Haryana Judiciary Exam | Prelims Result Calculated But Not Declared Category Wise Can't Be Set Aside: High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the preliminary examination result declared in April for Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) (HCS) Examination 2023-24.

A division bench of Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur said, "result of the preliminary examination cannot be set aside on the ground that it has not been declared category wise."

The Court noted that HCS has submitted that the short-listing of candidates has been done category-wise even though declaration is roll number wise.

It opined that, "petitioners were unable to point out any prejudice which may have been caused to the petitioners by adoption of this course and neither could they point out anything on record which would cause us to doubt the stand so taken by the respondents, with the assertion that there would be no change in the result even if it was declared category-wise and that candidates 10 times the number of posts in terms of the Advertisement and the Rules advertised have been called."

The Court was hearing a batch of 33 writ petitions which also challenged the answer key of preliminary examination.

It was argued that once it was found by the Expert Panel and so approved by the Committee that there could be more than one correct answer to two questions, those questions should not have been deleted but benefit of marks should have been given to all the candidates who had attempted the question with any of the two correct options.

It was contended that if some of the candidates were given the benefit of these marks, they would be eligible to take the main examination.

The division bench observed that, "the process of examination has been applied uniformly to all candidates. The deletion of two of the questions does not in any manner lead to any prejudice or disadvantage to any candidate. All candidates whether having attempted the questions or not or attempting them correctly or incorrectly are clearly treated at par as no credit or discredit is given to any candidate in this respect."

The argument that the process is vitiated due to failure to provide an opportunity of submitting cross-objections by the candidates who had given their answers as per the provisional Answer Key is also an argument devoid of any merit, hence rejected, the Court added.

The bench also noted that, "there is no rule, regulation or any term or condition in the advertisement which permits revaluation of the answer sheets or submission of obiections/cross-obiections."

Reliance was also placed on Apex Court's decision in Tripura through Registrar General v. Tirtha Sarthi Mukherjee and others, (2019) wherein it was held that, "the right to seek a writ of mandamus is based on the existence of a legal right and a corresponding duty with the answering respondent to carry out a public duty."

"In the absence of any such provision, the writ Court should exercise jurisdiction only in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. It is relevant to note at this stage that no allegation of mala fide has been pleaded or alleged against the Expert Panel or the Selection Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioners were unable to point out any exceptional or extraordinary circumstance, which calls for our interference," added the division bench.

In the light of the above the Court dismissed all the writ petitions.

Title: Sukhnoor Singh v. HPSC & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 249

Click here to read/download the order