Punjab-Haryana High Court
Preetam Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 5 August, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099805
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
236+103 +228
(14 cases)
Date of Decision : 05-08-2024
1. CWP-2601-2018 (O&M)
PREETAM SINGH AND OTHERS ........Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ........Respondent(s)
2. CWP-2602-2018
POONAM RANI AND OTHERS ........Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ........Respondent(s)
3. CWP-7239-2018
JASWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ........Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ........Respondent(s)
4. CWP-3540-2018 (O&M)
RANJIT SINGH ........Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR .........Respondent(s)
5. CWP-12479-2018 (O&M)
MANPREEET KAUR ........Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS ........Respondent(s)
6. CWP-22221-2018
ANJU BALA ........Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
1 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 17-08-2024 06:26:27 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099805
CWP-2601-2018 (O&M) and other connected cases. -2-
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ........Respondent(s)
7. CWP-26248-2018 (O&M)
MOHD NASIR .......Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ........Respondent(s)
8. CWP-13607-2020
MANDEEP SINGH AND ANR ........Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ........Respondent(s)
9. CWP-2837-2021
AMANPREET KAUR AND ORS ........Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ........Respondent(s)
10. CWP-6387-2021
JASBIR KAUR ........Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ........Respondent(s)
11. CWP-1919-2020
BALKAR SINGH ........Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ........Respondent(s)
12. CWP-21033-2019
GURINDER KAUR ........Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ........Respondent(s)
13. CWP-20962-2016
MANISHA SHARMA ........Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
2 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 17-08-2024 06:26:28 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099805
CWP-2601-2018 (O&M) and other connected cases. -3-
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS ........Respondent(s)
14. CM-18285-2023 in/and
CWP-21134-2016 (O&M)
NEETU MAHAJAN ..........Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ........Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Parvesh K. Saini, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP Nos.2601, 2602 and 7239 of 2018.
Mr. Rohit Duggal, Advocate for
Mr. Sardavinder Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP No.3540 of 2018.
Mr. S.S. Thakur, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP No.12479 of 2018.
Mr. Vishal Mittal, Advocate for
the petitioner in CWP No.22221 of 2018.
Mr. Surmukh Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP No.26248 of 2018.
Mr. Sukhdev Kamboj, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP No.13607 of 2020.
Ms. Kiranjeet Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP No.2837 of 2021.
(joined through Video Conferencing).
None for the petitioner in CWP No.6387 of 2021.
Mr. R.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP No.1919 of 2020.
Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate
for Mr. R.S. Pandher, Advocate for
the petitioner in CWP No.20962 of 2016.
Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP No.21134 of 2016.
Mr. HPS Ishar, Advocate with
Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP No.21033 of 2019.
3 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 17-08-2024 06:26:28 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099805
CWP-2601-2018 (O&M) and other connected cases. -4-
Mr. Satnampreet Singh Chauhan, DAG Punjab.
Mr. Tuneet Walia, Advocate for
respondent No.4 in CWP No.21134 of 2016.
Mr. Brea Sandhu, Advocate for
Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate
for respondent No.3-GNDU in
CWP No.26248 of 2018.
Ms. Isha Goyal, Advocate
for respondent No.3 in CWP No.1919 of 2020
and CWP No.6387 of 2021.
Mr. Tarun Vir Singh Lehal, Advocate
for respondent-GNDU.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)
Present bunch of fourteen writ petitions involve common
question of law in the background of common set of facts and thus they are
being decided by a common order.
The grievance raised by the petitioners in the present petition is
that the petitioners competed in pursuance of Advertisement dated
10.09.2017 (Annexure P-1), for filling up 398 posts of Punjabi
Master/Mistress to be appointed in the Education Department, Punjab. The
last date for the submission of application form was 14.10.2017, which was
further extended to 25.10.2017.
The selection to the post in question was to be made on the
basis of the written examination which was conducted by the Guru Nanak
Dev University, Amritsar on behalf of the Selecting Agency. Petitioners
appeared in the written examination and after the examination, the answer
key was published seeking objections from the candidates. Large number of
4 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099805
CWP-2601-2018 (O&M) and other connected cases. -5-
objections were received by the Selecting Agency which was forwarded to
the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar.
