C.W.P No. 8867 of 2009 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 8867 of 2009 Date of decision : May 30, 2009 Anil Balhera, ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and another, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J The petitioner has challenged the process of holding of preliminary examination for the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) conducted on 26.4.2009. The allegation is that 10 questions were out of syllabus in the subject of Law and that on this account he lost 10 marks and, thus, could not qualify for the main exam having secured 110 marks as against the last candidate who secured 119 marks. In somewhat similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.236 of 2009, Khatri Saurabh Satyapal vs Haryana Public C.W.P No. 8867 of 2009 ::2:: Service Commission and another, decided on 6.4.2009, while relying upon the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in L.Lokanadham vs Chairman, Telecom Commission and others, (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 155, “..... Furthermore, assuming there was some ambiguity in the prescribed syllabus, it would have been for an expert body to clear the same and in the event it is found that any question has been put out of syllabus, only those who could not answer the same might have been entitled to any relief. No relief in a case of this nature could have been granted on assumptions. It was not for the Tribunal to pass an order only on the supposition that the appellant did not prepare themselves well owing to some misunderstanding in regard to the extent of syllabus”, ultimately held as follows :- “..... The questions are about the Constitution of India or other statures. It cannot be said that such questions are not relevant to determine the aptitude and analytical mind of a candidate. The questions asked are not of physics, chemistry or economics unconnected with the syllabus or the purpose for which examination is being conducted. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellants that 45 questions were out of syllabus.” The Division Bench further held as follows :- “..... As a matter of fact, Supreme Court in judgment reported as L.Lokanadham (supra) has held that the Courts have limited jurisdiction in these matters and it for the experts to clear the ambiguity and that no relief C.W.P No. 8867 of 2009 ::3:: can be granted on assumptions. It was found that a candidate who could not answer incorrect questions would be entitled to any relief. While exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is not to act as an appellate examining body to go into the details of determination of key answers.” In view of the binding precedent, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 30, 2009. JUDGE `kk'