Rounding off of marks is not permissible when the eligibility criteria have been prescribed for a particular examination.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral). - Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the result of the written examination dated 01.01.2021 declared by the Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission') for the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil), which were advertised by the respondent-Commission vide Advertisement No. 5 dated 17.11.2015 (Annexure P-1), on the ground that the answers in the answer key to the questions in the written examination were not correct and the objections submitted by the petitioner to the said answer keys have been rejected summarily without any application of mind.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of present writ petition are that the respondent-Commission issued an Advertisement No. 5 of 2015 (Annexure P-l) advertising the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and Assistant Engineer (Mechanical). 27 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) were advertised out of which 6 posts were reserved for the Backward Class A (BCA) candidates. The criteria for the selection for the said posts was that there would be three objective type papers and two conventional papers of 200 marks each and viva-voce will be for 125 marks. The objective type papers were General Ability Test, Civil Engineering Paper-I and Civil Engineering Paper-II. As per the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement, in order to qualify for interview, a candidate has to obtain at least 40% marks in each paper and not less than 50% marks in aggregate in all the papers which he/she will undertake.

3. Petitioner appeared in the examination, which were held from 03.09.2020 to 05.09.2020 and the result of the said written examination was declared by the respondent-Commission on 01.01.2021. Petitioner was not found successful in the written examination and therefore, was not called for interview.

4. Petitioner has approached this Court with the grievance that the answer key uploaded by the respondent-Commission in respect of the written examination held on 08.09.2020, does not carry correct answers. The grievance has been raised by the petitioner qua Question No. 45 of the Civil Engineering Paper-I, Question No. 27 of the Civil Engineering Paper-II and Question Nos. 25, 62, 97, 98 of the General Ability Test.

5. As the petitioner remained unsuccessful in convincing the respondents qua the alleged faulty answer key in respect of Question Nos. 97 and 98 of the General Ability Test, the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer that the result of the written examination, which has been declared by the respondents on 01.01.2021, be scrapped/set-aside and the same be declared afresh by correcting the answer key to the questions, in respect of which, the petitioner has raised objections.

6. After notice of motion, respondents have filed reply to the writ petition. The contention of the respondents in the reply is that the answer key to the questions, in respect of which the petitioner had raised objections, was correct and the respondents have defended the answer key, which was uploaded. In the reply, the respondents have submitted that keeping in view the various objections received from the students including the petitioner, the same were put before the Expert Committee for their consideration and keeping in view the recommendations of the Expert Committee, the Commission had taken following decisions :-

"a) Objection regarding question No. 45 of Civil Engineering Paper-1 has been accepted.

b) Questions No. 25 and 62 of General Ability Paper have been found to be ambiguous and hence recommended for deletion by the Expert Committee.

c) Objections regarding question No. 27 of Civil Engineering Paper-II and question No. 97 and 98 of General Ability Paper have not been accepted by the Expert Committee.

Consequently, appropriate action has been taken by the answering respondent-Commission by accepting the recommendations of the subject Expert Committee. Accordingly, the petitioner has bee