Can't Sit Over Expert Panel Report Unless Malice Is Alleged: High Court Rejects Plea Challenging Haryana PGT Teacher Exam Answer Key

The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the plea challenging the screening test question paper for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) (Chemistry) and its final answer key published in October 2024 noting that the expert committee has already been formed and Court cannot sit over it, unless there is an allegation of malice. 

Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta said, "the Expert Committee was formed for examining the objections raised and since the constitution of the Expert Committee was of the Professors in the subject and they have reached to a particular conclusion which we have noticed hereinabove, this Court would not sit over and examine the report of the Expert Committee, as we are not experts in the field, unless there is an allegation of malafide or malice against the Expert Committee."

The Court was hearing a letter patent appeal against the order of single bench. The petitioners were the candidates of PGT argued that the answers to certain questions were wrongly given in the key.

Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the result declared by the examining body is open to judicial review and that the appellants could not have been deprived of the benefit of the correct answer which they had given to the concerned question.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the Expert Committee panel is consisting of three Professors of the Department of Chemistry of one of the credible Universities and all the objections raised by the various candidates, relating to the answers provided in the provisional answer key, to the various questions, were placed before it.

Speaking for the bench, Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma said "A common conclusion of the Expert Committee consisting of the Professors in the field of Chemistry would have to be presumed to be right. There is no occasion at all for this Court to believe and reach to a conclusion other than what has been arrived at by the said expert panel."

It is also a settled law that the Court would not interfere in technical matters in academic field unless there is any violation of law governing the said examination or there are allegations of malafide or arbitrariness, added the bench.

Reliance was placed on recent judgement of  wherein the Division bench in Diksha Kalson v. State of Haryana and others held 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.

In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed.

Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr.Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate and Ms. Supriya Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2- HPSC.

Title: ARJUN SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 107

Click here to read/download the order