In its wisdom, the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar
referred those objections to an Expert Professor and after the opinion of the
said Expert Professor, the objections to the answer key were decided and
final answer key was prepared and the result of the written examination was
declared on the basis of the final answer key which was prepared keeping in
view the report of the expert.
Feeling aggrieved by the result of the written examination
which was declared on the basis of final answer key, the present bunch of
petitions have been filed wherein, it has been averred that rather than
sending the objection to the initial answer key to the Guru Nanak Dev
University, the same should have been sent to another independent expert
and further that the expert cannot be a single person and rather a Committee
of Experts should have been formed so as to decide the objections raised by
the candidates to the initial answer key.
Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply
wherein the respondents have stated that the objections received by the
Selecting Agency were forwarded to the Guru Nanak Dev University,
Amritsar and the University had sought the opinion of an Expert Professor
on the objections received and keeping in view the expert advise received,
the answer key was finalised on the basis of which, the final result of the
written examination was declared hence, no grievance can be raised by the
petitioners qua the final answer key or the result of the written examination.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the records of the bunch of present cases with their able assistance.
5 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099805
CWP-2601-2018 (O&M) and other connected cases. -6-
The issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court with
regard to the opinion given by the Expert to the objections raised by the
candidates qua the intial answer key, has already been settled by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.367 of 2017 titled as
"Ranvijay and others Vs. State of U.P and others"decided on 11.12.2017
wherein it has been held that once the objections raised have been dealt with
by an Expert, the Court should be reluctant to interfere with the opinion of
the experts.
As per the judgment in Ranvijay's case (supra), Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India has held that even if there is a grey area after the
opinion of the expert, the benefit will go to the recruiting agency and not to
the candidate hence, the Court should not interefere. The relevant paragraph
of the judgment is held 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
6 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099805
CWP-2601-2018 (O&M) and other connected cases. -7-
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 to the candidate."
Thereafter, in a similar matter, the indulgence was shown by
this Court even after the report of the Expert Committee to hold that certain
observations of the Expert Committee needs to be revisited. The matter was
ultimately decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, wherein
indulgence of the High Court so as to revisit the issue was held to be bad in
CWP No.7727 of 2019 titled as "HPSC Vs. State of Haryana and ors."
decided on 30.09.2019. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment 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,
7 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099805
CWP-2601-2018 (O&M) and other connected cases. -8-
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.
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 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"."
8 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099805
CWP-2601-2018 (O&M) and other connected cases. -9-
A bare perusal of the above reproduction would show that once
the Expert Committee report has been relied and the result so declared is in
accordance with the advice of the expert.
This Court will not have any jurisdiction to interfere with the
opinion of the experts so as to accept that the claim of the petitioners so as to
revisit the objection raised to the answer key.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition
No.10309 of 2012 titled "Jatinder Kumar and ors. Vs. Haryana Public
Service Commission and ors." decided on 30.08.2012. It may be noticed
that the said judgment is of the year 2012 whereas, the law has been settled
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ranvijay's case (supra), in the
year 2017.
Even otherwise, the observations of the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Jatinder Kumar's case (supra) is only where, the objections
were referred to the same examiner who had set the question papers
whereas, in the present case, learned counsel for the petitioners have not
been able to point out that the Expert Professor is not a neutral person in any
way. In the absence of any such factual averments on record, mere allegation
that once the Guru Nanak Dev University had conducted the examination,
the objections raised to the initial answer key should have been referred to
another University cannot be accepted. Once the reputed body has sought
opinion from an expert Professor, this Court will not interefere in the said
opinion of expert keeping in view the settled principle of law noticed
hereinbefore especially when there is no malafide alleged.
9 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099805
CWP-2601-2018 (O&M) and other connected cases. -10-
No ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the
facts and circumstances of the present bunch of cases.
Hence, the present bunch of petitions is dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
Photocopy of this order be placed on files of other connected
cases.
05-08-2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
Sapna Goyal
JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking: YES/NO
Whether reportable: YES/NO
10 of 10
