Civil Writ Petition No. 9295 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 9295 of 2009 Date of decision: 22.7.2009 Sudhir Kumar Kataria and others ...petitioners Versus Haryana Public Service Commission and others ...respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: None for the petitioners. RANJIT SINGH J. Haryana Public Service Commission invited applications for recruitment of 184 posts of HCS (Executive Branch and other allied services). The petitioners applied for appointment to the said posts pursuant to the advertisement. The petitioners alongwith some other candidates had appeared in the optional subject of Zoology. The result of preliminary examination when declared, did not contain the roll number of the petitioners. The petitioners state that on account of ambiguous questions in Zoology, a subject opted by them as optional they have failed and have not come in merit. The petitioners accordingly sought information under the RTI Act regarding question booklet, complete photocopy of General Knowledge and Zoology optional subject papers alongwith model key. The petitioners also made a request for review and revising the result of candidates having Zoology as optional subject and made a representation in this regard (Annexure P-4). In the representation, the petitioners have pointed out that 14 questions in the subject of Zoology are wrong as either due to wrong choice or having more than one correct choice. 12 questions were from Bio-chemistry, which is part of main HCS Zoology syllabus and not for preliminary Civil Writ Petition No. 9295 of 2009 2 examination. 8 questions are stated to be totally out of syllabus as per the HSC Brochure, 2009. The petitioners having failed in their representation; which was repeated in 2009 and in their approach made to the Secretary during June, 2009, followed by approach to the Chairman, have filed this writ petition. The petitioners have stated that on recollection from their memory, they have prepared 93 questions. They searched for the answers from the relevant books and have come to know that 34 questions out of 93 were either wrong or out of syllabus. The list of questions alongwith answers recollected by the petitioners on the basis of memory are at Annexure P-9, annexed with the petition. When this writ petition came up for preliminary hearing, the petitioners were required to supply information as to how many candidates in all appeared in the preliminary examination with Zoology as an optional subject. As per the information now supplied, 664 candidates appeared in the preliminary examination with Zoology as optional subject. 33 candidates out of all these have succeeded in clearing the examination in Zoology. Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the success rate works out to be 5% of the total candidates who appeared whereas success rate of the candidates who appeared in preliminary examination overall otherwise is 10%. On this basis, the counsel would contend that the persons like petitioners could not clear the examination of Zoology for the reasons that it was either out of syllabus or the questions put were such which could not be correctly answered, in view of the multiple choices being faulty. I have considered the pleas raised by the counsel for the Civil Writ Petition No. 9295 of 2009 3 petitioners. The petitioners have neither placed the questions papers nor answers on record. There is no material to substantiate the plea raised by the petitioners. It is not a case where some questions asked are out of subject as such. If some questions or some odd questions were out of syllabus this was equally for every candidate who appeared in the subject. The percentage of successful candidates with Zoology as subject when compared to the over all percentage of successful candidates is not so alarmingly different which would give an indication that but for the Zoology exams the result of the petitioners would have been different. The questions and answers are no where to be seen. It is not fair to interfere in the process of selection on the basis of half baked information provided in the petition, out of recollection and on the basis of guess work. Recently a similar issue has been dealt with by Division Bench of this Court where identical challenge was raised by some of the candidates who were unsuccessful in HCS Judicial Examination. While negating the challenge and allowing the LPA No. 236 of 2009 the Division Bench has relied upon L. Lokanadham vs. Chairman, Telecom Commission and others, (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 155 wherein it is observed:- “........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 Civil Writ Petition No. 9295 of 2009 4 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.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L.Lokanadham (Supra) has held that the Courts have limited jurisdiction in these matters and it is for the experts to clear the ambiguity and further that no relief can be granted on assumptions. The petitioners have otherwise not been able to demonstrate in any satisfactory manner that any of the answers were incorrect, erroneous or absurd and so were liable to be excluded for the purpose of assessment. As is well understood, the Court, while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not to sit as a Court of appeal to go into the question of fact whether any question is asked in the question paper suffers from the infirmities as noticed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. July 22, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE