Point of Law : Practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation and that too in absence of any specific provision in relevant rules for re-evaluation and that too while exercising powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India is disapproved.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

Since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in both these petitions, they are taken up together for consideration and are now being disposed of vide common judgment.

2. The respondents vide advertisement dated 19.12.2018, invited applications from the eligible candidates for filling up the post of TGT (Non-Medical). The petitioners being fully eligible applied for the same and appeared in the written test held for the said purpose. According to the petitioners, the respondents released the provisional answer key of all the series of question paper and invited objections. Since the petitioners found some of key answers to be incorrect, they too raised objections. Later, the respondents on 28.6.2019 declared the result, wherein the petitioners were declared as successful and were called for written objective test. However, when the final result for the post was declared on 5.8.2019, the petitioners were stunned and surprised to see that their names do not find mention in the final select list only because the respondents have not considered the objections raised by the petitioners regarding the correctness of question Nos. 25 and 51 in the case of petitioner in CWP No. 2561 of 2019 and question Nos. 125 and 144 in the case of petitioner in CWP No. 2556 of 2019 constraining the petitioners to file the present petitions seeking direction to the respondents to re-consider and re-examine the answer key.

3. On 12th August, 2021, a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order:-

“The respondent-H.P. Staff Selection Commission shall submit a report as to why the answers as furnished by the petitioners are not acceptable to them, alongwith reasons.”

4. In compliance to the directions, the respondents have now filed compliance report, giving therein a detailed explanation alongwith documents in support of their claim. However, the petitioners would still contend that the answers as given by the respondents are still incorrect and are thus required to be rectified.

5. In such circumstances, the moot question is: what would be the scope of judicial review in the given facts and circumstances of the case. This question has already been considered by the Court in CWP No. 4999 of 2021, titled Upanshu Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another and connected matter, decided on 7th September, 2021, wherein this Court has observed as under:-

“12. The powers of this Court to have opinion different to that of the experts, in the matter of evaluation of answers in competitive examination, is well defined. In this context, reference can be made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others (1984) 4 SCC 27, wherein it has held as under:

“29. Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defeasive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in pra