Kamlesh Kumari vs Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

Aggrieved by the action of the respondent whereby it cancelled the examination of Lecturer (School New)-Hindi, and thereafter issued fresh

advertisement, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for grant of the following reliefs:

“(I) That impugned notice annexure P-1 dated 20.2.2020 and annexure P-5, dated 02.07.2020 may be quashed and set aside and further direct the

respondent to declare the result of written examination dated 16.02.2020.(II) That the respondent may be directed to continue with the selection

process for the post of Lecturer(School New) - Hindi on the basis of written examination held on 16.2.2020 and take the same to its logical end.â€​

The undisputed facts are that the petitioner appeared in the examination for the posts of Lecturer (School New)-Hindi, held on 16.02.2020.

However, immediately after four days vide notice dated 20.02.2020, the respondent cancelled the examination. It was further stipulated in the notice

that fresh date of examination would be intimated to the candidates in due course.

The respondent-Commission in its reply has stated that after the written objective type examination was held on 16.02.2020, some of the candidates

brought to the notice of the respondent that some of the questions of District Language Officer Examination held in September, 2018, have been

repeated in the examination in question i.e. Examination of Lecturer (School New)-Hindi and after verifying the facts, it was found that there were a

number of questions that were repeated in the question paper of Lecturer (School New)-Hindi. It was after detailed deliberations that the Commission

had decided to cancel the objective type examination for the posts of Lecturer(School New)-Hindi. Lastly, it was averred that since the respondent

had taken a conscious decision to cancel the examination, the writ petition was not maintainable and be dismissed as such.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.5. Shri Ashwani Kaundal, learned counsel for the

petitioner, would argue that suspicion cannot take the place of proof and this Court while deciding and adjudicating upon a similar case being CWP

No. 3796 of 2019 titled ‘Pankaj Sharma and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another’ decided on 03.06.2020, relating to the

‘Patwar Examination-2019’ wherein 45 out of 100 questions were copy, cut and paste from the previously conducted JBT Entrance

Examination, had still not interfered.

The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the aforesaid judgment is totally misplaced as in that case, this Court had earlier

directed CBI inquiry and it was on the basis of the report submitted by the CBI that this Court did not choose to interfere.7. It appears that this petition

has been filed more out of on an apprehension that the petitioner would be debarred being over-aged as she is now 45 years of age in case a new

advertisement is issued. Even this apprehension is ill-founded as the terms and conditions of the advertisement have not been changed and candidates,

who were between the age of 18 and45 years as on 01.01.2019 like previous advertisement are eligible to apply.8. Lastly and more importantly, if the

respondent has collected sufficient material to show that the entire selection would be vitiated having lost its sanctity and has chosen to cancel the

same as it was likely to cause more injustice to a large number of candidates, then we really see no reason why the Court should interfere with the

conscious decision taken by the respondent.

Once, an irregularity or illegality is detected and the authorities came to a conscious decision that a fair selection will not be possible, then, in such

circumstances, cancelling the entire selection process would not be vitiated. This would depend on fact situation of each case.

In addition to the aforesaid, this Court would loath to interfere with the conscious decision taken by the respondent in absence of any allegation of

malafides against the respondent or its members.

In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending

application(s), if any.