Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamlesh Rani & Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 20 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007926
CWP-26165-2016 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
222
WP-26165-2016 (O&M)
C
Date of decision: 20.01.2025
Kamlesh Rani and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Marinal Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. P.S. Khurana, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)
1. Thepetitioners,whohadappliedforappointmentasETTteacher,
filedthiscasewithanapprehensionthatfourquestionsofpart-Cattemptedby
themhavenotbeenevaluatedandincase,thepleaisfoundtobecorrectthen
to grant marks.
2. TheD.EI.EdexaminationforSessions2013-2015wasconducted
bySCERT-respondentNo.2,whoinparas3and4ofitscounteraffidavitfiled
by Director dated 18.04.2016, to which there was no replication filed, has
stated thus:-
" That further, it is most respectfullysubmittedbeforethis
Hon'ble Court that paper regarding Diversity, Gender and
Inclusive Education (209) is prepared according to the
structure/format of the instructions. Questions askedfrom
Part-C are from structure andsyllabusi.e.questionno.11
and12arefromUnit-Iandquestionno.13and14arefrom
Unit-II and question no. 15 and 16 are from Unit-III.
Student had to do one question from each unit and one
question had to be done from any unit.
urther, it is submitted that in whole session students are
F
taught according to syllabus and structure of the paper.
Further it is submitted that one student appearing in the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007926
CWP-26165-2016 2
p aper having Roll No. 1612 had done question 13unit-ll,
question no. 16 unit-III, question no. 11 and 12 inunit-1.
Similarly, in another case a student having RollNo.1611
had done question 11 in unit-l, question no. 14 and 13 in
unit-II. question no. 16 in unit-III.
4 .Thatfurtheritismostrespectfullysubmittedbeforethis
Hon'ble Court at this stage claim of the petitioners
regarding to evaluate the paper of Diversity, Gender and
Inclusive Education (209) and thereupon, declare their
result has not been accepted as petitioners are stoppedby
the Law of Estopel. Meaning thereby the petitioners are
stopped by their own conduct because petitioners had
alreadyattemptedthispaper.Theyshouldhavechallenged
the paper during the day of exam. But petitioners by
attempting the paper had accepted the terms and being
unsuccessfultheycannotbeallowedtochallengethesame
as they are stopped by their own act and conduct and
cannotchallengetheexaminationwhenshefoundthatshe
would not succeed in the examination. Reference in this
regard can be made to the judgment of theHon'bleCourt
in Madan Lal Vs State of J & K (1995) 3SCC 486, Om
Parkash Suhukla 1986 Sup. SCC 285 etc.Ithasbeenlaid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when the
petitionerappearedintheexaminationwithoutprotestand
when he found that he would not succeed in examination
he filed a petition challenging that said examination, the
High Court should not have granted any relief to such
petitioner."
3. In Manuj Krishna Mishra vs. High Court of Madhya
Pradesh1, the Division Bench while relying on Union ofIndiaVs.Kushala
Shetty and others, AIR 2011 SC 3210, observed and held that the Court
cannotsitovertheexpertopiniongivenbytheCommitteewhilefinalisingthe
answer keys, which have to be accepted as it is and the petitioners having
participated in the proceedings wellawareofthetermsandconditionsofthe
advertisement,therefore,theyarebeingrestrainedfromchallengingtheterms
1
Law Finder doc Id # 2026428
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007926
CWP-26165-2016 3
and conditions thereof after they have been declared as unsuccessful
candidates.
4. As an upshot of the afore, the present petition being bereft of
merit is hereby dismissed.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
2 0.01.2025
Hemant
hether speaking/reasoned
W : es / No
Y
Whether reportable : Yes / No
3 of 3
