Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ankush Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Others on 21 March, 2024
Author: G. S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G. S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037254-DB
LPA-418-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:037254-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA NO. 418 OF 2024 (O&M)
RESERVED ON : MARCH 12, 2024
DATE OF DECISION : MARCH 21, 2024
Ankush Sharma ...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
LPA NO. 455 OF 2024 (O&M)
Amarjit Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
LPA No.463 OF 2024 (O&M)
Harpreet Kaur and another ...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
LPA NO.609 OF 2024 (O&M)
Sheela Rani ...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
LPA No.663 OF 2024 (O&M)
Manpreet Singh and another ...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Page 1 of 11
1 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 23-03-2024 09:48:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037254-DB
LPA-418-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:037254-DB
Present : Mr. Satvir Singh, Advocate,
Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh, Advocate,
For the appellants in LPA Nos.418, 455, 463 & 609 of 2024.
Mr. Hardik Ahluwalia, Advocate,
For the appellants in LPA No. 663 of 2024.
Mr. Saurav Khurana, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
LAPITA BANERJI, J.
Under consideration in the present appeal is a common judgment
and order dated January 15, 2024 passed in CWP-23040-2023, CWP-26831-
2023, CWP-21874-2023, CWP-1816-2023, CWP-22202-2023 and CWP-
27167-2023, whereby the writ petitions were dismissed on refusal by the
Hon'ble Single Judge to invoke extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, only because
there was a difference in opinion of the appellants/writ petitioners with that of
the experts in respect of the answer key provided to some of the questions.
The Hon'ble Single Judge held that since the respondents duly constituted an
Expert Committee which had examined all the objections by the appellants
and then taken a conscious decision, it would not be appropriate for the writ
Court to re-examine the answer key and interfere in the selection process.
2. LPA No.418 of 2024 arising out of CWP No.23040 of 2023, LPA
455 of 2024 arising out of CWP No.26831 of 2023, LPA No.463 of 2024
arising out of CWP No.21874 of 2023, LPA No.609 of 2024 arising out of
CWP No.1861 of 2024, LPA No. 663 of 2024 arising out of CWP No.22202
of 2023 are disposed of vide this common judgment and order since common
questions of facts and law arise in the aforesaid cases. For brevity, the recitals
from LPA No.418 of 2024 are considered, for the purpose of factual narrative.
3. The facts culled out from the perusal of paper-books reveal that
the appellant who is presently working with respondent-department as
2 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037254-DB
LPA-418-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:037254-DB
Constable in the district cadre participated in a promotional exercise for grant
of promotion to the post of Head Constable. A written test known as Basic
Proficiency Test-2023 (in short, "BPT-2023") was conducted by the
department on September 02, 2023, in which the appellant participated.
4. There were four sets of papers in BPT-2023 which had to be
solved by different sets of candidates. The respondent-department released the
answer key on September 02, 2023 itself and invited objections from the
candidates with respect to the said answer key, till September 05, 2023.
Thereafter, provisional merit list was published on September 18, 2023 and
again objections were invited before the final list of promotees was drawn.
5. It was contended on behalf on behalf of the appellant in LPA-
418-2024 that he had submitted his objections with regard to questions No.22,
45, 66, 78, 81 and 93 of Set-B in particular but the respondent-department
without following proper procedure or considering the objections of the
appellant, released a provisional merit list. Thereafter, objections were again
invited to provisional merit list and the appellant again submitted his
objections to questions No.22, 63 and 66 of Set-B to the respondent-
department within the prescribed time limit.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that all the objections
raised by him with respect to various questions were not considered by the
Committee, therefore, the grievance of the writ petitioners/appellants
remained unaddressed.
7. Furthermore, the learned counsel argued that question No.22
under Section 222 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") was not properly
framed and the said question should have been framed under Section 221 of
the IPC. Therefore, 'none of the above' being option 'D' in the answer key
should have been the correct answer and not option 'A' as projected in the
3 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037254-DB
LPA-418-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:037254-DB
answer key. Similarly, it was sought to be argued that question No.63 in
Series-B related to Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short
"Evidence Act") and Option 'A' could not have been the correct option as
projected in the answer key. Since correct option was not given, the appellant
had chosen option 'D' which was 'none of the above' and that should have
been reflected in the answer key as the correct option. It was further argued
that since the questions were not rightly framed, marks across the board for
such questions ought to have been given to all the candidates. Therefore, a
prayer was made for constitution of an independent expert Committee to
decide the objections raised by the appellant.
