CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7228 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 10, 2011 Virender Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. H. C. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Patter, DAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. R. K. Malik, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos.7 to 15. Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for respondent No.16. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Respondent Nos.7 to 16 were appointed as Assistant Secretaries in Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board. The petitioner has challenged the said selection on the ground that the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7228 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: appointment is made of kith and kins of V.I.Ps, including politicians belonging to ruling party. Respondent No.16 is stated to be daughter of respondent No.4, who is the Secretary of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. Prayer also is to quash the direction, declining the prayer of the petitioner for supplying the answer sheets and answer key, it being in violation of the provisions of Right to Information Act. Besides, the petitioner has also pleaded that question paper set in this case, which contained 150 questions, had been correctly answered by him but his answers have not been or could not be properly assessed as some of the questions contained more than one correct answers, resulting in prejudice to the petitioner, who missed the selection by 2 points. The petitioner has obtained 248 marks out of 400 in the written examination. The petitioner submits that he has missed the selection by 2 marks only on account of this infirmity as last candidate statedly had obtained 250 marks. To substantiate his claim that selected candidates are related to the V.I.Ps, the petitioner has made reference to newspaper report published in Dainik Jagran, copy of which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-3. As per the averments in the petition, the selected candidates are related to some of the V.I.Ps in the following manner:- “1. Respondent No.7- Sultan Singh (Roll No.3879). He is son of Sher Singh, a Congress Leader and near relation of Sh.Randeep Surjewala. 2. Respondent No.9- Dharam Raj Dangi (Roll No.828). He CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7228 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: is nephew of Sh.Anand Singh Dangi, M.L.A., Meham (Distt. Rohtak). 3. Respondent No.11- Jagjit Singh (Roll No.4692). He is nephew of Raghuvir Singh Kadian (Speaker of Haryana Legislative Assembly). 4. Respondent No.14-Jyoti Dhankar (Roll No.1372) d/o Mrs.Bimla Dhankar (Chairperson of Zila Prishad Jhajjar). 5. Respondent No.15 – Shri Bhagwan (Roll No.566). He is son of Sh.Ram Kanwar (Ex.Secretary of Haryana Agriculture Marketing Board and is a close relative of the present Chief Minister). 6. Respondent No.10-Ravinder Singh Nehra (Roll No.3118). He is very close to daughter of present Chief Minister.” Respondents, including the private respondents, have filed reply. The averments made in the writ petition are denied. As per the reply, 18 posts of Assistant Secretaries were advertised, out of which 9 were in general category, 3 in S.C, 2 in B.C.A, 2 in B.C.B and 2 in E.S.M (General) categories. A written test was held on the basis of published criteria and the respondent-Commission had then finalised the result, which was declared on 12.6.2007. The petitioner is a general category candidate and has obtained 248 marks in the written statement against 250 marks obtained by the last selected candidate in the general category. He was, thus, not called for interview as he could not be short listed. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7228 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: It is disclosed in the reply that the petitioner had preferred appeal before State Information Commission, Haryana, whereby his requests for showing the answer sheets was turned down. The State Information Commission has also rejected the plea of the petitioner in this regard except to the extent that the petitioner may be informed of erasing and overwriting of the questions attempted and copy of the question papers be supplied to him. The entire record of the selection has, however, been submitted in a sealed cover and is lying deposited with the High Court. So far as respondent No.16 is concerned, it is stated that she belongs to Backward Class category and has got no concern with the petitioner, who had applied in the general category. In a common reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos.7 to 15, it is stated that all the allegations of appointing relatives of politicians are totally false and baseless. Assertion that Sultan Singh, respondent No.7 is a son of Congress leader and a near relative of Randeep Singh Surjewala, is denied being false and baseless. It is pointed out that father of respondent No.7 was a Accountant in the Market Committee and had died on 9.9.2003 and he is no relative of Randeep Singh Surjewala. Allegation that Jagjit Singh, respondent No.11 is nephew of Raghuvir Singh Kadian is also denied being false. It is further stated that Raghuvir Singh Kadian has only one brother, named, Jagbir Singh, whereas respondent No.11 is son of Mohinder Singh. Allegation that Ravinder Singh Nehra is close to daughter of the Chief Minister is again termed as false and baseless and hence, denied. Even allegation made against respondent No.15 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7228 OF 2008 :{ 5 }: is termed as false and it is pointed out that he is not relative of Chief Minister who is Jat whereas said respondent is Brahman by caste. The private respondents would also urge that they all have been selected on their own merit on the basis of the written test and, thus, the allegation of their selection being related to V.I.Ps is totally false and misleading. Sh.H.C.Arora, counsel for the petitioner, would first submit that the petitioner has listed 5 questions, which are such, which carried more than one correct answer to be ticked and accordingly it can not be ascertained whether the correct answers, as ticked by the petitioner, have been rightly assessed or not. The petitioner accordingly would plead that the answer sheets of the petitioner as well as private respondents be produced before the Court for effective adjudication or a Committee be constituted to evaluate the answer sheets on the basis of correct answers, which should be got checked on the basis of the material like text books and the information available on internet etc. Whether the Court would have jurisdiction to do so, thus, would be a question? Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with this issue in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and another, (2010) 6 SCC 759 and has held that court cannot take upon itself task of examiner or Selection Board and examine discrepancies and inconsistencies in the question papers and evaluation thereof. It is further observed that it is not possible for the High Court to examine question papers and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7228 OF 2008 :{ 6 }: answer sheets itself, particularly, when the State Public Service Commission had assessed inter se merit of the candidates. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case was dealing with recruitment to the judicial service wherein the High Court has directed the Commission to produce the answer sheets before it and after going through the answer sheets had directed the Commission to arrange special interview for the candidate after forming a view that there had been some inconsistency in framing two questions and in evaluation of the answer to said question. Against this order passed by the High Court, the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission had approached the Supreme Court when operation of this order was stayed by the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the High Court had directed the Commission to send the answer sheets of the candidates to another examiner holding the rank of Reader in law in Himachal Pradesh University for revaluation. This order was again challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The examiner so appointed by the High Court had awarded some different marks to the candidate on the basis of which the High Court had disposed of the writ petition directing the Commission to issue appointment letter to the candidate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court got the said answer sheet evaluated from another eminent professor of law with the consent of the parties, who awarded only 82 marks to the candidate against 119 awarded by an examiner detailed by High Court. Submission was also made that there was no provision of revaluation or re-checking of the answer sheets and the comparative merit of the candidate was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7228 OF 2008 :{ 7 }: to be assessed on the basis of questions as posed and if there was some inconsistency in framing of the questions/marking of particular question, it would be the same in case of all the candidates and, therefore, it was not permissible for the court to direct revaluation of the answer sheets of a particular candidate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on the basis of pleas raised before it, formulated three basic questions, which arose for consideration before the court and these were as under:- (i)As to whether it is permissible for the court to take the task of examiner/Selection Board upon itself and examine discrepancies and inconsistencies in the question papers and evaluation thereof? (ii) Whether the court has the power to pass a general order restraining the persons aggrieved to approach the court by filing a writ petition on any ground and depriving them of their constitutional rights to approach the court, particularly, when some other candidates had secured the same marks i.e. 89 and stood disqualified for being called for interview but could not approach the court? (iii) Whether in the absence of any statutory provision for revaluation, the court could direct for revaluation? After making reference to large number of precedents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is the settled legal proposition that the court cannot take upon itself the task of statutory authorities. In this regard, reference is made to Hindustan Shipyard CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7228 OF 2008 :{ 8 }: Ltd. V. Dr. P.Sambasiva Rao, (1996) 7 SCC 499, Govt. of Orissa V. Hanichal Roy, (1998) 6 SCC 626, LIC Vs. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar, (1994) 2 SCC 718 and A. Umarani Vs. Coop. Societies, (2004) 7 SCC 112. Having so observed, the Hon'ble Supreme Court finally has held as under:- “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”. This Court, after making reference to various precedents, has summed up the law while deciding Civil Writ Petition No.15781 of 2010 (Virender Sharma and others Vs. State of Haryana and others), decided on 15.9.2010 as under:- “The law, thus, can be summed up to say that the Courts can not take on the role of examiner or the evaluator or that of the Selection Board to examine discrepancies CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7228 OF 2008 :{ 9 }: either in the question papers or the answer sheets. Courts can not also examine the question paper or the answer sheet itself. Obviously, if the Courts would start doing so, they would assume the role of examiner, paper setter and evaluator, which is to be left to the expert body. It is with reason and purpose that the courts are to assume the answer given in the `key answer' to be correct. Any interference in this regard would tend to make them to take on the role of paper setter, which would be beyond the purview of judicial review. As is well understood, the judicial review generally speaking is not directed against a decision but is directed against the `decision making process'. Any exercise to observe that a particular question is discrepant or the answer in the key answer is not correct, would tend to be going beyond the permissible grounds of judicial review. As observed in the case, of Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia Vs. Pollak, (1951) 343 US 451, the judicial process demands that a Judge moves within the frame work of relevant legal rules and the covenanted modes of thought for ascertaining them. The fact is that on the whole Judges do lay aside private views in discharging their judicial functions.” The question paper in this case was equally applicable to all the candidates who appeared in the examination. No particular prejudice has been caused to the petitioner in any case. As per the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7228 OF 2008 :{ 10 }: clear position of law, it is not within the domain of this Court to examine the question paper or the answer sheet to notice any discrepancies or inconsistencies either in setting the questions or evaluation thereof. Thus, the prayer of the petitioner, as made, can not be accepted and is rejected. Equally untenable is the plea of the petitioner that relatives of the high-ups have been appointed in this case. Firstly, the petitioner has made averment in this regard without providing any substantial proof and all these averments have been specifically denied and are termed as false. This submission otherwise would also not impress me as the selection in this case is made on the basis of written examination and there would hardly be any scope of interference as the short listing of the candidates was done on the basis of merits prepared as per the written examination. There was hardly any scope of result being tempered with in any manner to favour a particular candidate or candidates who have been so appointed. There is, thus, no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. February 10, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE