CWP No. 15976 of 2011. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 15976 of 2011. [O&M] Date of Decision: 13th October, 2011. Anupama Gulati & Ors. Petitioners through Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Ms.Sudeepti Sharma,DAG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 15976, 16559, 16560, 16077, 17935 and 18261 of 2011 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 15976 of 2011. [2]. The petitioners seek quashing of the result of the Punjab State Teachers' Eligibility Test conducted by the respondents on the premise that some of the answers incorporated in the 'key' were wrong. The petitioners have further sought a Mandamus for constitution of an Expert Committee to look into the wrong answers given in the options of Question Paper-I and thereafter re-determine the merit of the petitioners. [3]. The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit wherein it has been explained that on re-verification some of the answers incorporated in the 'key' were found incorrect and those questions have been totally discarded and in lieu thereof, grace marks have CWP No. 15976 of 2011. ::-2-:: been given to the candidates. After discarding those questions, the merit of the petitioners has been re-determined as per the details given in Para No. 4 of the affidavit. The respondents have further categorically stated as follows:- “5. That the contents of Para No. 5 are denied being wrong. It is wrong to say by the petitioners that thirteen questions were wrong, whereas only three questions in paper-I have been found discarded against which three marks have already been added in the marks scored by all candidates vide Annexure R-1”. [4]. Suffice it to mention that even after discarding the wrong answers, the petitioners have not been able to make it to the merit list. [5]. The question as to whether a writ Court can assume the role of 'Subject-experts' to correct the answers incorporated in the 'key' has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v Mukesh Thakur & Anr., 2010[6] SCC, 759, holding that:- “In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for Respondent 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court.” CWP No. 15976 of 2011. ::-3-:: [6]. A coordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 7232 of 2010 (Jyotika Nagil and others V. The State of Haryana and others) decided on 01.12.2010 also dealt with some- what similar situation that arose out of the 'School Teachers Eligibility Test' conducted in the State of Haryana and while dismissing the writ petition, observed as under:- “The danger involved in adopting such a mode can very well be demonstrated from the stand taken by the respondents. Respondents would rely upon the report given by experts to vouchsafe that the answers given in the key answers are correct, which are stated to be incorrect and would urge that these answers are rather correct. The justification as offered in Annexure R2/1 can not be easily ignored, as has been exemplified by making reference to one of the answers given in the options, which is stated to be incorrect. I am, thus, of the considered opinion that the prayer made in the writ petitions is beyond the scope of judicial review and direction as prayed for can not be allowed in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As per the clear position of law as enunciated and noticed above, it is not within the domain of this court to examine the question papers or the answer sheets to notice any discrepancies or inconsistencies either in setting the questions or evaluation thereof. The question paper as set was equally applicable to all the candidates, who appeared in the exam. No particular prejudice would have been caused to the petitioner in any case. It is certainly not within the jurisdiction of this court to see if any question has been asked out of syllabus or some answers are required to be corrected or if some grace marks are to be awarded. The prayer made in the writ petition would be beyond the scope of judicial parameter for this Court to interfere.” [7]. Following the cited decisions, I find no ground to interfere in these matters and the same are dismissed. [8]. In all fairness, learned counsel for the petitioners relies CWP No. 15976 of 2011. ::-4-:: upon the decision of a co-ordinate Bench dated 13.10.2010 in CWP No. 14553 of 2010 [Surender Singh v Haryana Public Service Commission & Anr. Suffice it to observe that the Court after taking notice of the decision in Mukesh Thakur's case [supra] observed in Para No. 46 that the answer keys ordinarily warrant no interference by this Court, yet a direction was issued to give an opportunity of hearing to the candidates to redress their grievance. In the instant case, no such recourse is required to be followed for the reason that the doubtful answers have already been discarded by the respondents. [9]. Dismissed. Dasti. October 13, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE