Puneet Aggarwal v. Punjab And Haryana High Court And Another




























   

 

  


    !"!#$!% &'

( )) 

#&'&*'+!% &'

( ,) ) -

./&0%!% &'

( ,) ) - Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or the full Judgment is pronounced:






)



 

)))   2!#"*"



   

 



3

))) 3  3 )

 2  3



)))   2!#"*"



   

 



3

))) 3  3  (  4 1 )

3
 31  5


3
  4 1 )

3
  2

  

 


  




  
 


 
  



!"#$%$&#'#%(

  
)* 

  *
+
!( 

+ 
  
  



!",#--#'#-(

*
.



  
*/

*
 
 

































  
 0
!*

11111  2

5

)

)

 


*

##3

##4

 !*

5
 
/

/6

 

  7* 




 




 *





 

8*
/ 


 
 
2% #'#,
 2- #'#,
*
/6

 
0
!*

*
 

  9*

 



 *


 


#

5
*


 
 
/6




 






/
 



!"#$%$&#'#%
  

2(
 






 

8* 

 

0 6


/ 

 

2&&
.

:

5;+5 < #
  2- #'#,




!",#--#'#-
 



#(
 






 

8*


 
 * /



0 6


/ 

 
 

2&- .

:

5;+5 < #
 
2% #'#,

2&&
.

:

5;+5 < #
 
2- #'#, #



 
 

= 9 
9 

  
 





viva voce
>
6 /*

9 
 
*6

*/

=*55



>
*


= 9 
 6
* 
8* 

?= 9 
#'#%
/ 


   
 
 

2
 

***

 
= 9

# # "
#

 



0 6 


* / * 
8* 

 
 
**



= 9 































 


viva voce
>
 
*


= 9 
  

#
 
*
***



'$

2% 
 6


= 9 


 
 

0 6  * /
#
*
9 
*
@>5

*


* 
9 

 *


5

 9
/6
#
 

 
**6 



0
8* 

?= 9 
#'#,
/*
 
  ***


* /

0 6
* 
8* 

= 9 #'#%
 
 

#

9 



= 9 
 
* 
 

6
9



# , >*
 9
9 6

 


 * 




*





 







,

>
9 
*
 


 





/

 








 

 


*


9 





%

A 

*
 


 
inter alia

 




*


 
9 







 9

 9

 
/

*
6
* /
 



/ 6
9 
>6

 
*
*
 6
 

 
 

= 9


 


9




 


 




*


9  

 * 7*
9 
/6


>6
 9
 
 
*
*  *
/




*
 
/
**
 

%
>
 

*

 

#

 9  :
 
#
 
 
***
































 

8*


 

* /

0 6

*
  


/6
96
2%

'$
9 
 6
*

 





= 9 



viva voce
0

*
 

#
 


#

9 



= 9

% # A 

*
 

#
 
*


*
 

#
* 6





0
8* 
 ?= 9 
#'#,

 
*



*
/




9

 

*
 
/
**


= 9 
*


  

* /

0 6 


% , >
 

*
 
*/9
 

* *


 

/6

= 9
 
9 

 
 


% % >6
*
*/9
 




!*
*

##3 

!*

5 
9*

*

*

*
 
*


*

 






 *

/

/6
 6

* 



*

*





*

*
*


 

9 


 


>6
 

* 

*9


 
   

  
 





 
 
  


 


  !"#$
%
&''(
 

  
 
   

 
 
  
)  
  
)  #* *" & +, -.(
 

/

% 

  
 
0
 #!"$
1
&2#

-

Per contra
 

*
 

 
0 !*
*/9
 

 
9


9 

*/9  

 






  6

 6
9






























 


 


! *
2# 2&


   
 
2- #'#,


2% #'#,
 


*9 
* /
* 
8* 

#'#,#'#%

0 6
* 
8*  
#'#,#'#%
 6




/




6
9
 
A 

!*
  6

  *
 *


 
 
 

 
/6




*

 


9/
*
@*



 

 


*


* 



5 *






 



*9


34 - 4

% 

  
 
0  5
6
)
&+ +7

 +(
4  8
9 
 
   

% 

 
 
  5
! "$

% & 7(


% 
 
0  

% 

:


 
 
  5 ! "2$


%
&#'(

8
% 

 5
.
;

% ;

 5


5
! +$
<
%
'"+(
.

