AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction especially in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to re-evaluate the answer sheet of 'Subject Knowledge Test' of petitioner held on 17.11.2024 for the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer against Advertisement No.16/2024 by ignoring the place on which the answer is written and by considering the question number and answer to which given by the petitioner, the petitioner has been awarded 22 marks only because about 8 questions might have been declared wrong only because their answers are given at some other place of the answer sheet, whereas the petitioner has specifically written question number in-front of answers, from which it is clear that the petitioner has given answers to the particular questions and the examination being subjective in nature, the petitioner cannot be denied benefit for such marks only because of writing the answers at other place, not giving marks for these answers, the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India has been violated and for issuance of necessary directions to the respondents to revise the result of petitioner after re-evaluation of the answer sheet of the Subject Knowledge Test of the petitioner and consequent thereto issue appointment letter to the petitioner if found within the zone of selection after such revision of result and issue necessary directions to the respondents to keep one post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer for the petitioner under SC Category against the Advertisement No.16/2024, during the pendency of the present writ petition.
It is inter alia submitted by ld. counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 2/Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter ‘HPSC’) had issued an Advertisement No. 16/2024 dated 21.06.2024 (Annexure P-2) inviting recruitment for 805 posts of Ayurvedic Medical Officer (Group B) (hereinafter ‘AMO’) in the Health and Ayush Department, Haryana. As the petitioner fulfilled all necessary qualifications for post of AMO, he had applied under the Scheduled Caste Category. As petitioner was found to be eligible, he was issued Admit Card (Annexure P-4).
The Subject Knowledge Test (hereinafter ‘SKT’) was conducted on 17.11.2024. Result of the SKT was declared by the Commission on dated 03.12.2024 (Annexure P-8). As per the result card of the petitioner (Annexure P-9), petitioner had obtained 22 marks out of 150; and 12.83 marks out of 87.5. As such, petitioner was not shortlisted for the interview. Petitioner had submitted an email representation dated 31.01.2025 (Annexure P-10) requesting to re-check or re-evaluate his exam. However, as no action was taken thereupon, petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by way of the present writ petition.
Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that the SKT held by the respondent No.2 on 17.11.2024 was a subjective test. The candidates were given question papers having 18 questions, out of which 15 questions were required to be attempted, each question carrying 10 marks. The answer sheet was given to the candidate to write their answers on the same. The petitioner attempted all such questions at first, those he believed to be well within his knowledge. The petitioner wrote question number and then wrote his answer on the answer sheet. It is contended that once, the question number has been mentioned in front of every answer, then there is no doubt left behind that candidate has the intention to give answer to only such questions. Once, the petitioner has correctly given the answer, then he is entitled for marks for such questions.
Ld. Counsel further submits that since the SKT is a subjective examination, therefore, the same has been checked by the human being and not by the computers. The plea of having the examinations checked in a mechanical manner by computerized programme as in the case of objective test/OMR Sheets is not available with the respondents. The object of subjective examination is to access the knowledge of a candidate about the subject. In such process it does not matter at which place the answer has been written
what matters is that the answer should be correct and candidate is entitled for the marks for the same.
It is further submitted that it is also the matter of concern that no Instructions were given to the candidates before examination that answers are to be given at particular space/place in the answer sheet. Many sheets in the answer book were plain, therefore there is every possibility for the candidates to get misled from such kind of process adopted by respondent No.2. Without having any proper Instructions, the petitioner is entitled for re-evaluation of the answer sheet which has been incorrectly marked because of discrepancy in the sequence questions/answers.
In support, petitioner has relied upon judgment of this Court in Renu Sharma and others vs. Haryana Public Service Commission in CWP-30581-2024 dated 20.01.2025 wherein it is held that:-
“A Court of Law, while applying terms and conditions of a clause, is enjoined upon to also analyze and assess the final impact thereof. Undoubtedly, securing a public employment is a dream for a common person and the failure to compete in the same solely due to certain inadvertent omissions would crush the entire career prospects of a candidate, more so, it is only occasionally that advertisements for such public employment are issued. Hence, enforcement of such extreme power should be made once there is a reasonable doubt or apprehension of mischief in so doing, but not where a mischief is clearly ruled out and that the effect of the omission/error would have no reflection on the sanctity or security of the process of selection.”