8. Taking into account the submissions made by learned counsel for
the appellant qua all the objections raised by the candidates not being taken
into consideration intentionally, the Hon'ble Single Judge allowed the State to
produce the record prepared by the expert Committee while considering the
objections raised by the candidates in order to ascertain whether all the said
objections were taken into consideration. An affidavit of Ms.Amneet Kondal,
Senior Superintendent of Police, Khanna-cum-Member, BPT-2023 was taken
on record by the Hon'ble Single Judge.
9. A close perusal to the affidavit filed in LPA No.418 of 2024
would reveal that BPT-2023 was conducted for promotion of the officials
from the rank of Constable in Punjab Police to the rank of Head Constable
was in accordance with the standing order No.12 of 2010 issued under Rule
13.20 of the Punjab Police Rules. In terms of the standing order No.12 of
2010, a Departmental Promotional Committee was comprised of Inspector
General of Police as Chairman along with Deputy Inspector General of Police
and two Superintendents of Police as members. In terms of the standing order
(Annexure R-1), a Selection Committee was constituted under district police
4 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037254-DB
LPA-418-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:037254-DB
cadre by the Director General of Police, Punjab comprising of following
officers :
i) Sh. S.S. Srivastava, IPS, ADGP, Security, Punjab
and Chandigarh.
ii) Dr. Kaustubh Sharma, IPS, IGP, Ludhiana Range,
Ludhiana
iii) Smt. Amneet Kondal, IPS, SSP, Police District
Khanna.
10. The BPT-2023 examination was conducted on September 02,
2023. It carried a total of 100 marks, out of which the OMR based
examination accounted for 95 marks with each question carrying 01 mark and
additional 05 marks were allocated on the basis of service records of the
candidates. A total of 7226 candidates applied for BPT-2023 out of which
6554 candidates participated and 712 candidates remained absent. On the
very same day the answer key was uploaded on the official website. The
candidates were given opportunity to raise the objections to the answer key till
September 05, 2023. A total of 523 candidates raised objections regarding 49
questions. The appellant raised objections to 06 questions being questions
No.22, 45, 66, 78, 81 and 93 of Series-B papers. The objections were sent to
the Committee for evaluation.
11. After receiving of the objections, two meetings, one on
September 09, 2023 and the other on September 11, 2023, were held by the
Committee with respect to all the 49 objections. Out of 49 questions, 04
questions were found to be inaccurately drafted and as such grace marks
pertaining to the incorrect questions were awarded to all the candidates. The
answer key to one question was found to be inadvertently wrong due to
clerical error so the same was changed and corrected. The details of the
questions in the relevant series to which the objections were entertained are
reproduced herein after :
5 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037254-DB
LPA-418-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:037254-DB
Sr. No. Question number The question and the detail of The decision taken
and series objection by the Committee
01 Series- A/11 According to Rule 21.25 of the Committee agrees to
Series-B/81 Punjab Police Rules, 1934, the objection, due to
Series-B/56 who is considered to be in wrong question, all
Series-D/31 charge of all public proper in a candidates are being
police station: awarded grace of
A-Outpost Constable (01) number.
B-Station Clerk
C-Senior Police Officer present
at the spot
D-Senior Captain Police
2 Series-A/09 Which Rule of the Punjab The correct answer
Series-B/79 Police Rules, 1934 covers the to this question is D.
Series-C/54 proclaimed offenders and those Hence, D is being
Series-D/29 who harbor them. A-2.1, B- marked as the right
21.3, C-21.4, D-21.5 Series- answer in the key.
