
Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-36390-2009.
Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-30244-2022.
Ms. Shruti Jain, Senior DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Harish Nain, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr Arun Gosain, Advocate
for respondent No. 2 in CWP-3655-2023.
****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)
1. In the present petition, the question of law raised for the adjudication
is whether the answer key, on the basis of which the candidates competing in
pursuance to an advertisement dated 15.06.2019 have been evaluated, is correct or
not and whether any direction can be issued to the respondent-Commission to
issue fresh answer key.
2. Before adjudicating the issue in hand, the facts leading to filing of
the present petition needs to be noticed. The respondent-Commission issued
Advertisement No. 10 of 2019 dated 15.06.2019 advertising 1259 posts of Junior
Engineers (Civil) to be filled up in various departments of the Government of
Haryana. The mandatory qualifications required to be eligible were mentioned in
the advertisement. There were certain posts reserved for the reserved categories.
3. As per the criteria fixed, selection was to be made on the basis
of the written test carrying 90 marks and 10 marks for the social economic
criteria. Written test was conducted by the Commission on 01.09.2019. After the
5 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152218
CWP-17812-2020 and connected cases -6- 2023:PHHC:152218
written test was conducted, the answer key was made public on 05.09.2019
inviting objections from the candidates qua the answers depicted in the answer
key. The petitioners, who were aggrieved against the answers depicted in the
answer key qua certain questions, raised objections qua the answer key which was
made public on 05.09.2019. The objections raised by the petitioners were sent to
the Experts/Chief Examiner for their opinion as to whether, the said objections
need to be accepted or rejected.
4. As per the facts, which have come on record, the objections were
raised qua 5 questions and after the report of the Expert/Chief Examiner, marks
were granted against two of the questions out of 5 questions for which the
objection was raised and the objections qua the other 3 questions were not
sustained as per the report of the expert.
5. Keeping in view the said decision of the Expert/Chief Examiner, the
same was accepted by the respondent-Commission and thereafter, the result of the
written examination was declared on the basis of the revised answer key. In the
present petition, the said result is under challenge on the ground that the action of
the respondent in not accepting the objections qua 3 other questions is bad in law
and the petitioners are also entitled for the marks for the said 3 questions and
thereafter, fresh merit list should be prepared so as to make selection to the
advertised post.
6. The respondent-Commission upon notice, has filed the reply, wherein
the facts which have been stated hereinbefore have been conceded. The
respondent-Commission has submitted that the objections raised by the candidates
to the answer key qua 5 questions were considered with open mind by the
6 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152218
CWP-17812-2020 and connected cases -7- 2023:PHHC:152218
Experts/Chief Examiner and after great deliberations, the objections to two
questions were upheld and the marks were given to all the candidates qua those 2
questions and the objections qua remaining 3 questions were declined by the
experts and all the candidates were evaluated on the basis of the revised answer
key which was made in operation after considering the recommendations of the
Expert/Chief Examiner.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through
the record with their able assistance.
8. The facts which have been mentioned hereinbefore have been
conceded by the respective counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.
Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has raised an
argument that even after the recommendations of the Expert/Chief Examiner,
once the doubt remains qua the other 3 questions keeping in view the nature of
questions and 4 options given to each question, the Court can intervene and direct
fresh consideration of the claim of the petitioners qua 3 questions keeping in view
the settled principle of law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil
Appeal No. 5838 of 2018 decided on 14.06.2018 titled Uttar Pradesh Public
Service Commission Vs. Rahul Singh and another, hence, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the Court has a right to intervene qua 3
questions, qua which the objections were raised by the petitioners but the said
objections have not been upheld by the Expert/Chief Examiner.
9. Another argument has been raised that keeping in view the order
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 4695 of 2018
decided on 03.05.2018 titled Rishal and others Vs. Rajasthan Public Service
7 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152218
CWP-17812-2020 and connected cases -8- 2023:PHHC:152218
Commission and others, the Court will have a power to look into the aspect
whether 3 questions carried correct option in the answer key even after the
recommendation of the experts qua the objections raised by a candidate and the
Court can formulate its opinion after going through the nature of questions and 4
options depicted for each of the said questions as to whether, the same needs a
reconsideration by another expert Committee or not.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that
the law on the issue is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by
passing order in Civil Appeal No. 367 of 2017 decided on 11.12.2017 titled Ran
Vijay Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein, it has been held
that the only remedy available to a candidate who is seeking redressal of his
grievance qua certain questions in the written examination and their answers
depicted in the answer key that the said objections are to be referred to the Expert
Committee and after the Expert Committee's recommendations, the Court has no
expertise to opine on the said recommendations as to whether the objections
raised by the candidates have been rightly accepted or rejected as the case may be.
Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the objection qua
answer to 2 questions in the written examination has already been accepted, the
said opinion of the Expert Committee should be treated as a final qua other 3
questions qua which the grievance raised by the petitioners and other similarly
situated has been rejected.
11. Before proceeding to deal with the arguments being raised by the
respective parties, the law on the issue as the same exists needs to be cited.
In Ran Vijay Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
8 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152218
CWP-17812-2020 and connected cases -9- 2023:PHHC:152218
laid down the procedure as to what should be followed in case, any objections are
being raised qua the answer key issued by the selecting agency. As per the
judgment in Ran Vijay Singh (supra), the jurisdiction of considering the
objections and to decide the same lies with the experts and not with the Court.
Hon'ble Superme Court of India held that once, the experts evaluate the
objections raised by the candidates and come to an opinion, then, the Court
should accept the said opinion without interfering with the same further.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has gone to the further extent
saying that even, where there is a doubt with regard to any question after the
recommendations of the Expert Committee, the benefit of doubt will go in favour
of the Commission and not in favour of the candidate. The relevant paragraph 30
of the said judgment is as under:-
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only
propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a
statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the
re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a
matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may
permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer
sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-
evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without
any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of
rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a
material error has been committed; (iii) The Court should not at all
re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate - it has
no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to
academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key
answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event of a
doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than
9 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152218
CWP-17812-2020 and connected cases -10- 2023:PHHC:152218
to the candidate."
13. It may also be noticed that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while
deciding civil Appeal No. 7727 of 2019 dated 30.09.2019 titled Haryana Public
Service Commission Vs. The State of Haryana and others, wherein, after the
opinion of the Experts, the matter was further recommended for another expert
opinion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the Court has no such
jurisdiction to do that as the matter has to attain finality after the
recommendations of the expert Committee especially, when there are no
allegations against the Expert Committee qua their competence or with regard to
mala fide. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Hon'ble Superme Court
of India in Civil Appeal No. 7727 of 2019 is as under:-
"By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench has appointed the
second Expert Committee for appraisal of the question papers.
Record reveals that the Appellant, Haryana Public Service
Commission (for short, 'the Commission') undertook selection process to
appoint 133 Assistant Professors of Geography (College) Cadre HES-II for
which an objective type question paper was set up wherein the candidates
were required to answer 100 questions. Grievance before the learned
single Judge was that out of 100 questions, most of them were either
ambiguous or not having correct answer keys. Such questions were
brought to the notice of the Commission by raising objections. The
candidates identified 46 questions as defective.
The Commission based on the objections of candidates, appointed a
Committee of Experts in the field for appraisal of the question papers. The
Expert Committee, on going through the question paper in detail,
concluded that seven questions were either ambiguous or not having
correct answer keys. Consequently, the Commission accepting the Expert
Committee's report deleted those seven questions and marks and thereafter
the results were declared. Thereafter, the candidates approached the
learned Single Judge with a writ petition
10 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152218
CWP-17812-2020 and connected cases -11- 2023:PHHC:152218
Learned Single Judge curiously acted himself as an expert and on
going through the question paper concluded that four more questions were
ambiguous and, therefore, they should also be deleted from consideration.
Then, some of the candidates approached the Division Bench and
the Division Bench passed the impugned orders appointing another Expert
Committee which is challenged in this petition.
If the judgment of the Division Bench is allowed to stand, there will
be no finality to the selection process. There was no allegation as such
against the Expert Committee which was appointed by the Commission.
The Expert Committee, in its wisdom has concluded that seven questions
were either ambiguous or the answer keys were not correct. Accepting the
said report, the Commission has proceeded with the selection process and
results were announced. Thereafter, the 9 of 10 CWP No.16220 of 2018
candidates approached the High Court. Though learned Single Judge was
right in agreeing for deletion of seven questions, was not justified in acting
as an expert in the field and, therefore, the learned Single Judge's order
relating to deletion of four questions also cannot be accepted.
Accordingly, the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as
that of the Division Bench stand set aside.
The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The selection process made by
the Commission based on the First Expert Committee Report deleting
seven questions from consideration stands confirmed. There shall be no
order as to costs".
14. A bare perusal of the above settled principle of law would show that
the Court has only to ensure as to whether or not the state/Commission has
adhered to the procedure envisaged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Ran Vijay Singh (supra) while evaluating the candidates with regard to the
written examination. In the present case, the objections raised by the candidates
concerned were put to the Experts/Chief Examiner and their report was sought. It
is not that all the objections raised by the candidates to the answer key were over-
ruled. Rather, the fact that 2 objections were accepted by the Expert body shows
11 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152218
CWP-17812-2020 and connected cases -12- 2023:PHHC:152218
that the objections raised were considered with open mind. That being the factual
aspect, keeping in view the settled principle of law that even where there is a
slight doubt after the opinion of the expert, the Court will not interfere and the
benefit of doubt will go in favour of the Commission. The same law needs to be
adhered to while passing an order in the present petition.
