Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dilbag Singh Bhullar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 25 September, 2024
Author: Lisa Gill
Bench: Lisa Gill
SUNIL
LPA No.2348 of 2024 (O&M) -1-
2024 PHHC:128370.08
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA No.2348 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 25.09.2024
DILBAG SINGH BHULLAR 7 ---- aun, Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .... Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
Present: Mr. Keshav Gupta, Advocate for appellant.
Mr. R.S. Pandher, Senior DAG, Punjab.
oR 3 2 2
LISA GILL, J.
1. This appeal has been filed for setting aside decision dated
22.07.2014, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP-10020-2018, filed by
present appellant/writ petitioner.
2. Appellant/writ petitioner filed above said writ petition for
quashing of final answer key (set D) as well as merit list for the post of Excise
and Taxation Inspector as advertised on 19.07.2016 (Annexure P-1). He also
sought re-framing of merit list by granting marks to petitioner in respect to
question nos.8 and 34. Grievance raised by appellant/writ petitioner was that
answers provided to question nos.8 and 34 in final answer key are either
factually incorrect or have multiple answers and are in complete contradiction
to the data provided in various authoritative text books.
2024.10.04 16:44
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
SUNIL
3. Petitioner had applied for the post of Excise and Taxation
Inspector and Election Kanungo pursuant to advertisement dated 19.07.2016
in the General category. He took the examination held on 08.04.2018.
Provisional answer key was uploaded by respondent-Board on the evening of
08.04.2018 itself. He submitted his objection in respect to question no.34
because according to uploaded answer key, correct answer to question no.34
was option -- A, whereas appellant-writ petitioner had marked the same to
option -- B. It is stated that in respect to question no.8, he did not submit any
objection because as per provisional answer key, option -- D was correct
answer, which is in consonance with the answer given by appellant. However,
in final answer key, correct answer was stated to be option-- A. Aggrieved
therefrom CWP-10020-2018 was filed.
4. Learned Single Bench while considering the factual matrix of the
case, found no merit in the grounds as raised while holding that the High
Court shall not sit over judgment/decision of Expert Committee, which had
taken a particular view. Writ petition was accordingly dismissed leading to
filing of present appeal.
5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant restricts his
objection to question no.34 only. He vehemently argues that learned Single
Bench has erred in dismissing the writ petition as there is a glaring error in
question no.34 (set D) itself, inasmuch as unit of time is not given. Expert
opinion itself is erroneous inasmuch as it proceeds on an assumption to be
made. It is thus prayed that impugned order dated 22.07.2024 be set aside
and writ petition allowed as prayed for.
2024.10.04 16:44
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
SUNIL
6. Learned counsel for the State, on advance notice, prays for
dismissal of appeal the same being devoid of any merit.
7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through
the file with their able assistance but do not find any ground whatsoever to
interfere. As noted in the foregoing paras, appellant has restricted his prayer to
the defect in question no.34, which reads as under:-
"34, Without stoppages, the speed of a train is 150 km/hour and with
stoppages, it is 100 km/hour. How many minutes does the train stop?
a. 20 minutes b. 15 minutes
C. 25 minutes d. 45 minutes"
8. Learned counsel for appellant has referred to extracts from some
of text-books as are attached with writ petition, to submit that question no.34
itself was defective. It is pertinent to note at this stage that objections as raised
by appellant as well as other similarly situated candidates were duly put up
before Expert Committee, which examined the same. Final answer key was
released as per recommendations of Expert Committee. It is a settled position
that it is not for the Court in judicial review to take on the mantle of Expert
Committee. Gainful reference in this respect can be made to judgments of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.
and others, 2018(1) SCT 334, wherein it has been held as under:-
"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."
2024.10.04 16:44
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
SUNIL
9. Gainful reference can also be made to a Division Bench judgment
of this Court in CWP No.698 of 2022, titled Penaaz Dhillon Vs. State of
Haryana and others, decided on 14.01.2022 wherein it has been held that the
Court shall not arrogate to itself the powers of Expert Committee. In the
given factual matrix, learned Single Bench has correctly passed impugned
order dated 22.07.2024 while specifically observing that benefit, if any, in
respect to a gray area would go to the recruiting agency and not to the
candidate. We do not find any merit in the argument raised by learned counsel
for appellant to submit that opinion of Expert Committee itself should be
examined and set aside being presumptuous.
10. Learned counsel for appellant is unable to point out any infirmity,
irregularity or perversity in the impugned orders dated 22.07.2024, passed by
learned Single Bench, which is accordingly upheld.
11. No other argument has been addressed.
12. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, this appeal
is dismissed with no order as to cost.
(LISA GILL)
JUDGE
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
25.09.2024 JUDGE
Sunil
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
2024.10.04 16:44
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
