CWP No. 678 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: April 01, 2009
1. CWP No. 678 of 2009
Gourav Jain Vs. Haryana Public Service Commission
2. CWP No. 975 of 2009
Parveen Chauhan Vs. State of Haryana and another
3. CWP No. 21152 of 2008
Sukram Pal Vs. Haryana Public Service Commission
and another
4. CWP No. 180 of 2009
Khatri Saurabh Satyapal Vs. Haryana Public Service Commission
and others
5. CWP No. 4686 of 2009
Amit Ludri Vs. Haryana Public Service Commission
and another
6. CWP No. 5022 of 2009
Dinesh Kumar and Vs. Haryana Public Service Commission
and another
7. CWP No. 5108 of 2009
Rajeshwar Kaushik Vs. Haryana Public Service Commission
and another
8. CWP No. 5132 of 2009
Rahul Garg Vs. Haryana Public Service Commission
and another
CWP No. 678 of 2009 2
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr. N.R.Dahiya,
Mr.Chander Shekhar,
Mr.Jagbir Malik,
Mr.Rajbir Sehrawat,
Mr.I.P.Goyat,
Mr.Satish Garg,
Ms.Sarita Bhandari,
Mr.A.K.Walia, Advocates
for the petitioners.
Mr.Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana.
Mr. T.S.Dhindsa, Advocate
for the respondent-Commission.
Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate
for the respondent- Punjab and Haryana High Court.
****
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Ajay Tewari, J.
Civil Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 678 of 2009, 975 of 2009,
21152 of 2008, 180 of 2009, 4686 of 2009, 5022 of 2009, 5108 of 2009 and
5132 of 2009 involve common questions of law and fact and are being
decided by a common order. On the last date learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 had sought time for filing reply which has not been filed
even today and time is again sought. However, when arguments were
being addressed on the question of the interim relief I came to the opinion
that reply of the said respondent may not be necessary by reason of the
view I am proposing to take.
The petitioners have challenged the conduct of the preliminary
examination for the HCS (Judicial Branch) by way of these writ petitions.
CWP No. 678 of 2009 3
The ground of challenge are primarily two: firstly that 84 questions have
been set out of the prescribed syllabus and that there are some questions
which are palpably wrong, that is to say they either have no correct answer
or more than two correct answers.
Adverting to the first argument it is stated that that the syllabus
prescribed was as follows:-
“The syllabus of the Examination will be as contained in
Schedule under rule 9 of part C of Rules relating to the appointment of Civil
Judge (Junior Division) in Haryana,which is appended below:-
Sr.No. Paper (All Description of Max. Marks
Compulsory) SubjectsCivil Law-1 Code of Civil
Procedure,
Punjab Courts
Act, Indian Sales
of Goods Act,
Indian
Partnership Act,
Specific Relief
Act and Indian
Evidence Act,
Indian Contract
1 Act 200
Civil Law-II Hindu Law,
Mohammedan
Law &
Customary Law,
Law of
Registration and
2 Limitation 200
Criminal Law Indian Penal
Code, Code of
Criminal
Procedure and
Indian Evidence
3 Act 200
English A choice of three
composition essays of general
4 topics 200
Language Hindi (in
5 Devnagri Script) 100
CWP No. 678 of 2009 4Sr.No. Paper (All Description of Max. Marks
Compulsory) SubjectsSUB TOTAL 900
Viva Voce
To judge the
personal qualities
6 of the candidate 120
TOTAL 1020NO BOOKS ARE PRESCRIBED FOR ALL THESE PAPERS
SCHEME OF EXAMINATION
“The examination shall be conducted in three stages
namely,
(i) Preliminary examination (ii) Main examination
and (iii) Viva voce
(a) Preliminary Examination :-
The preliminary examination will be of two hours
duration and will have 120 questions. Each correct answer will
carry four marks and for every wrong answer one mark will be
deducted However, no credit or discredit will be given for the
questions not attempted. Questions in preliminary examination
shall be from the syllabus prescribed for the main examination.
Candidates shall be expected to have a general and basic
knowledge of the main subjects and also the ability to answer
questions on current events of National and International
importance, Indian Legal and Constitutional History and
governance. Candidates shall also be tested for their analytical
skills and aptitude.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that as many as
84 questions were such as could not be stated to be within the ambit of the
prescribed syllabus. Reliance is placed on Neeraj Sharma v. High Court
CWP No. 678 of 2009 5
of Delhi and another , W.P. (C) No. 8272 of 2008 decided on 20.11.2008.
In that case the instruction comparable to sub para (a) of para 12 (supra) was
as follows:-
“The Preliminary Examination will be a screening test
and will consist of one paper of multiple objective type
questions carrying maximum of 200 marks. In the preliminary
examination questions on general knowledge and aptitude of
the candidate, candidate’s power of expression, flair in English,
knowledge of objective type legal problems and their solutions
covering Constitution of India,Code of Civil Procedure,Code of
Criminal Procedure, Indian Penal Code, Contract Act,
Partnership Act, principles governing Arbitration Law.
Evidence Act,Specific Relief Act and Limitation Act, etc. will
be included.”
The argument sought to be raised by the respondents therein was that
the word ‘etc.’ would encompass the other statutes out of which the paper
was set. The Division Bench, however, held as follows:-
“We are of the opinion that the use of the word ‘and’
contradicts the submission raised on behalf of the High Court
of Delhi. Furthermore, keeping in view the number of statutes
mentioned in the instructions, prima facie it would suggest that
questions will be asked from within these statutes alone.
Otherwise the comparatively comprehensive or extensive
enumeration would become otiose.”