% ; 

=; 
 
   
 
   5
! +$
"&
%
&2&( ;
 
;
% ;


34 
>4
    5
! " $
<
%
'#7(
and -
)>
:

 


  
%; ; 


-
? 
> 
 
0  5
! $
"2
%
'"<

5

*

/6
 

!*


   



#




/
 
**
 
= 9 

* /
0
8* 




0 6 8* 

 


 




*
 
6  


 

*


*


 





*


 

9 





* 6 
; 
9 
/6

? 
*
 



























-




*6
 ;
/6
9

9  :
 
 
 

*















*







*

 
*

*
 



9*

6  

/6


  6


 
 *
/6
 6

B /
9 C
*
9  
/*
*96
)6 



 

 

!*

*
 
  


*


 
* 

!  



 9 




+
! 




A  



 


7*




 
  
 


 




 
/6
9



99 

/




 
*

/
6
 
 

6


*
*/9
 

#



  

  
 

 

 

/6
 @*9
!99
* 
8* 
(


9
  #'

'2 #'#-

6





 
#, '2 #'#- =*
#(


*/9
 

= 9 
 
/
*




9

 
9 
 
 
 
*

* 
 ! 





/


 9 
/6
 6

 /
9   

 

6

>
*


/6









/*
*
;
 
9 
/6
 ? 
*

 *


*
*












*
*/9
 


 

  6

/


 


 

/
 
/6



























,




 

 


*

 


6 
0

6

9 





"
 


 

*9


*
 
5


 *
 

 
 
*
 
  2% #'#,

2- #'#,



*9

* /
* 
8*  
#'#,#%

0 6
* 
8* 

#'#,#%
 6 /


/
*

/6



*
> = 9 
9 


= 9 



viva voce

4-'
9


#-'
9 
 6




9


= 9 

  
*
%'D

9
9 

 





= 9 

/
 

viva voce

7*

*
-'D
 
7* 6
9
5


9


 
2
*

7* 6 
= 9 


/ 
7* 6
9 

%'D

!
A 

 !9 
A 




*
 

 

viva voce
"

#
7* 


= 9 
 

,%3;4-'
9  ,-2;4-'
9 



= 9 


 

* /

0 6  6

 
 





/ 
2%';#-'
9 

9

*
 
/*
*

*
-'D
 
9 
 7* 6




2%

'$
9 
 6

7* 6



  

8*


 

* /

0 6
 6

&




9
 
* 

#

9    

 
 
'& #'#%

23 #'#%

 
/6

@*9
!99
* 
8* 
(


9  
#'

'2 #'#-
>



99
 
#'

'2 #'#-
 6





 
#, '2 #'#-
=*
#(
5






























/6

 

!*


0
!*
 


   


!99
 
/

*  "Meeting Note and representations perused. The representationist failed to secure the place in the selection process of Punjab and Haryana Superior Judicial Service 2023%24. The submission made by the representationist with regard to cutting, overwriting, alteration etc.

In the answer sheets are actually corrections/rectifications made by the evaluators during the evaluation process. There is no cutting/overwriting or alteration in the marks posted on the title page of the answer sheets by the evaluators. Nothing has come to notice that there is any change of marks to the disadvantage of the candidate to fail him. The allegations of the representationist are baseless and frivolous as the entire selection process is carried out with utmost confidentiality and transparency. Thus, the representation, being devoid of merit is hereby rejected. He be informed accordingly." $

)

*

 


 
  

 

2&-
.

:

5;+5 < #
 
2% #'#,

2&& .

:

5;+5 < #
 
2- #'#,
*
 
 

 *
2# 2&

  



 
  6
/ 
>
 
 *
 


*  E
)



@ 






F6
  



 







 /

* 




 
(
 
/
 



7*
9

 



@ @*9(
0
!*

* /

0 6 
!   *
! 
) 
0
!*

* /
 6 
!  


69



@
-'';





































5 
 
F

/

*
 @ 
. 
0
!*

* /

0 6  !  (

6
 6
9

 

  6

9 

 
/


!* 



7*

  
/6
6
 


6




/ 
  /
 
*

@>5


 ;   G
2'

>
* 


 

 
 

 



 



6
 



 


 
 



 

 9/

 
*
 
/
/
 2'

96








9/
   2'

# F6
#
 
9
  

 
  '& #'#%

23 #'#%




/6

@*9 !99
* 
8* 
(
5


*

 

9

  
  
9
/6
9




/
9 
  

 9/
*
! *
2# 2& 2'

, 5



 *
 

 
/ 

 
* @>5


 

 *
6

9 
/6
9
  /

*  2'

% 5



=


 
! *


9 
/ 
6
 





9

 
*
 *
 
/
 
/6






 9
*
 
/  

6
 
* 6


































 

!

