Ashish Chhikara vs Haryana Public Service Commission And ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 9518 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ashish Chhikara vs Haryana Public Service Commission And ... on 2 May, 2024

CWP-29192-2019 1
2024:PHHC:061001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.219 CWP-29192-2019
Date of Decision: 02.05.2024
Ashish Chhikara .... Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Public Service Commission and others ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

Present: Mr. Lalit Rishi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate,
Ms. Sheena Dahiya, Advocate and

Mr. Simranjit Singh, Advocate for respondent no.1-HPSC.
3 2 2

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)

This petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the Revised Answer Key qua questions no.6, 26, 55, 63, 77, 89, 93, 62 and 74 for the question booklet code A of written examination for the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) against advertisement no.8 of 2015, dated 08.02.2016, Annexure P-1; and a direction to restore the original Answer Key, Annexure P-7, being correct.

2. Learned counsel for the Commission has drawn the Court's attention to affidavit, dated 01.12.2020, filed by its Deputy Secretary to the effect that after conduct of recruitment test, the answer key was displayed on the Commission's website for calling objections of the candidates. The objections so received were sent to the expert committee with a request not only to verify the questions qua which objections had been raised, but also the ones against which objections had not been raised by the candidates. In this manner, all the hundred questions/answers were got verified from the expert

FE acy on

authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-29192-2019 2 2024:PHHC:061001

committee. Accepting its report, the Commission deleted four questions, i.e., questions no.23, 62, 70 and 74 of booklet series 'A' and corresponding questions of booklet series B, C and D. The key of eleven questions, i.e., questions no.6, 10, 26, 30, 41, 60, 63, 65, 77, 79 and 89 of booklet series A and corresponding questions of booklet series B, C and D were also revised. Thereafter, the result was declared on percentile basis; no additional marks were given to any of the candidates. He further contends that the petitioner secured 81.25 marks as a general category candidate during selection, whereas the cut-off marks for the category were 82.29. Accordingly, he could not be selected.

3. There is no denial to these factual averments. Besides, this Court finds there is nothing irregular or illegal about the process followed by Commission in getting all the objections, including the ones raised by the petitioner, verified from a committee of subject experts, and declaring the result on percentile basis after accepting its report.

4. In view thereof, there is no ground to interfere. The petition,

accordingly, stands dismissed.

(TRIBHUVAN DAHTYA) JUDGE 02.05.2024 Maninder Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No