'No Violation Of Constitutional Rights': High Court Refuses To Interfere With Haryana Civil Judge Rule Prohibiting Re-Evaluation Of Answer Sheet

The Punjab & Haryana High Court on Friday (February 28) refused to interfere with a clause in an advertisement for recruitment of Haryana Civil Judge whereby re-evaluation of answer was prohibited, observing that no violation of constitutional right was proved.

The Court dismissed a plea moved by an unsuccessful candidate seeking re-evaluation of mains-answer sheet who was short of 1.9 marks from qualifying the mains exam in the scheduled caste category in which she had applied. 

For context, Clause 33 of the advertisement stated that 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 totalling error) on a written request from a candidate can be allowed on payment of fee of Rs.200 per answer sheet.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel said, "no substantive or tangible material has emerged that impels this Court to conclude that the prohibition contained in Clause 33 is tainted by any infirmity nay legal infirmity. The petitioner has failed to establish any manifest flaw or illegality in the Clause 33 that would justify judicial intervention. In the absence of any clear violation of legal principles or constitutional rights, this Court finds no compelling or riveting cause(s) to interfere with the validity of Clause 33. Mere dis-satisfaction with the clause, without the presentation of concrete edifice of its legal defect, does not warrant any alteration or annulment of the provision."

Speaking for the bench Justice Sumeet Goel explained that in the absence of any clear violation of legal principles or constitutional rights, the Court found that no compelling or riveting cause(s) to interfere with the validity of Clause 33. Mere dis-satisfaction with the clause, without the presentation of concrete edifice of its legal defect, does not warrant any alteration of or annulment of the provision.

The petition was filed under Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution, challenging 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 by laying challenge to Clause 33 of the advertisement issued for the examination in question and for issuance of ensuing direction(s) for carrying out the re- evaluation to one of the questions answered by the petitioner. The plea also sought direction for the appointment of the candidate.

The counsel appearing the petitioner Diksha Kalson argued that through RTI it was found that in the English exam, one of the questions on making sentence answered by her in English examination was incorrectly evaluated and she was awarded zero marks for the same.

In order to make a sentence using the word, "eloquent", Kalson had answered- "Public Officers become so eloquent and poised after going through the training process."

The counsel relied on independent opinion from various esteemed Professors as also English language experts including online search engines and Artificial-Intelligence databases and it was contended her answer was not only grammatically correct but was also aligned with the Standard English.

It was further argued that an absolute prohibition on re-evaluation of answer sheets as contained in Clause 33 of the  advertisement is ultra vires the constitutional mandate and infringes upon a candidate's right to have her answer sheet re-evaluated.

Absolute bar on re-evaluation of answer sheet not ultra vires the Constitution

After hearing the submissions, the Court considered the question, "whether the answer in issue stated by the petitioner to the question in issue deserves to be got re-evaluated."

The Court rejected the petitioner's contention that absolute prohibition on re-evaluation of answer sheets as contained in Clause 33 of the advertisement is ultra vires the constitutional mandate.

It observed that, "it is an ineluctable legal principle that once a candidate has voluntarily applied for and participated in a selection process, she is interdicted from subsequently challenging its legality or fairness of the process, based on the doctrine of estoppel. This principle operates to prevent a party from approbating and reprobating at the same time viz.; one cannot accept the benefits of a process while simultaneously disputing its validity."

Such conduct would be contradictory and inconsistent, akin to blowing hot and cold simultaneously, undermining the integrity of the process and the principles of fairness that govern administrative procedures, it added.

The bench said that, "It is within the exclusive prerogative of the selection agency to establish and prescribe the rules, modalities & methodology governing the conduct of an examination/selection. Such rules, designed to ensure a fair and transparent process, are generally presumed to be valid."

However, they may be subject to challenge only if they are found to be arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory, resulting in an unjust or inequitable outcome. "Any challenge to the validity of these rules must demonstrate a clear and unequivocal violation of Constitutional principles, such as equality before the law or prohibition of unjust discrimination, rather than mere desiderium arising from unpalatable result emanating therefrom", the Court added.

Judicial Review Of Evaluation Done By Examiner Of Descriptive Answer Is Exceptionally Limited 

The Court observed that it is unequivocally deducible that the scope of judicial review concerning the accuracy of an examiner's evaluation of a candidate's response to a descriptive question is exceptionally limited.

It further said that the writ court must exercise utmost restraint and avoid interfering with the examiner's assessment as the evaluation is a specialized function entrusted to the concerned examiner/expert. 

"Judicial intervention is warranted only in instances where a manifest error or glaring irregularity is conspicuously apparent on the face of the record," added the Court.

In the present case, the Court noted that the concerned examiner has perused the answer in issue given by the petitioner to the question in issue and thereafter has chosen to award zero marks to the petitioner for the said answer.

 The bench opined that  the question in issue and answer thereto given by the petitioner and, in our considered opinion, it cannot be said that such evaluation was palpably incorrect.

Considering that Clause 33 clearly proscribes re- evaluation of the answer sheets and only permits limited re-checking of the answer sheets, to a limited, extent i.e. as to whether some part of the answer sheet has been left unevaluated or there is a totaling error, the plea was dismissed.

Mr. Umeshwar Srivastava, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Seherawat, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Birinder Pal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Balvinder Sangwan, Advocate for respondent No.2-HPSC.

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

Title: Diksha Kalson v. State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 100

Click here to read/download the order