It is accordingly prayed that the present writ petition be allowed and “directions be issued to the respondents to re-evaluate the answer sheet of 'Subject Knowledge Test' of petitioner held on 17.11.2024 for the post of Ayurvedic Advertisement Medical against Officer No.16/2024 by ignoring the place on which the answer is written and by considering the question number and answer to which given by the petitioner, the petitioner has been awarded 22 marks only because about 8 questions might have been declared wrong only because their answers are given at some other place of the answer sheet, whereas the petitioner has specifically written question number in-front of answers, from which it is clear that the petitioner has given answers to the particular questions and the examination being subjective in nature, the petitioner cannot be denied benefit for such marks only because of writing the answers at other place, not giving marks for these answers, the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India has been violated and direct the respondents to revise the result of petitioner after evaluation of the answer sheet of the subject test of re-and the petitioner knowledge consequent thereto issue appointment letter to the petitioner if found within the zone of selection after such revision of result.”
Per contra, ld. counsel for the respondent No. 2/Commission has vehemently opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and has referred to the reply of the Commission wherein it is categorically stated that clear Instructions had been issued in the Admit Card (Annexure P-4) that candidates should carefully read and follow the Instructions printed on the Answer Sheet/Question Paper. Even in the Question-cum-Answer Booklet, clear
Instructions had been given that each question has to be answered within the space provided. The said fact has been admitted by the petitioner himself in the present writ petition. It is submitted that despite that, the Instructions have not been adhered to by the petitioner. It is submitted that therefore, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.
No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.
Perusal of the record shows that vide Public Announcement dated 18.07.2024 (Annexure R-2/1), the HPSC had prescribed the pattern of examination whereby condition was imposed for securing minimum of 35% marks to clear Subject Knowledge Test and to qualify for interview. The said condition had been challenged by the petitioner vide CWP-33762-2024; which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure R-2/2). Against the said order dated 22.4.2025, LPA is stated to be pending before this Court.
The record further reveals that along with the Admit Card (Annexure P-4 and R-2/3), the respondent No.2/ Commission had issued Instructions to candidates. As per Instruction at Sr. No. 1 it was clearly stated, "Candidates should carefully read and follow the Instructions printed on the Answer Sheets/Question Papers."
Instruction No. 7 with the Admit Card further specifies that “Candidate must not write anything on the Question Paper/Answer Sheet except where a space has been provided.”
Further, Instruction No. 8 of the Instructions given to Candidates at the very first page of the Question-cum-Answer Booklet (Annexure R-2/3) stipulates that “Each question should be answered within the space provided for that particular question. Otherwise, the answer given will not be evaluated.”
Despite the abovesaid explicit, clear and unambiguous Instructions, admittedly petitioner has failed to submit his answers in the space provided; and has written his answers elsewhere. This fact has been admitted by the petitioner in Para 12(vii) of the present writ petition as follows: -
“(vii)That the question paper was provided along with the answer sheet. No additional time was given to read any Instructions. No Instructions were provided on the question paper. The time started with the ringing of bell. The petitioner started writing the answers after ringing of bell, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to read Instructions. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to be a fault, moreover the fault does not go to the root of the matter, therefore, it would be great injustice with the petitioner in case he is denied appointment only because of the above said discrepancies.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Contention of the petitioner that the question numbers had been clearly mentioned by the petitioner against his answers is of no help as, it is established position that the Instructions issued by the Commission are mandatory having force of law and have to be adhered to diligently and to the
letter. In the present case, petitioner has admittedly, not even read the Instructions; and has admittedly not written his answers in the specific space provided. In this situation, prayers of the petitioner cannot be granted and petitioner cannot seek revaluation.