3 Series-A/55 Gyaninder takes some boys The options to this
Question with him to Harvinder's house, question are
series- B/30 they threaten Harvinder with incomplete, so all
Series-C/54 knife and sword and force candidates are being
Series-D/75 Harvinder to sign a blank paper awarded grace of
so that he can be abused. (01) number.
Express which Section of IPC
applies to this crime. A-417, B-
420, C-392, D-383
4 Series-A/23 One music system and one This question wrong,
Series-B/93 refrigerator was sold at 12500. all candidates are
Series-C/68 If Television was sold at 30% being awarded grace
Series-D/43 profit and washing machine of (01) number
was sold at 30% loss. Find out
the profit or loss percentage of
whole transaction :
A-9%, B-11%, C-6%, D-12%
5 Series-A/59 A group of people decided to The correct answer
Series-B/34 rob a petrol pump and they to this question does
Series-C/09 divide the roles among not appear in the
Series-D/79 themselves for this robbery and given options.
promise to carry it not appear Therefore, all
in out. Under which Section of candidates are being
the IPC the each member of the awarded grace of
group would be held (01) number.
responsible.
A-383, B-34, C-387, D-120
12. Remaining 44 objections were not accepted by the Committee
after due deliberation. On September 18, 2023, a provisional result was
uploaded on the website and the candidates were given another opportunity to
raise objections with regard to provisional marks obtained by them. 111
objections were received by the deadline set on September 21, 2023. After the
6 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037254-DB
LPA-418-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:037254-DB
receipt of such objections, candidates were called to RTC, PAP, Jalandhar on
September 25, 2023 for further consideration and discussion relating to their
objections physically. Out of 111 candidates who raised objections, only 95
were present. Apart from the said 95 candidates, 06 candidates who had not
raised objections, were also present. All the objections raised by the
candidates were duly entertained and the OMR sheets were thoroughly
checked including the OMR sheet of the appellant. After checking the OMR
sheets, the candidates including the appellant, signed undertakings stating
their satisfaction in respect of all the objections raised. A Satisfaction
Certificate was given by all the candidates including the appellant.
13. Perusal of the affidavit would further go to show that the
appellant-Ankush Sharma had filed two sets of objections. On September 02,
2023 he objected to questions No.22, 45, 66, 78, 93 and 81 of Series-B,
whereas on September 18, 2023 he raised objections to questions No.22, 63
and 66. In the writ petition, the petitioner/appellant had primarily challenged
the answer key in relation to questions No.22 and 63. The second question
was not even objected to in the preliminary objections. Furthermore, it has
been stated in the affidavit that due process has been followed for redressal of
the grievances of the appellant and the same was conducted in legal and
impartial manner by giving grace marks for the wrong questions to all the
candidates and the appellant has also recorded his satisfaction to the
objections raised by him after being physically present on September 25, 2023
and thoroughly discussing the issue with the respondent authorities.
14. The affidavit filed in LPA No.663 of 2024 arising out of CWP
No.22202 of 2023, shows that the appellant No.1 raised objections to
Questions No.16, 29, 67, 79 and 94 in Series-D and the appellant No.2 raised
objections in Questions No.9 and 91 in Series-A on September 09, 2023 and
7 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037254-DB
LPA-418-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:037254-DB
September 11, 2023 respectively, after expiry of the prescribed time limit. Still
such objections were duly addressed by the expert Committee. The appellants
were given a second opportunity to raise objections after the declaration of the
provisional result. The appellants neither raised any further objections nor
were present on the day of the physical meeting held on September 25, 2023.
Therefore, in LPA No.663 of 2024 it could be safely presumed that the
appellants acquiesced to the provisional result published on September 18,
2023 and waived off their rights to raise any further objections.
