Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 2855
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAVI SHANKER JHA, C.J., ARUN PALLI, J.
Monu – Appellant
Versus
Haryana Staff Selection Commission – Respondent
LPA NO. 932 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 25-05-2023
Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sachit Singla, Advocate; For the Appellant
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Judicial Review - The Supreme Court rulings articulate the legal standards for judicial interference in assessments by expert committees. The court emphasized that where expert opinions are involved, judicial scrutiny is limited. (Paras 2, 6)
(B) Change in Answer Key - The appellate authority upheld the decision of the Single Judge, noting that the revision applied uniformly to all candidates and no discrimination was evident. (Paras 3, 6)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the alteration of the answer to question No. 99 after his successful exam attempt led to disqualification due to a revised answer key. The change was made following expert evaluation, applicable to all candidates.
Findings of Court:
The appellant’s petition was dismissed, upholding the authority's reliance on the expert committee's judgment.
Issues: The primary issues included the qualifications of the expert committee and the procedural fairness in altering the answer key.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that expert evaluations, once confirmed, are not to be questioned by courts; the established timeline of events resulted in the court declining to intervene further.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's appeal dismissed based on exam result dispute. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. change in answer key reviewed by experts upheld. (Para 3) |
| 3. argument regarding expert committee's qualifications presented. (Para 4) |
| 4. court lacks jurisdiction over experts' decisions. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. appeal dismissed; no merit found. (Para 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Ravi Shanker Jha, C.J. (Oral)
This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by an order and judgment dated 09.08.2022, whereby the writ petition (CWP-21821-2018) preferred by him has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the petition are that pursuant to an advertisement (P-2) issued by the respondent in the year 2015, the appellant applied for the post of Clerk. He appeared in the written examination on 20.11.2016. The result (P-6) was published on 09.10.2017. The appellant secured 152 marks and being successful, he was called for interview. However, subsequently on a query being raised by some other candidate in respect of correctness of answer in the model answer-key in respect of question No. 99 of question paper Series-A in the subject of Hindi, the expert committee examined the matter and thereafter changed answer to the said question, as a result of which the revised result was declared on 15.03.2018 and the appellant could not get the appointment. Thereafter, the appellant obtained the revised answer key under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and approached the respondent challenging the correctness of answer to question No. 99 of question paper Series-A in the subject of Hindi, determined by the expert committee. As the appellant's efforts did not yield any result, he filed writ petition before this Court, challenging the act of the authorities in changing answer to said question No. 99 and his resultant disqualification.
3. Learned Single Judge, after examining the matter and considering the return filed by the respondent, took note of the fact that correctness of answer given to question No.99 of question paper Series-A in the subject of Hindi was examined by a panel of three experts and the model answer-key was revised on the basis of the opinion of the expert committee. Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that the matter has been examined by an expert committee and the Court cannot sit over the same and express any opinion to the contrary. Learned Single Judge has also held that change in answer to question No.99 was applied to all the candidates and, therefore, no case of discrimination is made out. It has been further held that the appellant approached the Court after lapse of six months of declaration of the result and, in such circumstances, the petition could not be entertained.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the respondent - Commission in its reply, did not specifically state as to whether the expert committee constituted by the authorities comprised of a person who was a subject-expert, i.e. a person who was expert in the subject of Hindi. He submits that in such circumstances, as the answer to question No.99 given by the appellant was in accordance with the material that he had taken into consideration and had studied, therefore opinion of the expert committee should be ignored. He further submits that answer to the said question was changed by the authorities without giving any opportunity to the appellant and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the petition.
5. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
6. The law regarding the scope of interference in such matters has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Rishal and others v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others (2018) 8 SCC 81; Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, through its Chairman and another v. Rahul Singh and another (2018) 7 SCC 254; Ran Vijay Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2018) 2