/


*9 


/
 
 


 
 *


 
 
9



 
9/


9



/ 





* 6










 


  9


2#

5
 
/
 

/6
0C/
 =
!*

4 
8 9 @
 
* (
 


*9

 

* 

 9
5
 
*

 
*
 
 
/


*

9
/*


 



7*
/6
!*
  
= 

 9
9 
9*
/
* 
5



  




9/

0
*

= 9
7*



 




!*
9*



 

 99 

= 
99 2,

<*

0C/
 =
!*

= 9

 
 * 



* 


 
 





% @
;
* (
 

!*
*

 

*:






 


 

= 


9 

 9 

/



 9 
>
 





9  /6
0C/
* 9
!*

0'

26708 36'9:;"
 
* (


*  "30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re%evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it;

30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re%evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as




























distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re%evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;

30.3. The court should not at all re%evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate-it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;

30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.

31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re% evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse - exclude the suspect or offending question. 32.

It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty.




























great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years.

Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination - whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will get admission in a college or university or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers." 2, 9 






)


!

>
0C/
 =
*


8
% @
* (
 
 

 



/ 
 
/
9



/

6
 
;*

 
  2-

5

 
 
*


0
!*
 
 

*9

0C/
* 9
!*

-
)>
:

 


   %; ; 
;
* (



9  
 
/
 

 9 9/6

*


 


 

/ 
6
 


 
*

>


 
































 

 


/

6
 




 
*

 

 


=



*

##3


!*

5
 
6


 /6
0C/
 =
!*

9 6

 
/

/6

0C/
* 9
!*
 34 
>4@ ;
* (
 

!*
 







 = 9

= 9



6

6


7*





 


 
/
 



9/

0
!* 
= 9

7*






5
 
*
/
 
 


*9


 


/ 



9/


/

6
 

*

 *6 @*;@* 



!*
*

 6


 

>
 
*9
 

 

  




*

*

@*
  6

9
  



 
/
*


5



9 
 

9

= 9 



 


*/ 6 



9 

= 9 


 

/6
 
 

9




6
 
 

 9


7*  
6


* 
7*

/


  6

 
9

  
>



/6

  



/
7*  


7*  


 
9 
*
6
/

/6


 

= 


*/

>
!* 
*

* 
 
 6
 




* 
= 9




























2&

*
9  
 
/
 

/ 




  





/

*



9 






*


6

 




 
 9


= 9 
7*
 


 



6


9 


*/
= 




 
 
/6
 6

 /
9 
/6

= 
= 9
*
 * 



 9 




+
! 


 


*


* 
7*
 



*  

 

 
6
7*
9 
/6


  
/

99
6 




 
*
9  

/*
*96
9 6

*



*


9 
/6 
*

/

*
*



 
  6 

@*



9


2& >
 




*


9 


 







 


*
 
 




*


/*

 
9 
/6 
 
*

 




6


9 
 
9 

6

* 




7*
>



 

 
/

*



 


 *


/6
 6

 /
9  
*

 
/  
 ; *


 
= 9
<*




*
 













> ; 

 
/


B 
*C
/6





/*
*



 


/
*6  
/6

 
= 9


/

*







































*

 

 

  
 
  6


 

 
*


/6  6

 /
9 
/6

 9
= 


 
*/
* 
* 


 9 
 
/
 


* 7*

  9*


6
99
6 


/


 
 





*
 

6
9 
/ 9

 

6
9  2& #
5


*



*

9 

2  
 

!
A 5



 6
 

6


 
7* 


= 9

 
#

 
7* 
 

= 9 










*
 

6
/



*


 

6




7* 6
 
 
 

/

= 9 
 

9

   


9
5


/
 



*



 


/*

*
 

*6
 
/6
 = 9


 
7*


 /
9 


 /

*









*

 9

 
/ 9

 
 




9


*9

 

/ 


 2$

*
9  
 
/
 
/6




*9 


 @
; 5
 
@
;
 
/ @
; (supra),


 
 



 6
* / 9





  2$

5

 @
;
(supra$

*
 

*96
 


= 9 

0 6
!

8* 
) (



























-

6
$
*

22$-
 
7* 






 9 0C/
 =
!*
 


6

9 

9 

96 
 
 


= 9
0C/
 =
!*

= 

*

2%#


!*

5
 
*96
   
9 



 


 


= 9 

 
*


* 


?

0C/
* 9
!*
 





6

 

 
 

>
 

 
*9
 

* 
" 14. In the instant case, Justice Sikri critically examined the selection process as well as the evaluation method and it is explicit from his report that the procedure of evaluation was 'uniform'. We are of the view that evaluation done by multiple evaluators i.e. one Evaluator examining and marking one question in all the mark% sheets, ensures uniformity and prevents chance grading. Every candidate's answers are marked on same parameters by the same examiner. There can possibly be no other better method to ensure uniformity in evaluation. The petitioners have stated that as per the information received via RTI no model 'answer key' was present.

