Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(P&H) 935

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Amit Rawal, J.
Shweta Dhull And Others - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Haryana And Another - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 15002 of 2019
Decided On : 13-08-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Gurminder Singh, Adv., Harpriya Khaneka, Adv., Vishal Garg Narwana, Adv., Nitin Sachdeva, Adv., Sunil Kumar Nehra, Adv., Anurag Goyal, Adv., Aakanksha Sawhney, Adv., Ravinder Bangar, Adv., Sandeep Saini, Adv., Naman Jain, Adv., Chander Singh, Adv., Bhanu Sharma, Adv., Ravi Kadian, Adv., Vineet Kumar, Adv., B.B. Bagga, Adv., Santlal Barwala, Adv., Sajjan Singh, Adv., Rajat Gautam, Adv., Azad Singh, Adv., Ishpuneet Singh, Adv., Adarsh Tiwari, Adv., Aditya Bhushan, Adv., Neeraj Gupta, Adv., Shalini Atri, Adv., Ashish Pannu, Adv., Shreenath A. Khemka, Adv., Rishabh Gupta, Adv., Puneet Bali, Adv., Arun Gupta, Adv., H.N. Mehtani, Adv., Kanwal Goyal, Adv., Shruti Jain Goyal, Adv.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in examining the decision-making process of the examining body, respecting their decisions unless found to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or irrational.

Headnote:
Judicial Review - Preliminary Examination - Haryana Civil Services [Executive Branch] and other Allied Services Preliminary Examination-2017 - 200 Marks - 600 Marks - 75 Marks - [General Studies, Civil Services Aptitude Test] - The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the examination owing to discrepancies in the question papers, bilingual setting, and negative marking. The court upheld the Commission's decision to delete questions, revise answer keys, and award marks on a percentile basis. The court rejected the petitioners' objections and found no ground for interference.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the final result of the Haryana Civil Services [Executive Branch] and other Allied Services Preliminary Examination-2017, citing discrepancies in the question papers, bilingual setting, and negative marking. The petitioners raised objections to the questions and answer keys, alleging unfairness and discrimination.
Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the Commission's actions in deleting questions, revising answer keys, and awarding marks on a percentile basis. The court rejected the petitioners' objections and found no ground for interference.
Issues: The issues involved the fairness and transparency of the examination process, including discrepancies in the question papers, bilingual setting, and negative marking. The court also considered the petitioners' objections and the maintainability of the writ petitions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the examining body's decision to delete questions and revise answer keys was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or irrational, warranting interference. The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review and respected the examining body's decision-making process.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding them devoid of merit and without substance. The court upheld the Commission's actions and found no ground for interference.

JUDGMENT :

Amit Rawal, J.

This order of mine shall dispose of 28 Civil Writ Petitions bearing No.15002 of 2019 (Shweta Dhull & others Versus State of Haryana & another), 16596 of 2019 (Ratish Moar & others Versus State of Haryana & another), 16184 of 2019 (Wazir Dalal Versus State of Haryana & others), 16355 of 2019 (Vibhu Pratap Singh & others Versus State of Haryana & another), 15314 of 2019 (Naman Sharma Versus State of Haryana & another), 16548 of 2019 (Amit Kumar & others Versus State of Haryana & another), 16653 of 2019 (Deepak & others Versus Haryana Public Service Commission), 16568 of 2019 (Hardeep Singh Versus State of Haryana & another), 15331 of 2019 (Ayush Goyal Versus State of Haryana & another), 17339 of 2019 (Pooja Choudhary Versus State of Haryana & another), 17340 of 2019 (Dinesh Versus State of Haryana & another), 17366 of 2019 (Gagan Deep & others Versus State of Haryana & another), 15063 of 2019 (Bhupinder & another Versus State of Haryana & another), 17111 of 2019 (Aastha Chauhan Versus State of Haryana & another), 17810 of 2019 (Amit Kumar & another Versus State of Haryana & another), 17815 of 2019 (Vivek & another Versus State of Haryana & another), 16706 of 2019 (Neha Chandel Versus State of Haryana & another), 16765 of 2019 (Vaibhav Versus State of Haryana & others), 17374 of 2019 (Pooja Dhaka Versus State of Haryana & another), 16359 of 2019 (Amar Singh & others Versus State of Haryana & another), 15835 of 2019 (Randeep Malik Versus Haryana Public Service Commission), 17477 of 2019 (Rajbir Singh & others Versus State of Haryana & another), 14739 of 2019 (Ashwani Kumar Versus State of Haryana & another), 18682 of 2019 (Rahul Geer Versus State of Haryana & another), 19534 of 2019 (Rohit Sharma Versus State of Haryana & another), 19794 of 2019 (Renu Versus State of Haryana & another), 19931 of 2019 (Sugandha Versus State of Haryana & others) and 17051 of 2019 (Nisha Versus State of Haryana & another),as the common questions of facts are involved. In all the writ petitions, challenge has been laid for setting-aside the final result dated 21.05.2019 (Annexure P-11) declared by the Haryana Public Service Commission for Haryana Civil Services [Executive Branch] and other Allied Services Preliminary Examination-2017 being totally vitiated owing to numerous, pervasive mistakes and wrong setting of question papers. The facts are being taken from CWP No.15002 of 2019.

Facts of the case of the petitioners

2. Respondent No.2-Haryana Public Service Commission (for short, Commission) caused an Advertisement No.3 of 2018-19 dated 02.08.2018 seeking recruitment of 166 posts of Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) and other Allied Services and the last date for submission of the applications was fixed as 04.09.2018. As per Clause 6 of the advertisement, the Scheme of Examination envisaged, a preliminary examination meant only for the purpose of screening/short-listing, consisting of two papers, i.e., General Studies and Civil Services Aptitude Test with negative marking. The advertisement also specified that the question papers would be set bilingual, i.e., in English and Hindi and candidates 12 times the number of advertised posts would be invited for main examination. The aforementioned advertisement was issued under the Haryana Civil Service [Executive Branch] Amendment Rules, 2016 (for short, 2016 Rules), where under the Scheme of Examination, 200 marks were kept for preliminary examination, 600 marks for main written examination and 75 marks for personality test. The preliminary examination would be objective type/multiple choice consisting of the aforementioned subjects. The Civil Services Aptitude Test (CSAT) envisaged the following parameters:-

"Paper 2: Civil Services Aptitude Test : 100 marks

-Comprehension

-Interpersonal skills including communication skills

-Logical reasoning and analytical ability

-Decisio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(P&H) 935

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHAmit Rawal, J.Shweta Dhull And Others - AppellantVs.State Of Haryana And Another - RespondentCivil Writ Petition No. 15002 of 2019Decided On : 13-08-2019

The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in examining the decision-making process of the examining body, respecting their decisions unless found to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or irrational.

Cases Referred (13)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Amit Rawal, J.
Shweta Dhull And Others - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Haryana And Another - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 15002 of 2019
Decided On : 13-08-2019