Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vishal Sidana vs State Of Punjab And Another on 14 August, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105644
CM-12799-CWP-2024 in/and
CWP No. 27706-2023 & connected cases 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(112) CM-12799-CWP-2024 in/and
CWP No. 27706-2023
Date of Decision : 14.08.2024
Jashandeep Singh Sidhu
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
(112-2) CM-12884-CWP-2024 in/and
CWP-1248-2024
Ajay Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
(112-3) CM-12792-CWP-2024 in/and
CWP-950-2024
Vishal Sidana
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Pankaj Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner
in CWP-27706-2023.
Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner
in CWP-1248-2024.
Mr. Amarjot Grewal, Advocate, for the petitioner
in CWP-950-2024.
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 15-08-2024 12:54:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105644
CM-12799-CWP-2024 in/and
CWP No. 27706-2023 & connected cases 2
Mr. Amarpreet Singh Bains, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
CM-12799-CWP-2024 in CWP -27706-2023
CM-12884-CWP-2024 in CWP-1248-2024
CM-12792-CWP-2024 in CWP-950-2024
Present applications have been filed for preponing the date of
hearing of the main petitions i.e. CWP No. 27706 of 2023, CWP No.1248 of
2024 and CWP No.950 of 2024, which were adjourned to 04.11.2024.
Notice of the applications to the counsel opposite.
Mr. Amarpreet Singh Bains, learned Asstt. Advocate General,
Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State
and raises no objection for the grant of prayer as raised in the present
applications.
Keeping in view the above, applications are allowed and the
hearing of the main petitions i.e. CWP No. 27706 of 2023, CWP No.1248 of
2024 and CWP No.950 of 2024 is preponed from 04.11.2024 to today.
CWP -27706-2023 and connected cases
1. By this common order, three writ petitions, the details of which
have been given in the heading, are being decided as all these petitions
involve the same question of law on similar facts.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CWP
No. 27706 of 2023.
3. In the present petition, the grievance being raised by the
petitioner is with regard to the expert opinion given qua Question Nos. 62
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105644
CM-12799-CWP-2024 in/and
and 134 that option 'D' and 'C' respectively are the correct answer, which
opinion of the expert should not be accepted as the said expert related to the
field of Botany whereas, the question in dispute related to the field of
Agriculture.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the due
explanation has been given by the Expert for giving his opinion qua the
disputed question and the petitioner cannot object to the said opinion of
expert only on the ground that the Expert was working in the Department of
Botany as a Professor and Head of the Department and the question related to
the subject of 'Agriculture'. Learned counsel for the respondents further
submits that the petitioner was allowed to undergo the selection process and
it is only that after the declaration of the final result the petitioner could not
get selected, the ground is being raised by the petitioner to challenge the
Expert's opinion hence, the same is liable to be rejected.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
6. It may be noticed that the jurisdiction of the Court so as to
interfere with the opinion of the Subject Expert is very limited. As per the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 367 of
2017 titled as Ran Vijay Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others,
decided on 11.12.2017, in case a candidate has a grievance with regard to the
provisional answer key, the same needs to be put up before the Experts and
after the report of the Experts, no further action can be taken even by the
Court and even if, there is a gray area after the report of the Expert, the
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105644
CM-12799-CWP-2024 in/and
benefit of the same has to go to the selection agency and not the candidate.
The relevant paragraph No. 30 of this 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 to the candidate."
7. 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:-
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105644
CM-12799-CWP-2024 in/and
"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.
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
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105644
CM-12799-CWP-2024 in/and
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. 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.
9. Even otherwise, recently in SLP having diary No. 30367 of 2024
titled as Robin Sharma Vs. Haryana Public Service Commission decided
on 11.07.2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India upheld the judgment of
this Court in CWP No. 9273 of 2024, decided on 10.07.2024 with the
observation that once an Expert Committee's view has been accepted qua the
objections raised to the answer key, no interference can be done by the
courts.
10. Keeping in view the above, this Court cannot interfere with the
opinion given by the Subject Experts.
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105644
CM-12799-CWP-2024 in/and
11. With regard to the other objection taken by the petitioners in the
present petitions is that the Expert was a Professor of the Subject of Botany
whereas, the question related to the subject of 'Agriculture', it may be
noticed that nothing has come on record that the opinion given by the Subject
Expert is malafide or is contrary or he was not capable of being a Subject
Expert on the issue. In the absence of any such reasons existing in the
present petitions, once the Subject Expert is working as a Professor and Head
of a Department and has given the due reasons for his opinion which reasons
have been accepted by the Selecting Agency, the petitioners cannot raise the
objection that the opinion should have been sought from another expert.
12. No ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the
present petitions.
13. Dismissed.
14. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed
of.
15. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected
cases.
August 14, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