It gives more credance to the afore%stated method of evaluation as no model 'answer key' ought to be devised for the Main Exam, the purpose whereof is not to just assess the knowledge of candidates but also to evaluate their analytical ability. In the present case, there was no Examiner Variability, therefore, Justice Sikri has very aptly remarked that, "this was well intended move to attain uniformity in evaluation". This method ensures equal level play field for all candidates. The only setback was lack of holistic view and lack of realistic expectations in the examiner's mind, for which there are adequate remedies as discussed in the later part of this order.

15. The marking criteria and evaluation method was strict but it was so for everyone. This was may be for the reason that one Evaluator


























,

checked one answer in each script and in this manner the entire lot of scripts were marked. The Evaluators failed to keep a pragmatic view that source of recruitment was likely to be the same in a fresh attempt also and that candidates had only 8.5 minutes to answer each question and time constraint did not allow them to give their best of performance. Even those candidates who covered all aspects briefly were not awarded proper marks. Unlike the hypothetical illustration given in Sanjay Singh's case (supra), it was not a case where some candidates were subjected to strict marking and others had an advantage of lenient marking, so as to draw an inference that the evaluation method was discriminatory or arbitrary. xxxx

23. Firstly, we may very briefly emphasise the need of viva%voce as an integral part of selection process for certain posts. This Court in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan



 , observed that "6. ... The written examination assesses the man's intellect and the interview test the man himself and "the twain shall meet" for a proper selection.... [I]n the case of services to which recruitment has necessarily to be made from persons of mature personality, interview test may be the only way, subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied..."

The viva%voce and Written Examination (Main Exam), thus, both have their own importance in a selection process and it is for the interviewing panel to decide how many marks be awarded to a candidate keeping in view his/her performance in interview. Secondly, the composition of Selection Committee is the sole prerogative of Chief Justice of the High Court and this Court need not venture into the issue which pertains to exercise of administrative power (s) of the Chief Justice.

24. The alternative prayer of the petitioners for re%evaluation by an Independent Expert Committee is not worth acceptance. Firstly, for the reason that these 107 posts are already lying vacant for a




























considerable long period and the re%evaluation would further delay it. Secondly, Justice Sikri has thoroughly examined the fact situation before recommending the award of grace marks. Thirdly, there is no provision for re%evaluation in the Recruitment Rules and any such direction would run counter to the mandate of this Court in H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur , laying down that in the absence of any provision under the statute or statutory rules/regulations, the Courts should not generally direct re% evaluation."

2$ #




 
@
;
(supra)




 
  
6
 


9 


* 


?
9
 

7*
7*  

*/
6
/*

?
9
 

 
9 




7*
6

 
 
   9 




 
6

 

* 
9  
?
9
9
 
= 
>
 
 

* / 9





 



 
*
  




9 
/6
9

 *
*/

 


 * 





/
 

 *
7*
 6
6   



7*  
6

/6

  2$ ,

5
/ @
;
(supra)





 
9
/6 
!*
>
 


 *

*  "Reverting to the case in hand, the expert/examiner has perused the answer given by the petitioner to the question in issue and thereafter has chosen to award zero marks to the petitioner for the answer. We have perused 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 or egregious. The petitioner is verily seeking this Court to be a super%evaluator,




























supplanting its view for that of the examiner/expert. This Court is indubitably convinced that, it cannot tread this path, in the factual matrix of the present case. Further, Clause 33 of the Advertisement clearly proscribes re%evaluation of the answer sheets. It only permits limited re%checking of the answer sheets, to the extent i.e. as to whether some part of the answer sheet has been left unevaluated or there is a totalling error. In the case in hand, none of these situations emerge, much less are pleaded. Ergo in the attending the facts and circumstances of the writ petition in hand, the same deserves to be rejected."

#'

>*
9

/
*

9
 


  *
 




96


9
 

  /

*


9  


 *


 
/ *
/


*


 



  /
*

 
/



 


*
  ; *


 
= 9 

 
  
/

/6
 6

 /
9 


* 
7*
 


* 
= 9
= 


*/



 
*
 * 


 9 




+! 


 

* 




 



*


  9









*
 


6
  
*
*



6
9 

 
 
/*
*
bona fide
 

*

 


> *


= 9 


9
6
 

/
 
 * 2# 2&
/

 9
>

*
*9 

7*

6  



F6
 
 9/
/*





























 





 

 



*6
 

9 #2

>*


 

/
/


*
6
96
 





 

6

 ##



7*


9


 


 9

/6
9 #,



  (

6
 

 
 


 2



31  

 


































3
 0<!%( ,) ) - Gyan ( "
 

; H I;

 ( "
  /H I;