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 the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, especially a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to revise the latest answer key (Annexure P-11) and further issue fresh answer key after considering the submissions and recognized study material submitted in this petition with regard to disputed answer key as one question disputed by the petitioner requires revision because the final answer key to the said question is demonstrably erroneous and incorrect, causing grave prejudice to the petitioner, who had rightly answered the said question in the recruitment exam held on 16.10.2022 for the post of Agricultural Development Officer (Admn. Cadre) in Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department, Haryana (Respondent No.2); AND directions may be issued to respondents to conduct the interview/viva voce of the petitioner as the petitioner is short of one correct answer for meeting the eligibility score of 50% in the recruitment exam conducted on 16.10.2022 for post of Agricultural Development Officer.
Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1-Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) had invited applications for the post of Agricultural Development Officer (Admn. Cadre) vide Advt. No.14/2022 dated 24.06.2022 (Annexure P-1). Petitioner had applied for the same. Vide Announcement dated 05.09.2022 (Annexure P-3) it was stated that in order to be eligible for being called for interview/viva-voce, 50% qualifying marks under General/Unreserved category and 45% qualifying marks for all Reserved Categories are required in the recruitment test. Thereafter, Admit Card (Annexure P-2) was issued to the petitioner for recruitment exam held on 16.10.2022. Petitioner had duly appeared in the recruitment examination on 16.10.2022. Petitioner was allotted Question Booklet Series ‘C’ (Annexure P-4). In answer to Question No. 48, petitioner had marked Option ‘A’ in his OMR Sheet. On 27.10.2022, Commission had uploaded Answer Key (Annexure P-6) and had invited objections regarding wrong questions/answers. In the said Answer Key, petitioner’s answer to Question No. 48 was mentioned as correct. Result of recruitment examination was declared on 22.12.2022 (Annexure P-9), in which petitioner’s name was not shown. In the said exam, petitioner had secured 49.16%. Consequentially, petitioner was not invited for interview/viva -voce. Thereafter, Final Result was declared on 03.01.2023 (Annexure P-10) in which also petitioner’s name was not mentioned. Final answer Key (Annexure P-11) was uploaded on 02.02.2023 in which petitioner’s answer to Question No.48 was shown to be wrong as answer to Question No. 48 was shown to be Option ‘D’, whereas petitioner had chosen Option ‘A’.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the perusal of the aforesaid facts, it is clear that Final Answer Key was published only on 02.02.2023 (Annexure P-11), i.e. after declaration of Result dated 22.12.2022 (Annexure P-9) of the recruitment examination, and even after declaration of final result on 3.1.2023. As such, the petitioner had no opportunity to file cross-objections and point out that in the previous Answer Key dated 27.10.2022 (Annexure P-6), petitioner's answer to Question No.48 as Option ‘A’ was shown to be correct. Ld. counsel contends that if the petitioner had been granted an opportunity to file cross-objections, he would have pointed out that the Final Answer Key dated 02.02.2023 (Annexure P-11) was incorrect. Therefore, petitioner has been deprived of valuable opportunity of submitting cross-objections; thereby causing grave injustice to him.
Learned counsel further relies upon Single Judge judgment of this Court in Ramandeep Kaur v. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 907010; wherein it is held that:
“24.The above discussion reveals that while there is no doubt that many cases were decided on their own facts yet over the last 35 years an organic jurisprudence has evolved to cater to different situations arising out of mistakes committed in the questions/answers set for competitive examinations. The objective of the Courts has been to evolve such a resolution mechanism which renders the system just and fair & to this end they have developed various tools viz. publication of answer key, invitation of objections within a limited time frame and consideration thereof by independent subject experts. The process is however not yet complete and that is why litigation of this nature is still burdening the system.
25.One important aspect which has to be considered is the role of the original experts who set the paper. Even in Kanpur University case (supra) the Supreme Court held that normally the key answer furnished by the paper setter and accepted by the University as correct should be assumed to be so unless it is proved to be wrong. However, in Jitender Kumar case (supra) this Court held that the objections should not be referred to the original paper setter but to independent experts. In my opinion, the original paper setter cannot be completely dissociated from any process by which his questions/answers are being evaluated and has a duty as well as a right to respond to the objections and that response must also be forwarded to the independent experts. As a matter of fact in one such exam for the Judicial Services held by this Court, an objection regarding one particular question was filed and in support thereof reference was made to one decision of the Privy Council. That objection was accepted. However, it later transpired that there was a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court which held the field. After that episode this Court initiated a process whereby all the objections to the answer key were uploaded on the website and an opportunity was granted to all the candidates to file cross objections thereto. To my mind, these two new tools would go a long way in sanctifying the resolution mechanism. Another aspect which was highlighted by the Supreme Court in Guru Nanak Dev University case (supra) was the issue of action to be taken against those responsible for 'the entire confusion and the mess'. To this end it would be the duty of every examining body to ensure that some kind of punitive action be taken against such persons.
