IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION 19874 OF 2008 DECIDED ON : --1--2008 Tarun Chandiok ....Petitioner versus Haryana Public Civil Service Commission ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S GILL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Petitioner in person Shri Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana K.KANNAN,J 1.This writ petition contains an omnibus prayer by an aspirant to the subordinate judicial services for securing the individual scores along with key answers of all the questions asked in the Entrance Examination and to anull the entire selection process for alleged anomolies infested in the question papers. We could have deflected the petitioner's claims to a different forum for getting the information which he wanted and visited him with a summary order of dismissal in a few words but yet we have dealt at some length so that the petitioner realises that his grievances have been fully addressed but still there remains nothing in his favour. 2.The petitioner had responded to an advertisement for appointment of Civil Judges, Junior Division, in Haryana which notified vacancy position of 39+3 anticipated vacancies. The mode of selection consisted of preliminary examination that was held on 16-11-2008. By this process, 10 times the number of vacancies for each category alone had to be chosen as eligible for the main examination to be held in December, 2008. According to the petitioner, the preliminary examination consisted of 120 objective type questions to be attempted in 120 minutes. Each correct answer was awarded 4 marks and for every incorrect answer, one mark was stipulated to be deducted. The result of the examination was announced on 17-11-2008 and the petitioner did not unfortunately make it to the grade. 3.The attack to the entire selection process had been scaled up by the petitioner on the ground that the results were not transparent and that the marks of all the candidates who took the examination, had not been published and the key answers CWP 19874 of 2008 --2-- to the questions had also not been divulged subsequently which clouded assessment of selection as murky. The petitioner would also contend with reference to 5 questions as examples when multiple answers suggested to the questions were far from objective and thus suffered from the vice of giving choice among vague answers that betrayed lack of certitude. In particular the question that required the answer for the length of ordinance that could be in force, did not have as choice answer not beyond 6 weeks from the date of commencement of the opening of the session of the Parliament; the question regarding the nature of contract without consideration merely gave 'invalid' as a possible for answer without referring to the expression 'void'; the meaning of plea- bargaining referred to the expression 'defendant' as being allowed to plead guilty in expectancy of lesser punishment when according to the petitioner that word 'defendant' could not have been made in the context of criminal litigation; the meaning of latin maxim (“ubi jus ubi remendinm” ) had been given as 'in law there is remedy for all' as one of the options but according to the petitioner it was decidedly not correct. Yet another question suggested that the source of finding case laws had given options amongst law reports,journals, digests and commentaries and the petitioner would state that all the options were imprecise. 4.The petitioner had, therefore, to say that the respondents should disclose all the individuals' scores along with the key answers to question papers, set aside the selection process and to postpone the final examination or permit the petitioner to participate in the main examination and for ancilliary reliefs. 5.The authenticity or the correctness of the questions in the manner that these have been brought out in the petition are themselves not capable of being ascertained . To a query from us whether he has information about all the questions that were asked and the key answers that had been provided, he would only submit that even the questions that have been referred to in this petition are taken out this memory. According to them, there could be several other questions which were equally ambiguous. The extent of juidicial review that is available for evaluation of answer sheets is itself limited. Even the questions which have been cited in the petition and choices of answers do not appear to be vague or incorrect. The counsel relies upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanpur University through Vice Chancellor versus Samir Gupta and others AIR 1983 SC 1230 which dealt with the situation of Paper Setter while indicating the correct answers to questions set by him, actually gave wrong answers. Could the student who gives the answers correctly be failed for CWP 19874 of 2008 --3-- the reason that he does not accord with the so called “correct answers” Paper Setter to the University .” After referring to text book answers and comparing them with the key answers supplied to the University for evaluation, the Hon'ble Apex Court found that many of the key answers had been wrong and it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving answers which would accord with the key answers. The Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court in regard to the re-assessment of particular questions and for consideration for admission of the students to the Professional Course. 