Refusing to interfere with the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) preliminary examination process, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that courts cannot substitute the opinion of subject experts unless the alleged error in the answer key is glaring and beyond doubt. The court also held that in case of ambiguity, the benefit must go to the examination authority rather than the candidate.
Dismissing petitions challenging the HCS preliminary exam result and answer key, the court observed that the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) had acted “in a bona fide and transparent manner” and any interference at the instance of a few unsuccessful candidates would stall the entire selection process.
The petitions against the State of Haryana and another respondent challenged the result for recruitment to the HCS (Executive Branch) and allied services conducted on April 26.
The court noted that after the examination, the HPSC uploaded the provisional answer key and invited objections from candidates on April 28. The objections received from candidates were referred to subject experts. Based on their opinion, answers to certain questions were modified and a revised answer key was uploaded on May 2, following which the result was declared on May 4.
The petitioners argued that answers to several questions in the General Studies paper and the Civil Services Aptitude Test were wrong and contrary to authentic material.
Issuing notice of motion on May 21, the High Court had recorded the petitioners’ contention that the provisional as well as final answer keys in respect of certain questions were “absolutely wrong and incorrect, and contrary to reliable and primary source of information available”, rendering “the intent, aim and objective of fair competitive examination” a “farce”.
The court directed the HPSC Secretary to file an affidavit after obtaining comments from members of the expert committee on whose recommendations the objections had been decided. The court also asked the commission to specify how many objections were received and how much time was consumed in deciding them.
The commission informed the court that the objections were reconsidered and a second opinion from experts was also obtained after the court’s interim order. However, the experts did not recommend any further change in the final answer key.
