P&H High Court Orders Appointment Of Civil Judge Candidate Disqualified For Falling 2.5 Marks Short In Exam Due To Unchecked Answer

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the issuance of an appointment letter to a civil judge candidate who was disqualified after qualifying the interview due to being short of 2.5 marks in the written exam, as an answer was not checked.

The candidate Heena Shehrawat, qualified for interview in Haryana Civil Judge Exam 2023. He was in the final merit list and secured 547.50. As per the advertisement only those candidates shall be eligible to be recruited as Civil Judges/Judicial Magistrates who secure 50% or more marks.

The Court accepted the argument that Shehrawat was not awarded any marks for an answer in English paper.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel said, "In the attending facts and circumstances and in view of a fair stand taken by learned senior counsel for the High Court, which we appreciate, this Court is left with no option but to allow this petition and direct the respondents to award marks to the petitioner for the answer given to question No. 5 (x) in the subject of English Language."

After clearing Preliminary Examination, Shehrawat appeared in the Main Written Examinations, which were held from 12.07.2024 to 14.07.2024, wherein qua question in English Language subject:

Correct the following sentences : He is reading the book since morning.

The candidate answered, "He has been reading the book since morning."

It was contended that despite giving correct answers, the examiner failed to award any answer.

Thereafter, the petitioner made representation to the selecting agency, i.e. Haryana Public Service Commission, and the High Court,, which did not invoke any response and thereafter, the she moved the Court.

On issuance of notice, the High Court  filed its reply and does not dispute that answer to the above question given by the petitioner is correct.

However, the stand taken is that the evaluator did not award any mark for the same, since there was cutting by the petitioner, while writing the said answer, and that re-evaluation is not permissible in terms of Clause 33 of the advertisement.

After examining the submissions, the Court rejected the contention of Senior counsel appearing for the High Court that in view of the earlier decision of the Court in the case of Mukul Dhankhar Vs. State of Haryana and others, (CWP-34049-2024), wherein interference in matter of similar nature was declined on the ground that the Court cannot interfere in the discretion exercised by evaluator, this Court ought not to interfere.

Speaking for the bench Justice Sheel Nagu said, the judgment in Mukul Dhankhar's case (supra) and that the factual matrix involved therein reveal that since a descriptive answer in the subject of English Language was being sought to be evaluated by the Court, this Court declined interference by relying upon decisions of Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2018) 2 SCC 357.

Stating that the present case is different, the bench noted  that in the present case, bare perusal of the question, reveals that the candidates only had to correct the grammatical mistakes contained in the sentences given, and it is not disputed by the senior counsel for the High Court that the answer given by the petitioner is the same, as was given by two other candidates, who were in fact awarded 2.5 marks for the same

While noting that there 13 seats vacant kept for the present advertisement of the civil judge post, the Court said, "The petitioner, if otherwise suitable and is not facing any other legal disability, is directed to be appointed as Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) by issuance of appropriate appointment letter and by taking all consequential steps, as taken in cases of candidates who are being or have been appointed as Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) qua advertisement No.1/2024...with all consequential benefits."

Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Gautam, Advocate, Mr. Yogesh Vashista, Advocate, and Mr. Navneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Aditya Pal Singh, AAG, Haryana.

Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Shubreet Kaur, Advocate, for the High Court.

Title: Heena Shehrawat v. State of Haryana and others

Click here to read/download the order