Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3976
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jaswant Singh, J.
Kunal Bansal - Appellant
Versus
Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition Nos. 14303, 15764, 18541, 16083 of 2018
Decided On : 01-08-2018
H.S. Bedi, Advocate, for the Petitioners CWP No. 14303 of 2018; Pankaj Garg, Advocate, for the Petitioners CWP No. 13627 of 2018; Mohit Sadana, Advocate, for the Petitioners CWP Nos. 15764 & 18541 of 2018; Rajeev Anand, Advocate, for the Petitioners in CWP No. 16083 of 2018; CM No. 9136 of 2018 in CWP No. 14303 of 2018 and CM No. 9143 of 2018 in CWP No. 13627 of 2018.; Satinder Kumar, Clerk, Office of PPSC, Patiala. and Mrs. Anu Chatrath Kapur, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the Respondents/State; Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Harpriya Khaneka, Advocate, for the Applicants in CM Nos. 9659-60 of 2018 in CWP No. 14303 of 2018; Dixit Garg, Advocate, for the Applicant in CM No. 10651 of 2018 in CWP No. 14303 of 2018; A.P. Kaushal, Advocate, for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 11 in CWP No. 15764 of 2018; K.S. Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the Respondent Nos. 18 to 21 in CWP No. 15764 of 2018
The judgment established the principle that a Public Service Commission has the power to delete incorrect questions and take remedial steps in conducting examinations, and that its actions must be just and reasonable.
Headnote:
Public Service Commission - Examination Question Withdrawal - Article 315, Article 320 - The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the withdrawal of a question in a competitive examination by the Punjab Public Service Commission. The court held that the Commission has the power to delete incorrect questions and take remedial steps, and that its actions were just and reasonable. The court concluded that the Commission's decision to grant marks to all candidates for the ambiguous question was correctly applied in the facts of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the withdrawal of a question in a competitive examination for the post of 'Inspector-Audit' by the Punjab Public Service Commission. The petitioner contended that the withdrawal of the question and the revised merit list were unjust and detrimental to the candidates.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Commission has the power to delete incorrect questions and take remedial steps, and that its actions were just and reasonable. The court concluded that the Commission's decision to grant marks to all candidates for the ambiguous question was correctly applied in the facts of the case.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Commission had the power to grant marks for the withdrawn question and whether the exercise of deletion/withdrawing of the question was fair and just.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Commission has the power to delete incorrect questions and take remedial steps, and that its actions were just and reasonable. The court concluded that the Commission's decision to grant marks to all candidates for the ambiguous question was correctly applied in the facts of the case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the withdrawal of the question in the competitive examination by the Punjab Public Service Commission.
JUDGMENT
Jaswant Singh, J. - CM No. 9143 of 2018 in CWP No. 13627 of 2018;
CM Nos. 9136, 9659 & 10651 of 2018 in CWP No. 14303 of 2018
Prayer in the present applications is for impleadment of the applicant(s) as party respondents in respective writ petition(s).
For the reasons stated in the application(s), duly supported by the affidavit(s), the same are allowed and the applicants are impleaded as party respondents in respective writ petition(s), as prayed for.
Amended memo of parties are taken on record.
Registry to tag the application(s) at proper place and paginate the paper book accordingly.
MAIN CASE(S)
1. This order shall dispose of the present/aforementioned five writ petitions as counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the facts and points in issue raised in these cases are common in nature. For the sake of convenience, the facts have been taken from the case of CWP No. 14303 of 2018 "Kunal Bansal v. Punjab Public Service Commission and another ".
2. The petitioner impugns the Public Notice dated 04.05.2018 (Annexure P-10) and revised combined merit list (Annexure P-12) issued by the respondent-Punjab Public Service Commission vide which the Question No. 95 of Booklet-A in the competitive examination for the post of `Inspector-Audit' in the Department of Cooperation, has been withdrawn illegally and the Merit List has been revised to the detriment of the petitioner as he was in merit in the result declared on 18.10.2017 (Annexure P-6) and has been out of merit in the revised result declared on 04.05.2018, whereas the Question No.95 could not have been withdrawn by respondent No.1 as there was no ambiguity in the same.
3. Amongst various pleas taken by the petitioner, it is submitted that respondent No. 1-Punjab Public Service Commission issued an advertisement dated 29.11.2016 (P-1) for filling up 545 posts of Inspector Audit, Cooperative Societies in the Department of Cooperation. Government of Punjab. As per the Public Notice dated 28.04.2017 (P-2) issued by respondent No. 1, the competitive examination for the said post was scheduled and conducted on 09.07.2017.
4. It is contended that that question paper was set in 4 different series i.e. Set `A', `B', `C' and `D'. All the questions in each series were same and the only difference was in regards to numbering of questions in each series. Respondent No. 1/Punjab Public Service Commission uploaded the Question Booklet of Series `A' (P-3) along with its answer key (P-4) on its official website.
By a Public Notice dated 09.07.2017 (P-5), objections from candidates were invited from the candidates in regard to any of the question which have been asked in the competitive examination and the said objections were to be sent through email to the Commission along with supporting evidence within 4 days i.e. from 09.07.2017 to 13.07.2017. Along with the Public Notice, a Performa for sending the objections was also provided.
5. Objections were filed by the candidates in which objection was also raised to Question No. 95 in Question Booklet Series `A' and it was submitted that the answer to the question is Option `B' and `C' and option `D' is not the correct answer of Question No. 95. It is contended that the Commission took more than three months to evaluate the various objections filed by the candidates and after taking the expert opinion reached the conclusion that answer to Question No. 95 is option "B and C". Thereupon, a Public Notice dated 18.10.2017 (P-6) was issued wherein answer to Question No. 95 was corrected and it was declared that Option `B and C' is the correct answer to Question No. 95 and revised answer key for Series Set `A' (P-7) was issued. Question No. 95 in regards to which two options `B' and `C' were shown to be correct is as under:-
95. Which of the following income is taxable under the head of "Income from House Property"?
(a) If a person is engaged in a business of letting house properties
(b) House used for a business whose income is exempted
(c) Inco