In the present case, however, para 12 (a)(supra) is couched in
much wider terms. The precise contention of the learned counsel appearing
CWP No. 678 of 2009 6
for the respondent-commission is that the decision of the Delhi High Court
is distinguishable on the basic premise that over there the argument was
only with regard to the fact whether the instructions given to the candidates
encompassed the questions set in the paper and it was in view of the specific
words used that the Division Bench had come to the conclusion that the
questions were out of syllabus. As per learned counsel the questions set in
the present paper would be covered by the stipulation made in para 12(a)
(supra).
It may be noticed at the outset that the whole idea in a
competitive examination is to provide level playing field. The sacrosanctity
of a prescribed syllabus depends upon the attendant circumstance. For
instance, the consequence of an out of syllabus paper where it may entail a
loss of an academic year may be different than the consequence of an out of
syllabus paper in a competitive examination. Which is of course not to say
that the prescribed syllabus can be rendered defunct. The arguments of
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are that some of the questions
may not necessarily come within the ambit of the expression ‘general and
basic knowledge’ of the main subjects and also the ability to answer
questions on current events of National and International importance, Indian
Legal and Constitutional History and Governance and would necessitate
somewhat deeper study than the general and basic knowledge mentioned.
However,as noticed above this standard of difficulty would have been faced
by all the candidates. Additionally it would also be profitable to notice that
the instructions in the question paper mentioned that the most appropriate
answer would be deemed to be correct and thus it can be argued that it was
not a case only of memorising but also of analytical skills and aptitude.
CWP No. 678 of 2009 7
In this view of the matter I am constrained to decline the plea of
the petitioners that the questions being out of syllabus has resulted in a
situation where undeserving candidates have made the cut while deserving
candidates have been left out.
As regards the second contention I find substance in the same.
Questions No. 26, 67,72 and 111( along with the multiple choice answers)
are quoted herein below:-
“26. In Ancient India the following was not a mode of
Punishment(A) Admonition (B) Remonstrance
( c ) Fine (D) Flogging
67. A marriage between an unmarried woman and a married
man is:
(A) null (B ) void ( C ) voidable (D) valid
72. The early releasee of a prisoner is called:
(A) Bail (B) Parole ( C ) Lease (D) Lien
111. Freedom of Information under the Freedom of
Information Act
(A) right to obtain information from any public authority
(B) right to information about fundamental right in
constitutional
( C ) right to information as constitutional right
( D ) None of the aboveLearned counsel for the respondent-Commission was not in a position
to deny that either these questions were palpably wrong (that is to say none
of them could have a correct answer or that they were such for which there
could be two or more equally correct answers). Learned counsel for the
petitioners have relied upon the case of Kanpur University and others v.
Samir Gupta and others reported as AIR 1983 S.C. 1230 and the case of
Abhijit Sen and others v. State of U.P. and others reported as (1984)3
CWP No. 678 of 2009 8
SCC 319. It may be noticed that both these judgments dealt with the PMT
examination. In the case of Kanpur University and others v. Samir
Gupta and others (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
“If this were a case of doubt, we would have
unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if the
matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to
penalize the students for not giving an answer which
accords with the key answer that is to say, with an
answer which is demonstrated to be wrong.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the decision in the case
of Abhijit Sen and others v. State of U.P. and others (supra).
Faced with the situation the question which arises is as to what
is the relief which can be granted. No doubt these four questions could
have impacted not only the petitioners or the selected candidates alone but
others also. However, there have been various judgments wherein Courts
have restricted the relief only to such persons who have approached the
Court by a particular date. Reference may be made to the case of Virender
Singh Hooda and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2005(1) SLR
10 and the case of Sandeep Singh V. State of Haryana and another,
Civil Appeal No. 7422 of 1999. In Sandeep Singh’s case (supra) the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
“We make it clear that if any other persons, who had
appeared at the said examination and, who had not
approached the Court till today, will not be entitled to file
any such application for getting this relief in question so
far as the examination of the year 1993 is concerned.”
CWP No. 678 of 2009 9
In view of the dictum of law mentioned above it is directed that
these four offending questions would be deleted as regards the petitioners
and their merit will be accordingly recomputed. Learned counsel appearing
for the answering respondents has informed me that the cut off in the main
examination was 346 out of 480 marks viz. 72.08 %. Such of the petitioners
whose merit goes beyond 72.08% after recomputation would be entitled to
take part in the main examination scheduled for 11.4.2009. It is made clear
that this exercise will be done only for the petitioners and will not be
resorted to either for the selected candidates or those who have not
approached this Court till today.
Before parting with this judgment I am constrained to observe
that even though the allegation that the paper is vitiated because questions
have been prescribed from outside the syllabus has been repelled yet it
cannot be gainsaid that the reason for that was not so much that the
questions were strictly within the syllabus but that special prejudice has not
been said to have been caused to the petitioners. However, it cannot be
denied that prejudice was caused to all the examinees across the board. The
prescription of a syllabus obviously intends to bind the examiner. Not only
this, the four questions extracted above also reveal the cavalier attitude
with which the paper has been set. It is indeed regrettable that a premier
constitutional authority like the Public Service Commission would let such
a carelessly drafted question paper be inflicted on the examinees for a
premier service of the State. In the circumstances the Commission is
directed to devise some in house mechanism to ensure that wherever a
syllabus is prescribed the questions should be prescribed strictly from
within its four corners. It is also the duty of the Commission to make
CWP No. 678 of 2009 10
certain that there are no questions which are either demonstrably wrong or
‘tricky’.
With these observations these writ petitions are disposed of.
A copy of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the
parties dasti under the signatures of the Court Secretary.
A copy of this order be also placed on the files of all connected
cases.
(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE
April 01, 2009
sunita