Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinod Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 6 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144342
CWP-29893-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
137 CWP-29893-2024
Date of Decision: 06.11.2024
Vinod Kumar ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Present:- Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for respondent no.2/HPSC
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral)
The petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a direction to the
second respondent to include the answers of certain questions in the Screening
Test conducted on 13.10.2024 in response to advertisement 20 of 2024, dated
23.07.2024, for the post of Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs) in Commerce for
Rest of Haryana cadre.
2. Learned counsel has contended that the petitioner correctly
answered questions no.9, 48 and 100 in the Screening Test as per the master
answer key notified by the Commission. However, the Commission later
notified final answer key, Annexure P-16, and alphabet 'x' was mentioned
therein as the correct answer to these questions. It came to the petitioner's notice
that he was not given any marks for these questions, and was resultantly not
shortlisted for the Subject Knowledge Test despite his answers being correct as
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144342
per the master answer key earlier notified. This is arbitrary. Secondly, learned
counsel has contended that the petitioner correctly answered questions no.20,
77 and 96 as per the master answer key earlier notified. However, vide final
answer key of the subject, answers to these questions were changed. As per the
books authored by R.K. Singla and D.K. Goyal, answers to these questions
notified in the final answer key are incorrect. Therefore, the petitioner needs to
be given marks for the correct answer given by him as per the master answer
key.
3. Learned counsel for the Commission, on instructions, contends
that alphabet 'x' in the final answer key notified by the Commission denotes
that the said questions have been deleted from the question paper; it is in fact a
cross mark. Resultantly, none of the candidates who appeared for the Screening
Test were given any marks for the deleted questions. It is also contended that
after the Test, the Commission notified the master answer key inviting
objections from the candidates. The objections received were referred to the
subject experts, and the final answer key was thereafter issued based upon their
advice. The opinion of subject experts is to be accepted as correct, and this
Court should not go into correctness of any particular answer. In support of the
contention he has relied upon the Division Bench judgment in Rajat Gupta v.
State of Haryana and others, rendered in LPA No.1316 of 2024.
4. Heard.
5. The petitioner's first grievance regarding marking of certain
answers in final answer key by alphabet 'x' and not awarding any marks for the
same is not sustainable in view of the undisputed fact that the said questions
stand deleted from the paper book. And the Commission's decision to delete
these questions has been made uniformly applicable to all the candidates based
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144342
on the advice of subject experts. In case there was no indication that alphabet
'x' would denote deletion of question, that in itself cannot be a ground for Court
to interfere in the matter as no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner on
that account. Besides, marks cannot be claimed for the questions which stand
deleted altogether. Secondly, so far as the objection regarding answers to
questions no.20, 77 and 96 is concerned, the same is also not sustainable since
the final answer key has been notified by the Commission only on the basis of
advice received from the subject experts, which has not been imputed on
account of any mala fide, arbitrariness or illegality. It need not to be interfered
with by this Court as per the law settled in Rajat Gupta case; relevant
paragraphs of the judgment are as under:
4. The law stands settled in this aspect, whereby the Apex
Court has time and again held that the Court could not arrogate to
itself the powers of the expert Committee. Reference can be made
to H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and
others, 2010 (6) SCC 759, U.P.P.S.C. and others Vs. Rahul Singh
and others, 2018 AIR (Supreme Court) 2861, Ran Vijay Singh and
others Vs. State of U.P and others, 2018 (2) SCC 357 Vikesh
Kumar Gupta and another Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, 2021
(2) SCC 309.
5. In such circumstances, once in the order dated 06.02.2024
(Annexure P-14), which was subject matter of challenge before the
learned Single Judge, there was specific stand as such that the
matter had been referred to the expert Committee and the said
Committee had opined upon the final Answer Key, the contention
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144342
that the other option was correct as such cannot be gone into by
this Court.
6. In view of the reasons recorded above, there is no ground to
entertain the petition, and it stands dismissed.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA)
JUDGE
06.11.2024
Payal/Maninder
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
