Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramchander vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 2 July, 2024
CWP-22993-2015
A024: PRAT O8TFS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.208 CWP-22993-2015
Date of Decision: 02.07.2024
Ramchander .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Present: Mr. B.S. Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rohit Arya, DAG Haryana.
3 2 2
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)
The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari
quashing the selection list dated 27.09.2015, Annexure P-7, the list of
successful candidates called for interview on 08.09.2015, Annexure P-4, and
the revised answer key dated 11.09.2015, Annexure P-5, which is stated to
be based on wrong answers. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought
directing the third respondent/Haryana Staff Selection Commission
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') to prepare a correct answer key
and revise the list of successful candidates for the interview, and make
selection of suitable candidates on merit.
2. The facts of the case in brief are, the Commission made
selection for fifty-four posts of Lecturer in Hindi (PGT Hindi) against
advertisement no.6 of 2006, category no.6, in compliance of the orders dated
01.05.2012, 07.07.2014 and 13.02.2015 passed by the Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal No.4128 of 2012, titled Poonam Rani @ Poonam v. State of
Haryana. The selection was made on 27.09.2015, on the basis of marks of
MANINDER . . . .
2024.07.05.10:28 | written examination and viva-voce.
I attest to the accuracy an
authenticity of this
order/judgment.
CWP-22993-2015
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that answers to
three questions bearing no.23, 35 and 68 in booklet D were not correct, the
same need to be revised and OMR sheets of the candidates, including that of
the petitioner, should be evaluated on that basis. The petitioner's answers to
these questions were correct which can be established from the text books
and literature on the subject, as mentioned in the petition. This calls for
revision of the answer key and award of marks to the petitioner on the basis
of correct answers given by him to these three questions.
4. Learned State counsel, on the contrary, has referred to the
affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent to contend that the
Commission invited objections to the answer key and the same were
forwarded to the Chief Examiner for consideration. The answer key, which
was finalised after evaluating all the objections, was uploaded by the
Commission on its website on 11.09.2015. However, while uploading, a
clerical/technical error was made in key to Set-C, due to which options of
some of the questions were repeated. After this error came to the
Commission's notice, final master key for all sets, i.e., A, B, C and D, was
uploaded on the website on 01.10.2015. OMR sheets of all the candidates
were checked and evaluated as per the master key finalised by the Chief
Examiner and uploaded on 01.10.2015, and the result was declared after
granting eight grace marks to all the candidates who appeared in the written
examination. Further, as per specific details given in the affidavit, the
petitioner gave incorrect answers to the three disputed questions no.23, 35
and 68 as per the final master key, based upon which his OMR sheet was
evaluated. As per the final result declared on 27.09.2015, the petitioner could
not be selected on account of having scored lesser marks. He scored 130
marks, whereas the last selected candidate in his category (general category)
CWP-22993-2015
2024:-PHHC:081735!
5. Heard.
6. The facts brought on record by way of short reply and affidavit
filed on behalf of the respondent-Commission have not been disputed by the
petitioner. His answers to the three disputed questions were evaluated on the
basis of final master key uploaded on the Commission's website on
01.10.2015, along with answers of all the candidates who appeared in the
written test. The master key was finalised after all the objections to the
answer key were considered by the subject expert/Chief Examiner. There is
no illegality or mala fide alleged in the entire process of finalising the master
answer key by the experts. As per settled law, bona fide unbiased opinion of
the subject experts is not to be substituted by any other opinion. Therefore,
there is no scope for interference in the matter merely on the basis of
assertions of learned counsel for the petitioner that answers to the three
disputed questions cannot be termed correct in the light of extracts of text
books and literature reproduced in the petition.
7. In view thereof, there is no merit in the petition, and it stands
dismissed.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHTYA)
JUDGE
02.07.2024
Maninder
Whether speaking/reasoned --_: Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
