AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)
Prayer in the present writ petition is for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing and setting aside the impugned Final Answer Key dated 02.05.2026 (Annexure P-8) pertaining to Paper-II (Civil Services Aptitude Test), to the limited extent whereby the answer to Question No. 50 of the Master Set dated 27.04.2026 (Annexure P-5), corresponding to Question No. 34 of the petitioner's booklet (Annexure P-4), has been changed from option "D" to option "A", in violation of the settled proposition of law laid down by this Court vide judgment dated 28.09.2017 passed in CWP No. 8015 of 2017, titled Ramandeep Kaur v. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) (Annexure P-10), wherein it was specifically held that objections received against the provisional answer key are required to be published on the official website and cross-objections be invited; further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to re-evaluate the petitioner's result by treating option "D" as the correct answer to the aforesaid question, re-compute his score and shortlist him as eligible for appearing in the Main Examination, and consequently permit him to participate in the further stages of the recruitment process, subject to his eligibility and the outcome of the present writ petition.
Order sheets show that since the very inception of the present writ petition filed on 08.6.2026 none has appeared on behalf of petitioner including on the last two dates i.e. 15.6.2026 and 06.7.2026.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-HPSC has informed this Court that the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous as the main examination already stands conducted by the Commission between 27.6.2026 to 29.6.2026.
It is further submitted that the issue in the present case was whether the questions formulated by the Commission were correct or incorrect. It is submitted that the said issue in respect of the present selection already stands considered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 15.6.2026 rendered in Vardhman Ranjan and others vs. State of Haryana and another 2026 NCPHHC 87511 Law Finder Doc Id #2927473, wherein the questions so formulated by the Commission were held to be correct in para 11 and 17 of the said judgment, which reads as follows :-
17.As laid down by Supreme Court, in case of doubt, the benefit of doubt should be given to Selection Committee, however, in the absence of doubt/ambiguity, the candidates cannot be deprived of marks of correct answer. On examination of final answer key prepared by Commission and answers suggested by petitioners, it comes out that it cannot be conclusively held that answers suggested by subject experts are manifestly incorrect. Thus, there is no scope to substitute opinion of subject experts. There is doubt with respect to answer of Question No. 59 (General Studies). The said question relates to Haryana Parivar Pehchan Act, 2021. As per afore-cited judgments, benefit of doubt must be extended to Selection Commission. Other questions are relating to art, culture, finance, budget, revenue etc. The answers to these questions, as suggested by subject experts, seem to be correct e.g. as per petitioners, estimated fiscal deficit for Haryana as per budget 2026-2027 is 2.6%. A perusal of budget reveals that correct figure is 2.65%. As per petitioners, there is no difference between 2.6% and 2.65%. Contention of petitioners is misconceived. Similarly, as per petitioners, maximum tax revenue of the State as per budget 2026-2027 comes from State GST followed by Stamps and Registration. A perusal of budget reveals that maximum tax revenue comes from State GST followed by share from Central Taxes.”
The grievance of the petitioner is also that petitioner was not permitted to file cross objections in the matter. As regards the right of the petitioner to submit cross-objections, the said issue has also been examined in the aforesaid judgment in para 18 thereof, which reads as follows :-
“18.The petitioners are claiming that revised key was released without granting them opportunity to file cross objections. They are relying upon judgment of this court in Ramandeep Kaur (supra). A Division Bench of this Court in Sukhnoor Singh v. Haryana Public Service Commission, Law Finder Doc Id#2610722 as well as a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Amit and Others v. State of Haryana and Others. Law Finder Doc Id#2687746, after considering aforesaid judgment of Ramandeep Kaur (supra), has held that there is no rule, regulation or any term/condition in the advertisement which permits candidates to file cross objections. The respondent-Commission in the present case has acted in a bona fide and transparent manner. The Commission has tried to resolve all the issues raised by candidates. If contention of petitioners is accepted, there would be never ending process of raising objections and it would be impossible for the Commission to finalize selection process. The Court cannot ignore the fact that exam in question was preliminary and final exam is going to take place in the end of this month. Any interference on the part of this Court, at the behest of very few unsuccessful candidates, would stall the entire selection process which would be precarious for the public at large as well as candidates who have been selected for the final exam.”
Heard.
In view of the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No.2-HPSC, the present writ petition is disposed of as infructuous.
In case any cause of action survives, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach this Court within a period of four weeks from today.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.