DEVENDER KUMAR SAINI v. HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & Ors.

Parveen Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) CM-3974 3974-LPA-2026 been filed for condoning the delay of Present application has been filed for condoning the delay of been filed for condoning the delay of days in filing the appeal 348 days in filing the appeal Keeping in view the contents mentioned in the application , the ts mentioned in the application, the allowed. same is allowed. Delay of 348 days in filing the appeal 348 days in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA No.1625 of 2026 (O&M) LPA No.1625 of 2026 (O&M)

#1. to the judgment dated In the present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment dated In the present appeal, the challenge is passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.7399 of 2019, 08.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.7399 of 2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.7399 of 2019, 08.05.2025 whereby the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with whereby the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with regard to two questions in the claim raised by the appellant that the answers to the two questions in the claim raised by the appellant that the answers to claim raised by the appellant that the answers to written test conducted on Question Paper of “W” Series, given in the written test conducted on Question Paper of “W” Series, given in the Question Paper of “W” Series, given in the

02.12.2018, were incorrect. 02.12.2018, were incorrect.

#2. learned Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Single judge should have exercised the jurisdiction to decide whether the Single judge should have exercised the jurisdiction to decide whether the Single judge should have exercised the jurisdiction to decide whether the Single judge should have exercised the jurisdiction to decide whether the CM-3974-3975-LPA-2026 in/and LPA No.1625 of 2026 (O&M) -2- answers to be chosen from the option given qua the questions given in the written test conducted were correct or not, as, the same relates to the recruitment of the appellant for the post of Sub-Inspector (Male) (Category No.4) (Advertisement No.3/2018) dated 16.04.2018) as well as final result declared on 04.03.2019.

#3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the records of the present case with his able assistance.

#4. It may be noticed that the Courts do not have the jurisdiction to interfere with the result of a written examination especially in a case where there exists a report of the subject expert qua the issue raised. The said question of law has already been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Ran Vijay Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P and ors.”, 2017 INSC 1209, decided on 11.12.2017. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:- “30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination 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; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation. governing an examination 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 material error has been committed; (iii) The Court should not at all re- evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to CM-3974-3975-LPA-2026 in/and LPA No.1625 of 2026 (O&M) -3- academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.”

#5. A bare perusal of the above would show that once objections of the candidate have been dealt with by experts of the subject and report of the expert is accepted by the recruiting authority, this Court will not be within the jurisdiction to interfere even if, there exist any grey area in the subject matter after the opinion of the subject expert, as the benefit of doubt in such matters is to be given to the recruiting agency rather than to the candidate and in the present case, the experts had already answered objection in favour of the selecting agency.

#6. Further, in another somewhat similar case, after the submission of report by the Committee concerned, this Court interfered with the report of the Committee, which matter was taken to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and while passing order in Civil Appeal No.7727 of 2019 titled as HPSC vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 30.09.2019, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed the following order:- “By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench has appointed the second Expert Committee for appraisal of the question papers. Record reveals that the Appellant, Haryana Public Service Commission (for short, ‘the Commission’) undertook selection process to appoint 133 Assistant Professors of Geography (College) Cadre HES-II for which an objective type question paper was set up wherein the candidates were required to answer 100 questions. Grievance before the learned single Judge was that out of 100 questions, most of them were CM-3974-3975-LPA-2026 in/and LPA No.1625 of 2026 (O&M) -4- either ambiguous or not having correct answer keys. Such questions were brought to the notice of the Commission by raising objections. The candidates identified 46 questions as the objections of defective. The Commission based on candidates, appointed a Committee of Experts in the field for appraisal of the question papers. The Expert Committee, on going through the question paper in detail, concluded that seven questions were either ambiguous or not having correct answer keys. Consequently, the Commission accepting the Expert Committee’s report deleted those seven questions and marks and thereafter the results were declared. Thereafter, the candidates approached the learned Single Judge with a writ petition. Learned Single Judge curiously acted himself as an expert and on going through the question paper concluded that four more questions were ambiguous and, therefore, they should also be deleted from consideration. Then, some of the candidates approached the Division Bench and the Division Bench passed the impugned orders appointing another Expert Committee which is challenged in this petition. If the judgment of the Division Bench is allowed to stand, there will be no finality to the selection process. There was no allegation as such against the Expert Committee which was appointed by the Commission. The Expert Committee, in its wisdom has concluded that seven questions were either ambiguous or the answer keys were not correct. Accepting the said report, the Commission has proceeded with the selection process and results were announced. Thereafter, the candidates approached the High Court. Though learned Single Judge was right in agreeing for deletion of seven questions, was not justified in acting as an expert in the field and, therefore, the learned Single Judge’s order relating to deletion of four questions also cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as that of the Division Bench stand set aside. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The selection process made by the Commission based on the First Expert CM-3974-3975-LPA-2026 in/and LPA No.1625 of 2026 (O&M) -5- Committee Report deleting seven questions from consideration stands confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs”.

#7. Keeping in view the above, it can be safely said that once an expert opinion has been given which opinion has been relied upon by the recruiting agency, the Court will have no jurisdiction to interfere any further.

#8. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the objections raised by the appellant to the proposed answer key have been dealt by the expert committee and have been answered, which report of the Committee has been accepted by the recruiting agency. That being so, the Court will have no power any further to examine the issue whether, the report given by the expert committee is correct or not, even if, there exists a grey area after the report of the expert committee has been submitted, the same has to go in favour of the recruiting agency and not in favour of the appellant.

#9. No ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

#11. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 01-07-2026 Sapna Goyal (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/ reasoned: YES Whether reportable: NO