02.07.2025 Harshit Jain v. CORAM: HO
Case Details
2025 CWP-2934-2025 -1- N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB NJAB AND HARYANA AT IN TH GARH CHANDIGARH 219 CWP-293 Date of de 2934-2025 (O&M) te of decision: 02.07.2025 Harshit Jain ..Petitioner State of Punjab unjab and others ..Respondents Versus CORAM: HO
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN AMAN CHAUDHARY Present: Mr Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate for ate for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab. Ms *** *** AMAN CHAUD HAUDHARY, J. (Oral) 1. Learned counsel states that again Lea against the revised answer key date y dated 29.08.2024 uplo 4 uploaded/issued by respondent Nos. t Nos.2 and 3, the petitioner had raise d raised objections, one one out of which, stands correct orrected, however, 4 answers rema remain unchanged. 2. Learned State counsel refers to pa Lea s to para 5 of the short reply filed b filed by Secretary, Exam , Examinations, Punjab Public Serv Service Commission, Patiala, date , dated 08.05.2025, whi 5, which reads thus:- “That it is also noteworthy to the e-mail sent by the petitioner is brought to the notice that Notice dated 05.05.2024 (A provision was already includ candidates, relevant part of mentioned hereinafter for the ki ‘There will be no separate rep may have put objections. T indication, if his/her objection egard to hy to mention here that with regard e P7), it titioner on 02.01.2025 (Annexure P7), Public that in paragraph no.4 of the Publ llowing 24 (Annexure R-1), the followin of the included for the information of th ision is rt of the above said provision Court:- the kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court tes who ate replies given to the candidates wh ons. The revised answer key is a is an ’ ection has been accepted or rejected.’ 3. A reference can be made to judgm A r judgment dated 28.05.2025 passed assed in CWP-19486-202 2021 titled as Lakshay Chaha hahal vs. Haryana Staff Selectio election ASHOK KUMAR 2025.07.02 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-2934-2025 -2- Commission and another, wherein issue of answer key has been extensively dealt with by referring to the law laid down in this regard by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, relevant paras whereof read thus:- “34. This Court reiterates the settled principle of law that in matters pertaining to academic evaluation; the setting and assess- ment of questions in competitive examinations, the opinion of the Expert Committee is to be accorded primacy and deference. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. reported as (2018) 2 SCC 357 has held as under: 30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examina- 30.1. tion permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; 30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examina- tion does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re- evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any ”inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a ma- terial error has been committed; 30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the an- swer sheets of a candidate—it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; 30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examina- tion authority rather than to the candidate. (Emphasis supplied) 35. Moreover, this court cannot sit in appeal over academic deci- sions unless shown to be palpably wrong, irrational, or perverse. In the present matter, there is no credible material to demonstrate that the decision of the Expert Committee suffers from any such vice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of U.P. Public Ser- vice Commission v. Rahul Singh, reported as (2018) 7 SCC 254, while addressing the issue of correctness of answers provided in an official answer key, held that the key prepared by subject ex- perts is entitled to a presumption of correctness. The Court ob- served that judicial interference with such expert-determined an- swers should be minimal and exercised only when it is demon- strated that the answer provided is patently erroneous, indisputa- bly incorrect, or in conflict with established and accepted know- ledge. The operative part is as under: ”12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The Constitutional Courts must exercise great restraint in ASHOK KUMAR 2025.07.02 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-2934-2025 -3- such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challeng- ing the correctness of the key answers.” 36. The Commission, in discharge of its statutory functions, has constituted a body of subject-matter experts who have collectively and after due deliberation prepared the final answer key. The said key has been uniformly applied across the board to all candidates. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has been treated diffe- rently or that there is any discriminatory application of standards. On the contrary, it is evident that all answer scripts were evaluated strictly in accordance with the said key, thereby ensuring parity, transparency, and fairness in the selection process. 37. This Court also takes notice of the fact that competitive ex- aminations of this nature are marked by intense competition and minimal margins for error, where even a difference of one mark may result in a candidate’s success or failure. In such a scenario, it is imperative that the sanctity of the evaluation process is pre- served. Allowing individual candidates to question the correctness of answers as determined by domain experts would open flood- gates of litigation and undermine the finality of the selection process. 38. Furthermore, no irregularity, procedural lapse, or violation of rules has been brought to the fore by the petitioner. Mere disa- greement by a candidate with the expert determination of an an- swer does not vest a cause of action in his favour, nor does it con- fer jurisdiction upon this Court to interfere with matters that lie squarely within the academic domain. 39. This Court is constrained to observe that the petitioner, by re- lying on responses received under the Right to Information Act and misapplying the content of scholarly research papers, has sought to project his own understanding as superior to that of a duly constituted Expert Committee comprising subject-matter specialists. This approach not only undermines the credibility of objective expert determination but also reflects a lack of due dili- gence and academic discipline. Courts cannot be expected to reo- pen settled academic findings at the instance of a candidate who, without requisite expertise, challenges well-considered decisions of those duly qualified and empowered to do so. 40. It is further disconcerting that such petitions, filed with mis- placed confidence and without adequate legal or academic founda- tion, have the tendency to encourage similarly ill-founded litiga- tion by other unsuccessful candidates. This results in an undue burden on the judicial system and a diversion of precious time and resources from matters involving genuine constitutional or legal questions. 41. Let it be made abundantly clear that in future, if similarly misconceived and unmeritorious petitions are brought before this Court seeking to substitute judicial opinion for expert academic conclusions without any demonstrable illegality, arbitrariness or mala fides, the same shall be dealt with sternly, and appropriate costs shall be imposed to deter abuse of the judicial process. The sanctity of competitive examinations and the integrity of expert assessments cannot be allowed to be eroded through unwarranted litigation. ASHOK KUMAR 2025.07.02 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-2934-2025 -4-
Decision
42. In light of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the petitioner’s challenge. The function of this Court is not to substi- tute its own judgment in place of academic experts. The answer provided by the Expert Committee stands accepted for the purpose of evaluation, and no case is made out for judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. 43. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 44. All pending civil misc. application(s), if any, stand disposed of.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, despite best efforts, being unable to either distinguish the above judgment or cite any contrary, the present petition is dismissed. 02.07.2025 ashok ( AMAN CHAUDHARY ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Yes/No Whether reportable : ASHOK KUMAR 2025.07.02 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document