Sukhjeet Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others
!! "#$ %& '( Date of Decision: 26.08.2019 Sukhjeet Singh and others .....Appellants versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents ') *'
+, +'
- + *'
+
- Present :
Mr. Harkirat Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the appellants.
**** , +'
- +& ( This intra)court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition praying for the following reliefs has been dismissed:) i) A writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.4 to correct the option/answer in the question No.13 and 15 of Set)A (Annexure P)3) and having different numbers in other sets, which are factually incorrect and materially affecting the merit of the petitioners in the examination conducted for recruitment for the post of Senior Assistant in Department of Cooperation and Department of Revenue, Government of Punjab. ii) Any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be issued;
iii) It is further prayed that further process of appointment may kindly be stayed during the pendency of the writ petition.
2.
Challenge was basically on the ground that the answer key to questions No. 13 and 15 was incorrect and therefore, the objections raised in this regard have not at all been considered by the experts which have vitiated the final result.
3.
Before the learned Single Judge, the original record was placed and on examination of the same, the learned Single Judge has returned the following findings:)
!
"
#
#
$
$
"
%
"
& '
%
$
" "
"
$ "
( 4.
Once the original record has been examined by the learned Single Judge and it was found that the objections raised by the appellant) petitioner were duly considered by the experts and were found to be frivolous and the answers suggested by them were incorrect, there was hardly any scope for interference in the matter and the writ petition has rightly been dismissed.
5.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no reasons have been supplied for holding the objections of the appellant)petitioner as incorrect and frivolous and he also submits that the appellants also supplied
the opinion of certain other experts which go to show that the answer)key to the said questions was incorrect.
6.
Be that as it may, the issue stands settled by pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
as also in the case of !
" !#
$%wherein the Apex Court has held that when there are conflicting views, then Court must bow down to opinion of experts and the Courts cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of experts.
7.
In the case of
(supra), in paragraph)32 the Hon'ble Apex Court has deprecated interference in the matter by the Courts by observing as under:) '
$
"
%
%
$
" "
)
"
%
%
$
" *
%
%
# "
"
%
"
+
+
"
%
$
"
$
"
%
%
,, (
8.
In the case at hands, as observed hereinabove, the objections raised by the candidates to the certain answers in the answer key were considered by the experts and finding them to be frivolous and incorrect, were rejected. The learned Single Judge himself examined the same from the original record produced before him and thereafter came to the conclusion that the matter does not require any interference. 9.
In view of the law propounded by the Apex Court and in the facts of the case we find no reason to take a view different from the one taken by the learned Single Judge also. The appeal does not require any interference and the same is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed.
!"#$% Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No√