15. The argument which has been raised by learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Rahul Singh and others (supra) by placing reliance
upon paragraph 14 that there is an exception carved out by the Hon'ble Superme
Court of India that the Court still can interfere even after the expert opinion.
Paragraph 14 of the said judgment is as under:-
"14. In the present case we find that all the 3 questions needed a
long process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed that
the stand of the Commission is also supported by certain text books.
When there are conflicting views, then the court must bow down to
the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot be experts in
all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and
should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the
experts."
16. A bare perusal of the relevant paragraph of the judgment would show
that in the said judgment also, it has been mentioned that the Judges are not and
cannot be expert in all fields and therefore, they must exercise great restraint and
should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts. Hence,
where there are conflicting views with regard to the same aspect, the views of the
experts are to be adhered to and not the view being expressed by the candidates
concerned.
12 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152218
CWP-17812-2020 and connected cases -13- 2023:PHHC:152218
17. That being so, the judgment in Rahul Singh (supra) is in consonance
with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ranvijay Singh
(supra), hence, the Court will not have any power to supervise and adjudicate the
opinion given by the experts qua the objections raised by the petitioners as being
prayed in these petitions.
18. Not only this, a similar controversy has come for consideration
before this Court in CWP-6511-2018, which was decided on 08.12.2022 keeping
in view the settled principle of law and the same view as being held in the present
petition, was taken to hold that the Court, not being an expert, cannot comment
upon the opinion of the expert which has been given after noticing the objections
raised by a candidate.
19. That being the facts and position, coupled with the settled principle
of law, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, no interference is called
for by this Court in the present bunch of petitions and the same are accordingly
dismissed.
CWP-12341-2020
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petition is
only being pressed qua petitioner No. 2 and is not being pressed any further
keeping in view the order passed in the bunch of petitions above.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the grievance of
petitioner No. 2 is that he has not been given the marks for the experience which
should be given by the respondent-Commission keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
13 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152218
CWP-17812-2020 and connected cases -14- 2023:PHHC:152218
3. Learned State counsel submits that in case, any representation is
received from the petitioner raising the said grievance, the same will be looked
into and appropriate order will be passed within a period of 4 weeks from the date
of raising any such grievance and after passing the speaking order, in case, it is
found that the petitioner is to be granted any relief, the same will be granted
forthwith without any delay.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that keeping in view the
statement of learned State counsel, the present petition may kindly be disposed of
having been not pressed any further with liberty to petitioner No. 2 to file
appropriate representation.
5. Ordered accordingly.
CWP-7132-2022
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
secured equivalent marks secured by the last selected candidate in the category in
which the petitioner was competing but the respondents are not stating as to why
the petitioner has not been selected.
2. Learned State counsel submits that there is a tie breaker rule which is
being adopted by the Commission according to the said rule, a candidate who is
elder in age is given preference over a candidate who is younger and for that
reason, the petitioner could not be selected and in case, the petitioner want any
factual information, he can file appropriate representation seeking the details of
the last selected candidate who has ousted the petitioner from the zone of
selection and the same will be provided to him within a period of 4 weeks of the
receipt of any such grievance.
14 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152218
CWP-17812-2020 and connected cases -15- 2023:PHHC:152218
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that keeping in view the
statement of learned State counsel, the present petition may kindly be disposed of
having been not pressed any further with liberty to approach the respondents.
4. Ordered accordingly.
CWP-6513-2022
1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has been
considered in a category other than the one for which the petitioner had applied
for and therefore, the said inadvertent mistake on the part of the Commission
needs to be rectified.
2. Learned State counsel submits that that in case, any representation is
received from the petitioner raising the said grievance, the same will be looked
into keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case including the
application filed by the petitioner and in case, any error is found to be rectified on
the part of the Commission, the same will be rectified failing which, appropriate
speaking order will be passed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that keeping in view the
statement of learned State counsel, the present petition may kindly be disposed of
having been not pressed any further with liberty to the petitioner to approach the
respondents.
4. Ordered accordingly.
CWP-13947-2020
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inadvertently all the
candidates who are likely to be effected by the outcome of the present petition,
could not be impleaded, hence, the present petition may kindly be disposed of
15 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152218
CWP-17812-2020 and connected cases -16- 2023:PHHC:152218
having been not pressed any further with liberty to file a fresh one on the same
cause of cation by impleading all the concerned who are likely to be affected, in
case, the prayer of the petitioner as raised in the present petition is allowed.
2. Ordered accordingly.
3. All the pending civil miscellaneous applications are disposed of as
such.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
30.11.2023
Mehak
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152218
16 of 16
