Disposed

Virender Kumar Kharta & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Oct 2011CWP/18209/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order disposing of multiple writ petitions challenging the Preliminary Examination result for Civil Judge posts in Haryana. The Court requested the formation of a Committee of Judges to scrutinise specific questions with alleged answer key errors. Petitions were disposed of pending the Committee's report.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed. A Committee of Judges is requested to be constituted to examine discrepancies in the answer key and decide the issue.

Virender Kumar Kharta & Ors. Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

1. CWP No. 18209 of 2011	Date of Decision: 17.10.2011.
Virender Kumar Kharta & others Versus	--Petitioners
State of Haryana & others	--Respondents
2. CWP No. 18210 of 2011
Kamal Jeet Dahiya & others Versus	--Petitioners
State of Haryana & others	--Respondents
3. CWP No. 18240 of 2011
Pawan Bishnoi & others Versus	--Petitioners
State of Haryana & others	--Respondents
4. CWP No. 18506 of 2011
Sahil Singla Versus	--Petitioner
State of Haryana & others	--Respondents
5. CWP No. 18541 of 2011
Vikas Garg & others Versus	--Petitioners
State of Haryana & others	--Respondents
6. CWP No. 18782 of 2011
Manpreet Kaur and another Versus	--Petitioners
State of Haryana & others	--Respondents
7. CWP No. 19442 of 2011
Aryan Chaudhary & another Versus	--Petitioners
State of Haryana & others	--Respondents
8. CWP No. 19368 of 2011
Salil Maheshwari & another Versus	--Petitioners
State of Haryana & others	--Respondents

¶3

CWP No. 18209 of 2011 -2-

¶4

CWP No. 19396 of 2011 Shallu Aggarwal & another --Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & others --Respondents 10. CWP No. 19109 of 2011 Reena Kansal --Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Haryana & others --Respondents

¶7

CWP No. 19316 of 2011

¶8

Vipin Kumar --Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Haryana & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI.

¶11

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

¶12

Present:Mr. Saurabh Goyal, Advocate. Mr. R.S. Randhawa, Advocate. Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate. Mr. P.K. Chugh, Advocate. Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate. Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate. Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the High Court with Mr. Rajdeep Singh Cheema, Advocate.

¶13

Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate for H.P.S.C. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. ***

¶14

PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL)

¶15

Issue raised in all these petitions being common in nature, these

¶16

petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

¶17

Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as

¶18

the Commission) issued Advertisement No.3 dated 20.6.2011 inviting

¶19

CWP No. 18209 of 2011

¶20

-3-

¶21

applications from eligible candidates for 80 posts of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.). All the petitioners in these petitions applied for the post. They were allotted roll numbers. Under the rules namely the Punjab Civil Service (Judl. Branch) Rules, 1951 as applicable to State of Haryana the selection is to be made on the basis of a competitive examination comprising of following three stages:-

¶22

(i) Preliminary Examination.

¶23

(ii) Main Examination (Written) (iii) Viva Voce.

¶24

The Preliminary Examination was held on 4.9.2011 and the result of the same was declared on 8.9.2011. Result was put on the official website of the Commission. The Preliminary Examination was objective type comprising 125 questions carrying 500 marks in all i.e. 4 marks for each question. Every objective type question had four options. Under the rules candidates equal to 10 times of number of advertised vacancies were to be called in the order of merit for the main examination. Accordingly, candidates equal to 10 time of the number of advertised vacancies were declared successful in the Preliminary Examination. Admittedly none of the petitioner has been declared successful in the Preliminary Examination. However, it is claimed that all the petitioners have secured sufficient marks and are nearer to the last successful candidate in respective categories. Some of the candidates filed writ petitions before this Court including CWP No. 17778 of 2011 seeking a direction to provide copy of the answer key to question paper. Some of the candidates even applied under the R.T.I Act. Above mentioned writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21.9.2011 directing the respondent no.4 i.e the High Court to

¶25

CWP No. 18209 of 2011 -4-

¶26

provide copy of the answer key of question paper for the Preliminary Examination conducted by the Commission. Accordingly, answer key of different sets of question papers were furnished to some of the candidates, who applied for the same in accordance with law. It is stated that on being furnished the copy of the answer key, it has been found that a number of questions carrying multiple choice had incorrect answers in the answer key. The petitioners, accordingly filed these writ petitions claiming quashment of result notification dated 8.9.2011 on account of alleged large scale irregularities in questions and answer key. A further direction is sought for the stay of the selection process. Petitioners have referred to the following questions to contend that the answer key to all these questions carry incorrect answers:-

¶27

4, 6, 13, 25, 28, 41, 55, 90, 95, 97, 108, 114 and 116.

¶28

It is stated that the petitioners have marked the correct answers

¶29

as per law, however, answers in the answer key being incorrect, they have been deprived of the marks even when their answers are correct. According to petitioners difference of marks between the last successful candidates and the petitioners not being too much, they are entitled to be awarded marks for the above questions having answered correctly.

¶30

A similar issue has been examined by this Court in CWP No. 17402 of 2011. On consideration of the totality of the circumstances, this Court passed the following order:-

¶31

“ After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the questions and the answer key, we feel that the matter needs to be examined by a Committee of Hon'ble Judges. We, therefore, request Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice to constitute a Committee of Hon'ble Judges to

¶32

CWP No. 18209 of 2011 -5-

¶33

go into the four questions enlisted by the petitioner in the writ petition and the answer key. It is left to the Committee to deal with the issue. Suffice it to say that the Committee may delete the questions wherever discrepancy is found or if in the opinion of the Committee, the answers are correct, the Committee may accordingly take a decision. The decision of the Committee be implemented accordingly. In view of the fact that the main examination is scheduled to be held on 20.10.2011, we request the Committee to decide the issue expeditiously.

¶34

Copy of this order be given to the counsel for the High Court under the signatures of Special Secretary of this Court.

¶35

Disposed of.”

¶36

We request Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice to constitute a Committee of Hon'ble Judges on the similar lines and the Committee may consider the issue as observed in the aforementioned judgement.

¶37

Petitions disposed of.

¶38

A copy of this order be placed on the record of each connected file. A copy of this order be also placed before Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice for appropriate directions.

¶39

(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE

¶40

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE

¶41

17.10.2011. lucky

Virender Kumar Kharta & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virender Kumar Kharta & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baljinder Singh Sra Vs the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chd & Ors.

Sudhir Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Tirath Ram and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Administrator, U.T.Chd. and Ors. Vs Sanjeev Kumar and Ors.

Lakhwinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

(O&M) Jagdish Rai Vs M.C. Jind