6.Reliance on the above judgement by the petitioner is to support his contention that all the key answers must be placed before the Court in order to test whether the key answers have been given correctly or not and to further assess whether the proper marks have been awarded to the correct answers. We are afraid we cannot go into such a roving enquiry in the absence of any material that the key answers provided had been wrong. The petitioner ought to have remedy elsewhere to secure the key answers and also to point out that his particular answers had been wrongly evaluated and, therefore, it had resulted in miscarriage of justice by declaring him as not amongst the successful candidates. Revaluation of answer sheets themselves is not an anathema to the Court process but for obtaining redressal of claims of students, there ought to be definite material on the basis of which the Court can embark upon an enquiry whether the selection process adopted by the Examiner could be doubted or not. In this case we have no more material than the petitioner's assertion that he was hopeful of being qualified to take the final examination but his hopes had been dashed and, therefore, the evaluation ought to be taken as wrong. 7.The petitioner should first establish that the key answers to the question had been wrongly set; that on the basis of such wrong answers, wrong marking had been done; that the effect of such wrong marking had vitiated the evaluation of his answer sheet ;that he had secured more marks than the last candidate to be qualified for the final exams; that further the entire pattern of questions and answers was bragenly non-objective ; that the selection process was wholly defective. We have no hesitation to hold that the writ petition is wide off the mark to merit any serious consideration. There are no materials before us to test the correctness of petitioner's submissions. The impassioned arguments that the petitioner advanced before us, we hope, would be sublimated to greater preservance for better performance and success in his future endeavours. CWP 19874 of 2008 --4-- In the circumstances, we find that there is no scope for granting any of the reliefs sought for in the petition and dismiss the same. {Mehtab S Gill} {K.Kannan} Judge Judge -11-2008 IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION 3892 OF 2008 DECIDED ON : 01-12--2008 Dharambir ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S GILL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Shri R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate, with Shri P.K.Rohilla, Advocate, for the petitioner Shri Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana K.KANNAN, J 1.The petitioner seeks for issuance of writ of Certiorari to quash the order issued by respondent No.3 denying the petitioner's claim for the grant of Ist ACP (Assured Career Progression) for the period from 19-01-1995 to 31-12-1996. 2.It is an admitted case that the petitioner who had been appointed as Driver through Employment Exchange on 18-05-1992, was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service when he was sought to be illegally terminated on 17-11-1992 by virtue of order of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. The petitioner had been admittedly taken back in service on 15-03-1997 and when the Transport Department regularised his services on completion of two years of service, the petitioner obtained the benefit of regularisation by a letter issued on 29-12-1997. The petitioner had a grievance that he was entitled to be regularised with effect from 19-01-1995 itself when juniors of the petitioner had been regularised. The petitioner's claim was upheld by the proceedings of the Transport Commissioner on 14-12-1999. 