IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 02.07.2025 Harshit Jain ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab.

***

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)

1. Learned counsel states that against the revised answer key dated 29.08.2024 uploaded/issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3, the petitioner had raised objections, one out of which, stands corrected, however, 4 answers remain unchanged.

2. Learned State counsel refers to para 5 of the short reply filed by Secretary, Examinations, Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala, dated

08.05.2025, which reads thus:-

“That it is also noteworthy to mention here that with regard to the e-mail sent by the petitioner on 02.01.2025 (Annexure P7), it is brought to the notice that in paragraph no.4 of the Public Notice dated 05.05.2024 (Annexure R-1), the following provision was already included for the information of the candidates, relevant part of the above said provision is mentioned hereinafter for the kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court:- ‘There will be no separate replies given to the candidates who may have put objections. The revised answer key is an indication, if his/her objection has been accepted or rejected.’

3. A reference can be made to judgment dated 28.05.2025 passed in CWP-19486-2021 titled as Lakshay Chahal vs. Haryana Staff Selection Commission and another, wherein issue of answer key has been extensively dealt with by referring to the law laid down in this regard by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, relevant paras whereof read thus:-

“34. This Court reiterates the settled principle of law that in matters pertaining to academic evaluation; the setting and assess- ment of questions in competitive examinations, the opinion of the Expert Committee is to be accorded primacy and deference. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. reported as (2018) 2 SCC 357 has held as under:

30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:

30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examina- tion permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it;

30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examina- tion does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re- evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any ”inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a ma-

terial error has been committed;

30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the an- swer sheets of a candidate—it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;

30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and

30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examina-

tion authority rather than to the candidate.

(Emphasis supplied)

35. Moreover, this court cannot sit in appeal over academic deci- sions unless shown to be palpably wrong, irrational, or perverse. In the present matter, there is no credible material to demonstrate that the decision of the Expert Committee suffers from any such vice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of U.P. Public Ser- vice Commission v. Rahul Singh, reported as (2018) 7 SCC 254 while addressing the issue of correctness of answers provided in an official answer key, held that the key prepared by subject ex- perts is entitled to a presumption of correctness. The Court ob- served that judicial interference with such expert-determined an- swers should be minimal and exercised only when it is demon- strated that the answer provided is patently erroneous, indisputa- bly incorrect, or i