15. In affidavit filed in LPA No.463 of 2024 arising out of CWP
No.21874 of 2023, appellant/petitioner No.1 raised objections to questions
No.22, 30, 40, 6 and 79 in Series-B and appellant/petitioner No.2 did not raise
any objection at all. Out of 05 writ petitioners only writ petitioners No.1 and
2, who were present on the day of physical meeting at Jalandhar have filed the
present appeal, as the writ petitioners No.3 and 5 got selected when the
provisional result of BPT-2023 was declared. The appellant No.1 signed a
Satisfaction Certificate being satisfied with the explanation given by the
respondent authorities. The writ petitioner Nos.2 and 4 did not attend the said
meeting. The appellant/writ petitioner No.2 by not raising objections and by
not attending the said meeting had acquiesced to the provisional result dated
September 18, 2023. The appellant No.1 has recorded his satisfaction to the
decision taken by the expert Committee after detailed discussion regarding the
OMR sheet on September 25, 2023 and thereby precluded from raising any
further grievance. In LPA No. 609 of 204 arising out of CWP No.1861 of
2024, no affidavit has been filed by respondent-State but reliance is placed on
the common paragraphs of the aforesaid affidavits.
16. Upon consideration of documents and arguments made by the
parties, this Court finds that due procedure has been followed by giving an
8 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037254-DB
LPA-418-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:037254-DB
opportunity to the candidates to raise their objections to the answer key
published by the authorities and against the provisional result/merit list
declared by the authorities. Furthermore, the objections raised by the
candidates were discussed threadbare with them in the physical meeting held
on September 25, 2023. Upon being satisfied with the response of the
respondent authorities, the candidates including the appellant signed the
satisfaction certificate. There was no mention of signing a satisfaction
certificate in the writ petition which was filed on October 07, 2023 after
recording of such satisfaction.
17. The respondent authorities examined the objections by way of
placing them before an expert Committee comprising of 03 IPS officers
working with the Punjab police who were expected to have knowledge in
questions relating to Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure
(Cr.P.C.), Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Punjab Police Act, 2007, Punjab Police
Rules and general knowledge. There is no reason to doubt the knowledge and
expertise of the said Committee in dealing with the objections raised by the
candidates. The effort of the counsel to seek interference and to get us to
assess the correctness of the answer key cannot be permitted keeping in mind
the law holding the field on this point.
18. The Hon'ble Single Judge has correctly placed reliance on "H.P
Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and others", 2010 (6) SCC
759 to hold that merely because the subject happens to be law, the Court could
not arrogate to itself the powers of the expert Committee.
19. In "U.P.P.S.C and others v. Rahul Singh and others", 2018 AIR
(Supreme Court) 2861, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the onus was on the
candidate to not only demonstrate that the answer key glaringly wrong and no
inferential process or reasoning should be required to show that the answer
9 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037254-DB
LPA-418-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:037254-DB
key was wrong, which the learned counsel for the appellant sought to do in the
present case.
20. In "Ran Vijay Singh and others v. State of U.P and others",
2018 (2) SCC 357, it was held that the Court should presume the correctness
of the answer key and in the event of any doubt, the benefit should go to the
examination authority.
21. A beneficial reference is made to the judgment by the three Judge
Bench of Apex Court in "Vikesh Kumar Gupta and another v. State of
Rajasthan and others", reported in 2021 (2) SCC 309, wherein after detailed
analysis of the judgments on the above mentioned issue it has been opined that
the Courts should be very slow in interfering with the expert opinion in
academic matters and assessment of questions by the Courts itself to arrive at
correct answers is not permissible. Relevant extract is set out herein under :-
"xxx
17. A perusal of the above judgments would make it
clear that Courts should be very slow in interfering with
expert opinion in academic matters. In any event,
assessment of the questions by the Courts itself to arrive at
correct answers is not permissible. The delay in finalization
of appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to
pendency of cases challenging sections pending in Courts
for a long period of time. The cascading effect of delay in
appointments is the continuance of those appointed on
temporary basis and their claims for regularization. The
other consequence resulting from delayed appointments to
public posts is the serious damage caused to administration
due to lack of sufficient personnel.
Xxx"
22. In the light of the discussion made hereinabove and the fact that
there is no allegation of mala fides levelled against the expert panel, the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge does not suffer from any
infirmity and merits no interference.
10 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037254-DB
LPA-418-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:037254-DB
23. Accordingly, the present letter patent appeals are dismissed.
Connected applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.
(G. S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
JUDGE
MARCH 21, 2024
shalini
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
11 of 11