3.The Haryana Civil Services Assured Career Progression Rules, 1998 (for short 1998 Rules) under which an employee who rendered 10 years of service was entitled to the benefit of service of Ist ACP Scale and the employee who rendered 20 years of service, was entitled to the benefit of 2nd ACP Scale. When the ACP Scale was not extended to him on completion of 10 years on 18-01-2005, the petitioner had given a representation on 07-09-2006. The Transport Commissioner had directed respondent No.3 to grant the benefit as per law and failing to obtain the response he CWP 3892 of 2008 --2-- desired, the petitioner had moved CWP 9877 of 2007. This Court had directed that the representation given by him could be considered in 4 months. Vide impugned proceedings, respondent No.2 spurned his demand on the ground that 1998 Rules enjoined that the period to which no financial benefit was granted, could not be considered as satisfactory service. Therefore, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that while granting the Ist ACP scale , the period from 19-01-1995 to 31- 12-1996 could not be reckoned since the re-entry into service came through the award of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and the period when he was not actually in service cannot be counted. 4.The understanding of the relevant Rules as urged by the respondents is suspect on more grounds than one. When the award was passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in Reference Number 92 of 1996, it had specifically directed that the reinstatement shall take place within one month from the date of publication of the award on his previous post with continuous service but without back wages. The expression “continuous service” admittedly implied that his service was bound to be counted as continuous from the initial engagement and when the regularisation was done, it ought to be in terms of the policy of the Transport Department with stipulation that on completion of two years of service, the services of the driver were bound to be regularised. Again the Transport Department had directed the regularisation to be with effect from 19-01-1995 when his juniors were regularised. There would be no meaning in treating the date of regularisation as accruing from a particular date if it did not carry with it the benefit of counting the number of years of regular service. All that he was denied by the award of the Labour Court, was only the benefit of arrears but for all practical purposes he was bound to treat himself as continuing in service right from the time when his services were regularised on 19-01-1995 itself. We were taken through the relevant provisions of ACP Rules which set out even the meaning of 'regular satisfactory service'. A note appended to Rule 5 reads as follows:- “NOTE: For the purposes of these rules, “regular satisfactory service” would mean continuous service counting towards seniority under Haryana Government including continuous service in Punjab Government before re-organisation, commencing from the date on which the Government through the prescribed procedure or rules etc. for regular recruitment in the cadre in which he is working at the time of being considered his eligibility for grant of ACP Scales under these rules and CWP 3892 of 2008 --3-- further fulfilling all the requirements prescribed for determining the suitability of grant of ACP Scales.” This note does not exclude the entitlement of the petitioner to claim the ACP Scale from the date of regularisation as canvassed by the counsel for the respondents. 5.In the circumstances, we uphold the claim of the petitioner and allow the writ petition with a direction that the petitioner is entitled to the ACP Scale that shall be effective from 19-01-1995 to 31-12-1996 on the basis that the benefit of Ist ACP Scale would accrue from 18-01-2005 itself and not in the manner put forth by the respondents. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- {Mehtab S Gill} {K.Kannan} Judge Judge 01-12--2008 CWP 4501 of 2008 Present: Shri S.K.Sud, Advocate, for the petitioner Shri Raman B Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.2 Counsel for the respondent seeks time to file reply. Be filed within 4 weeks with an advance copy to the counsel opposite. Adjourned to 28-01-2009. {Mehtab S Gill} Judge {K.Kannan} Judge 26-11-2008 CWP 2948 of 2008 Present: None In the interest of justice, adjourned to 28-01-2009. {Mehtab S Gill} Judge {K.Kannan} Judge 26-11-2008 CWP 2415 of 2008 Present: Shri Karan Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner Shri Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana Counsel for the petitioner prays for some time to amend the writ petition. Adjourned to 17-03-2009. {Mehtab S Gill} Judge {K.Kannan} Judge 26-11-2008 CWP 5621 of 2008 Present: Shri R.K.Handa, Advocate, for the petitioner Shri Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana Counsel for the petitioner seeks time to file replication. Be filed before the next date of hearing. No further adjournment shall be granted. Adjourned to 15-12-2008. {Mehtab S Gill} Judge {K.Kannan} Judge 26-11-2008 CWP 5429 of 2008 Present: Shri N.K.Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner Shri Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana Shri Nitesh Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.3 Written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.3 in Court is taken on record. At the request of counsel for respondent No.3, adjourned to 09-12-2008. {Mehtab S Gill} Judge {K.Kannan} Judge 26-11-2008 CWP 5821 of 2008 Present: Ms.Daljeet Kaur, Advocate, for Mrs.Anu Chatrath kapur, Advocate, for the petitioners Shri Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana At request of the proxy counsel, adjourned to 06-03-2009. {Mehtab S Gill} Judge {K.Kannan} Judge 26-11-2008 CWP 6710 of 2008 Present: Shri Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners Shri Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana Replication filed to the written statement on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 is taken on record. Adjourned to 06-03-2009. {Mehtab S Gill} Judge {K.Kannan} Judge 26-11-2008 CWP 8050 of 2008 Present: Mrs.Abha Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioner Shri Deepinder Ahlawat, Advocate, for the respondents At the request of the counsel for the respondents, adjourned to 07-01- 2009. {Mehtab S Gill} Judge {K.Kannan} Judge 26-11-2008 CM 22820 of 2008 & CWP 7984 of 2008 Present: Shri G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta, Senior DAG, Haryana CM allowed. Replication taken on record. CWP 7984 of 2008 Counsel for the State prays for some time to seek instructions as to what is the stage of the enquiry which is pending against the petitioner. Adjourned to 08-01-2009. {Mehtab S Gill} Judge {K.Kannan} Judge 26-11-2008 CWP 13791 of 2008 Present: Shri Rajbir Shehrawat, Advocate, for the petitioner Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta, Senior DAG, Haryana At the request of the counsel for the parties, adjourned to 17-03-2009. {Mehtab S Gill} Judge {K.Kannan} Judge 26-11-2008 CWP 13624 of 2008 Present: Shri Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta, Senior DAG, Haryana At the request of the counsel for the petitioner, adjourned to 22-01-2009. {Mehtab S Gill} Judge {K.Kannan} Judge 26-11-2008 IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION 9607 OF 2008 DECIDED ON : 26-11-2008 Ram Kumar ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S GILL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Shri Virender Soni, Advocate, for the petitioner Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta, Senior DAG, Haryana MEHTAB S GILL (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner states that all the retiral benefits have been paid to the petitioner but prays that interest be also given to the petitioner for the delayed payments. Since all the retiral benefits have been paid to the petitioner, this petition has become infructuous. However, petitioner is at liberty to file representation before the appropriate authority for grant of interest on the alleged delayed payments, if any. This petition is disposed of in the above terms. {Mehtab S Gill} Judge {K.Kannan} Judge 26-11-2008 CWP 8159 of 2008 Present: Shri Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate, for the petitioner Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta, Senior DAG, Haryana At the request of the counsel for the State, adjourned to 17-12-2008. {Mehtab S Gill} Judge {K.Kannan} Judge 26-11-2008 CWP 8089 of 2008 Present: Shri Devender Punia, Advocate, for the petitioner Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta, Senior DAG, Haryana At the request of the counsel for the parties, adjourned to 30-01-2009. {Mehtab S Gill} Judge {K.Kannan} Judge 26-11-2008 CWP 15684 of 2008 Present: Shri Y.P.Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners Shri Narender Hooda, Advocate, for respondents Counsel for the respondents seeks time to file reply. Be filed within 4 weeks with an advance copy to the counsel opposite. Adjourned to 28-01-2009. {Mehtab S Gill} Judge {K.Kannan} Judge 26-11-2008 CWP 15669 of 2008 Present: Shri R.K.Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta, Senior DAG, Haryana Counsel for the petitioner seeks time to file replication. Be filed before the next date of hearing. Adjourned to 24-02-2009. {Mehtab S Gill} Judge {K.Kannan} Judge 26-11-2008 CWP 16071 of 2008 Present: Shri R.S.Mamli, Advocate,for the petitioner Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta, Senior DAG, Haryana At the request of the counsel for the parties, adjourned to 24-02-2009. {Mehtab S Gill} Judge {K.Kannan} Judge 26-11-2008 CWP 16500 of 2008 Present: Shri Yashdeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners Shri Narender Hooda, Advocate, for respondents 1 and 2 Shri Ashwani Kumar Bura, Advocate, for respondents 4, 17, 19 and 23 Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and the same is taken on record. Notices be issued to the unserved respondents for 19-02-2009. {Mehtab S Gill} Judge {K.Kannan} Judge 26-11-2008 COURT ROOM NUMBER 38