To summarize:-
i)It must be mandatory that the objections which are received be also published on the website and cross objections be invited within a certain timeframe. This is necessary because just as the objectors have a right to show how and why the prescribed question or answer is wrong, those students who have answered it as per the answer key have a right to show that the prescribed question/answer is correct.
ii) It must be the duty of the original paper-setter/s to respond to the objections within the same time period and then the objections, cross-objections and the reply of the paper-setter/s should be referred to an independent subject experts who have to deal with the objections.
iii)The examining bodies must prescribe the permissible level of mistakes in question paper/s/answer keys and take appropriate punitive action against those examiners who flout the prescribed level of mistakes.
Once these further safeguards are engrafted to the system of competitive tests (especially those with objective type questions) it would go further in restoring the credibility of this dispute resolution system since the issue of correctness of questions/answers and any remedial measures to be taken would be decided after having the views of all concerned, thus obviating any allegation of arbitrariness or lack of hearing.”
It is submitted that therefore, petitioner could not have been deprived of the opportunity to file cross objections.
Ld. counsel also submits that grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner as other objections submitted by various candidates were not published as a result of which, petitioner was not granted any opportunity to controvert the same and show that his answer was correct.
It is lastly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in actual fact, Option ‘A’ submitted by the petitioner in respect of Question No. 48 is the correct answer as per the study material available online on the website of Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute (IASRI) which is a pioneer institute of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), it is clearly mentioned that Protein Energy Malnutrition (PEM) is the most widespread form of malnutrition among pre-school children of our country. It is further mentioned that a majority of pre-school children of India suffer from varying grades of malnutrition.
He accordingly prays that the present Writ Petition be allowed; and following prayers be accepted: -
“(i)A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to revise the latest answer key (Annexure P-11) and further issue fresh answer key after considering the submissions and recognized study material submitted in this petition with regard to disputed answer key as one question disputed by the petitioner requires revision because the final answer key to the said question is demonstrably erroneous and incorrect, causing grave prejudice to the petitioner, who had rightly answered the said question in the recruitment exam held on 16.10.2022 for the post of Agricultural Development Officer (Admn. Cadre) in Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department, Haryana (Respondent No.2).
(ii)Issue directions to respondents to conduct the interview/viva voce of the petitioner as the petitioner is short of one correct answer for meeting the eligibility score of 50% in the recruitment exam conducted on 16.10.2022 for the post of Agricultural Development Officer (Admn. Cadre) in Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department, Haryana (Respondent No.2).”
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Commission has vehemently opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and pointed out that the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not granted opportunity to submit cross-objections, has nowhere been pleaded by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. Nonetheless, the said issue stands settled by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP-8510-2024 titled as Sukhnoor Singh vs. Haryana Public Service Commission and another; wherein prayer for grant of opportunity to lead cross-objections has been rejected.
It is also submitted that the issue as to whether Expert opinion as sought by the Commission can be reappraised by this Court, already stands settled by numerous judgments; wherein it has been held that Court cannot substitute its opinion in place of the Expert opinion. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ Petition.
No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions of the petitioner.
The main contention raised by the petitioner is that first Answer Key was uploaded on 27.10.2022 (Annexure P-6) and objections were invited. In the said Answer Key, answer submitted by the petitioner to Question No.48 i.e. Option ‘A’ was found to be correct. As such, petitioner had no reason to submit objections to the same. However, in the Final Answer Key (Annexure P-11) uploaded on 02.02.2023, petitioner’s answer to Question No. 48 was shown to be incorrect. As the said Answer Key was uploaded after announcement of Final Result on 03.01.2023 (Annexure P-10), petitioner had no opportunity of submitting cross-objections - as required vide judgment passed in Ramandeep Kaur’s case (supra).
Notwithstanding the fact that the above pleas have not been raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition, even otherwise, there is no merit to the said argument of the petitioner. As pointed out by learned counsel for the Commission, the issue of filing of cross-objections has been considered and rejected by a Division Bench of this Court in case of Sukhnoor Singh (supra). Relying upon the same, a Coordinate Bench in CWP-30309-2024 titled as Amit and others vs. State of Haryana and others, Neutral Citation No. 2025:PHHC:001352, decided on 08.01.2025; has held as under: -
“8.So far as deletion of eleven questions from the Screening Test is concerned, that also cannot be a ground in itself to set aside the test. It remains undisputed on record that after conducting the Test, the Commission invited objections from the candidates against the provisional answer key. The same were sent to the concerned subject experts and only on the basis of their opinion the answer key was finalised; the deletion of questions was also based on their advice. Thereafter, the result of Screening Test was prepared without assigning any marks for the deleted questions. Resultantly, all the examinees have been treated at par. Merely because some of them attempted the deleted questions and their answers were correct as per the provisional answer key, this would not give them any right to object to the deletion because, firstly, correct answer to the question(s) had not been finalised by then and, secondly, in the face of experts' opinion against inclusion of those questions in the Test, a candidate had no right to claim marks against the same. It is not the petitioners' case that there is any bar on deletion of questions. Besides, there is no mala fide alleged against the subject experts, nor has any other document been placed on record discrediting their judgment in deciding the objections and/or recommending deletion of questions. In these circumstances, the Commission is within its rights to delete the questions based on the experts opinion. XX XX
9.The last submission of learned counsel for the petitioners to challenge the validity of Screening Test on account of failure of the Commission to invite cross-objections from the candidates, is also not sustainable in view of law laid down by the Division Bench in Sukhnoor Singh case (supra). In that case one of the grounds challenging the answer key of preliminary examination and the result of Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Examination 2023-24 was, failure of the Commission to invite cross-objections before finalising the answer key. It was repelled by this Court by holding as under:
“27.The argument that the process is vitiated due to failure to provide an opportunity of submitting cross-objections by the candidates who had given their answers as per the provisional Answer Key is also an argument devoid of any merit, hence rejected. It is pertinent to note at this stage that there is no rule, regulation or any term or condition in the advertisement which permits revaluation of the answer sheets or submission of objections/cross-objections. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in High Court of Tripura through Registrar General Vs. Tirtha Sarthi Mukherjee and others, 2019(2) SCT 117 has held that the right to seek a writ of mandamus is based on the existence of a legal right and a corresponding duty with the answering respondent to carry out a public duty. In the absence of any such provision, the writ Court should exercise jurisdiction only in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. It is relevant to note at this stage that no allegation of mala fide has been pleaded or alleged against the Expert Panel or the Selection Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioners were unable to point out any exceptional or extraordinary circumstance, which calls for our interference.”
9.1In the instant case as well there is no rule, regulation or any term or condition in the advertisement which permits submission of cross-objections by the candidates. In the absence whereof, no right accrues to the petitioners to seek a direction from this Court to that effect. Besides, no illegality or unfairness as such has been pointed out in the process adopted by the Commission in finalising the result after inviting the objections and taking experts' opinion on the same, except that it is not as per the directions issued in Ramandeep Kaur case (supra). No doubt this Court while deciding the case pertaining to recruitment made by the CSIR issued certain directions to invite cross objections also before finalising the answer key, it would not afford any ground to term the instant Test result illegal. As in a subsequent decision on the issue in Sukhnoor Singh case (supra) the Division Bench has declined the challenge to answer key and result due to failure to invite cross-objections. The judgment remains a binding precedent after dismissal of SLP against it by the Supreme Court vide order dated 11.07.2024. Besides, not inviting the cross-objections also has not caused any prejudice to the petitioners, as they have failed to show the questions which were correctly answered by them as per the provisional answer key but were declared wrong in the final answer key; as also, the validity of such answers in the face of the experts' opinion to the contrary.”
It may be pointed out that although ld. Counsel for the petitioner has not raised any argument regarding deletion of questions, however, in the writ petition, it has been pleaded that petitioner could not secure the required 50% marks due to deletion of 11 questions. However, even the said issue stands settled in para 8 of the afore reproduced order.
No judgment to the contrary has been shown by learned counsel for the petitioner. Further, it is to be appreciated that if process of inviting cross-objections is started, it would be a never-ending process. More importantly, once the Independent Expert Body has given opinion as to the correct answer to a Question, the same has to prevail. Admittedly, revised Answer Key is prepared by an Independent Expert Body after due consideration. Based on revised Answer Key provided by the Expert Body, Result of written examination was declared on 22.12.2022.
As regards contention of the petitioner that as per the data gathered by the petitioner, the petitioner’s answer as Option ‘A’ was correct answer and the answer to Question No. 48 as shown vide Final Answer Key dated 02.02.2023 (Annexure P-11) as Option ‘D’ is incorrect, the said issue is no longer res integra. It has been settled by numerous precedents that even this Court cannot interfere or substitute its own opinion over that of the Expert Body. The foremost case in this regard is landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 944245; wherein it is held as under:-
“31.On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse - exclude the suspect or offending question.
32.It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the Courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination - whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the Court; whether they will get admission in a college or University or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers.”
It is also relevant to note that after declaration of the final result on 3.1.2023, the Commission had recommended candidates for appointment on 24.01.2023. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition on 13.02.2023, however, without impleading the persons so recommended by the Commission. Thus, present Writ Petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties also.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to controvert or dispute the above said factual and legal position.
Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed.
Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.