Punjab & Haryana High Court
While dismissing a petition challenging the answer key of an examination held for the appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that misconceived and unmeritorious petitions seeking to substitute judicial opinion for expert academic conclusions without any demonstrable illegality, shall be dealt with sternly, and appropriate costs shall be imposed to deter abuse of the judicial process.
The High Court further observed that that mere disagreement by a candidate with the expert determination of an answer does not vest a cause of action in his favor.
The Petitioner had approached the High Court seeking quashing of Question No. 38 (Booklet Series-L) as published in the final answer key dated September 4, 2019 issued by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), on the ground that the answer indicated therein, namely “Sarswati”, was ex facie erroneous and contrary to the correct and undisputed answer, “Yamuna”, which was correctly attempted by the Petitioner.
The Single Bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj said, “Mere disagreement by a candidate with the expert determination of an answer does not vest a cause of action in his favour, nor does it confer jurisdiction upon this Court to interfere with matters that lie squarely within the academic domain…Courts cannot be expected to reopen 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.”
The Bench also stated, “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.”
Senior Advocate R.K. Malik represented the Petitioner while Additional AG Rahul Dev represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The Haryana Staff Selection Commission had invited applications for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) across 18 Departments, Boards, and Corporations within the State of Haryana. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the written examination was conducted by the respondent Commission, and the petitioner appeared in the said examination. The petitioner submitted his objections concerning the provisional answer key. He had obtained equal marks to the last selected candidate and was the last waitlisted candidate in the General Category. It was the petitioner’s case that he suffered grave prejudice due to the erroneous marking of Question No. 38 in the final answer key, which had a direct bearing on his merit position and consequential selection.
It was further his case that the answer indicated in the final answer key by the respondent-Commission, namely, “Sarswati”—was factually incorrect and unsupported by credible scientific or governmental data, whereas the answer marked by the petitioner—”Yamuna”—found due corroboration in official records obtained by him from competent authorities under the RTI mechanism.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the petitioner’s grievance was premised solely upon his interpretation of the geographical and hydrological origin of the Yamuna River. Reference was made to the research paper titled “Disruption of Proto-Saraswati River in Response to Neo-Tectonic Activity in Bata Makanda Area-Northwest Himalaya, India”, authored by G.S. Shrivastava (Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India) and A.K. Kulshrestha (Institute of Hydrogen, Energy and Geo-Resources, ONGC Centre for Advanced Studies, University of Lucknow) which unambiguously states that the perennial source of the Saraswati River is derived from a group of glaciers in the Har Ki Dun region of the Garhwal Himalaya, Uttarakhand. “Thus, the very material relied upon by the petitioner in fact fortifies the conclusion drawn by the Expert Committee of the respondents”, it said.
“Merely because a Tributary of “Yamuna” also originates from the same source does not mean that no other river originates from the same source. In the glacial system, such an argument of the petitioner is fallacious”, the Bench further added.
The Bench said, “This Court reiterates the settled principle of law that in matters pertaining to academic evaluation; the setting and assessment of questions in competitive examinations, the opinion of the Expert Committee is to be accorded primacy and deference.” It also noted, “Moreover, this court cannot sit in appeal over academic decisions 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.”
As per the Bench, the function of the Court is not to substitute its own judgment in place of academic experts. The answer provided by the Expert Committee stood accepted for evaluation, and no case was made out for judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
“The sanctity of competitive examinations and the integrity of expert assessments cannot be allowed to be eroded through unwarranted litigation”, the Bench held while dismissing the Petition.
Cause Title: Lakshay Chahal v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission and another (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:076102)
Appearance
Petitioner: Senior Advocate R.K. Malik, Advocate Kartikey Chaudhary
Respondent: Additional AG Rahul Dev