It would be apposite to refer to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. G. Hemalathaa (SC) :Law Finder Doc Id # 1571219 2019 (4) SCT 237. The relevant paras read as under: -
“7.We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent. The Instructions issued by the Commission are mandatory, having the force of law and they have to be strictly complied with. Strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the Instructions is of paramount importance. The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot modify/relax the Instructions issued by the CommissionM. Vennila v. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, (2006) 3 Mad. LJ 376.
8.The High Court after summoning and perusing the answer sheet of the Respondent was convinced that there was infraction of the Instructions. However, the High Court granted the relief to the Respondent on a sympathetic consideration on humanitarian ground. The judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent in Taherakhatoon (D) By LRs v. Salambin Mohammad, 1999(2) RCR (Civil) 206: (1999) 2 SCC 635 and Chandra Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Another 2003(3) S.C.T. 694: (2003) 6 SCC 545 in support of her arguments that we should not entertain this appeal in the absence of any substantial questions of law are not applicable to the facts of this case.
9.In spite of the finding that there was no adherence to the Instructions, the High Court granted the relief, ignoring the
mandatory nature of the Instructions. It cannot be said that such exercise of discretion should be affirmed by us, especially when such direction is in the teeth of the Instructions which are binding on the candidates taking the examinations.
10.In her persuasive appeal, Ms. Mohana sought to persuade us to dismiss the appeal which would enable the Respondent to compete in the selection to the post of Civil Judge. It is a well-known adage that, hard cases make bad law. In Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India (1985) 3 SCC 721, Venkataramiah, J., held that:
"13... exercise of such power of moderation is likely to create a feeling of distrust in the process of selection to public appointments which is intended to be fair and impartial. It may also result in the violation of the principle of equality and may lead to arbitrariness. The cases pointed out by the High Court are no doubt hard cases, but hard cases cannot be allowed to make bad law. In the circumstances, we lean in favour of a strict construction of the Rules and hold that the High Court had no such power under the Rules.
11.Roberts, CJ. in Caperton v. A.T. Massey, 556 U.S. 868 (2009) held that:
"Extreme cases often test the bounds of established legal principles. There is a cost to yielding to the desire to correct the extreme case, rather than adhering to the legal principle. That cost has been demonstrated so often that it is captured in a legal aphorism: "Hard cases make bad law."
12.After giving a thoughtful consideration, we are afraid that we cannot approve the judgment of the High Court as any order in favour of the candidate who has violated the mandatory Instructions would be laying down bad law. The other submission made by Ms. Mohana that an order can be passed by us under Article 142 of the Constitution which shall not be treated as a precedent also does not appeal to us.” (Emphasis supplied)
Similar view has been taken in a subsequent judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief General Manager, BSNL v. M.J. Paul (SC): Law Finder Doc Id # 2220595 2023 Law Finder (SC) 707.
Reference may also be made to order dated 25.02.2026 rendered by coordinate Bench in CWP-4159-2026 titled as Poonam Rani vs. State of Haryana and others, wherein in identical circumstances, similar writ filed had been dismissed in the following manner: -
“3.Pursuant to the last order dated 11.02.2026, learned counsel for the Commission has produced a sample question paper along with answer sheet and Instructions issued to the candidates in the examination form. A perusal whereof shows that instruction no.8 to the candidates is to the following effect:
8.Each question should be answered within the space provided for that particular question. Otherwise, the answer given will not be evaluated. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the candidates were not instructed to answer the question within the space provided for answer to that particular question. Concededly, the petitioner has failed to adhere to the Instructions and has written the answer to question no.12 in the space meant to answer some other question. The Instructions issued were binding on all the candidates and in case the question attempted in violation thereof has not been evaluated by the Commission, no exception can be taken to it.”
In view of the afore-noted factual and legal position, petitioner can derive no benefit from the relied-upon judgment in case of Renu Sharma (supra) which, even otherwise, is distinguishable on facts and law. Thus, no ground is made out to interfere in the present case; and accordingly stands dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.