IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 20.02.2025 Jasmine ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate with Mr. Rahul Gautam, Advocate and Mr. Navneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

Ms. Savreet Brar, Advocate for Mr. Balvinder Sangwan, Advocate for respondent No.2-HPSC.

Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate and Ms. Harshita Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.3- High Court.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, JUDGE

1. The petition in hand filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, in essence, is aimed at quashing of the final result dated 16.10.2024 of Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) examination to the extent that it declares the petitioner as an unsuccessful candidate and for issuance of consequential direction(s) for carrying out the requisite re- evaluation of one of the questions answered by the petitioner and awarding of requisite marks for same & for consequential appointment of the petitioner to the post of Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate under the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial) Examination 2023-24. The edifice of the relief(s) sought for by the petitioner is that her answer to one of the questions has not been correctly evaluated on account of which no marks were awarded to her for the said question.

2. Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the lis in hand is adumbrated, thus:

(i) Aspiring to be a Judicial Officer the petitioner applied in response to the advertisement dated 07.11.2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘07.11.2023 advertisement’) issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred as ‘HPSC’) for appointment as ‘Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate under the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial) Examination 2023-24’.

(ii) Clause 33 of the Advertisement in question reads thus:

“33. Re-evaluation of answer sheets is not allowed. Only re-checking of answer sheets (i.e. no part of the answer sheets has been left unevaluated or there is no totaling error) on a written request from a candidate can be allowed on payment of fee of Rs.200/- per answer sheet (in the shape of Indian Postal Orders Payable in favour of Secretary, Haryana Public Service Commission, Bays No. 1-10, Block-B, Sector-4, Panchkula) within thirty days from the date of display of marks on the official website of High Court/Commission. No separate request in this regard by any candidate or any other person on their behalf shall be entertained under the RTI Act for re-checking etc.”

(iii) The final result was announced on 16.10.2024 wherein the petitioner is stated to have secured a total of 549.10 marks but could not get selected as the cut-off marks for the final merit list was 550 marks.

(iv) The petitioner sought for copy of her answer-sheet, through RTI, and on perusal of the same she is stated to have found that one of the questions answered by her was incorrectly evaluated and she was awarded zero marks for the same. The said question i.e. question No.5(ix) (hereinafter referred to as ‘question in issue’) in the English examination reads, thus:-

“Q5. Correct the following sentences:

i) xxx xxx xxx ii) xxx xxx xxx iii) xxx xxx xxx iv) xxx xxx xxx v) xxx xxx xxx vi) xxx xxx xxx vii) xxx xxx xxx viii) xxx xxx xxx ix) Although he is so short, but he plays basketball x) xxx xxx xxx”

The answer submitted by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘answer in issue’) to this question reads, thus:

“(ix) Although he is short, he plays basketball.”

(v) The petitioner has accordingly petitioned this Court on the premise that the above evaluation is incorrect and hence she ought to have been accorded marks for the same.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; led by Sh. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate; have argued that a perusal of the answer given by the petition