HARKIRAT SINGH GHUMAN versus PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 11 S.C.R. 124 · Decided: 29-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
124
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
HARKIRAT SINGH GHUMAN
v.
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5874 of 2022)
AUGUST 29, 2022
[AJAY RASTOGI AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Service Law – Punjab Superior Judicial Services Rules, 2007
– Haryana Superior Judicial Services Rules, 2007 – Public
employment – Fairness and transparency – Selection process
initiated by the respondents for direct recruitment to Punjab Superior
Judicial Service/Haryana Superior Judicial Service – Appellant,
having not qualified in the written examination filed writ petition
raising various objections, dismissed by High Court – Objections
raised are in reference to the procedure adopted in holding written
examination which as per the appellant is neither fair nor transparent
and many infirmities have been committed in the process of selection
– Held: To keep transparency in the process of holding examination,
particularly in cases where there is a multiple--choice question paper,
it is advisable that for such question papers, there shall always be
an OMR sheet which may be provided to the candidates so that the
question paper can be retained by the participants – After the
examination is held, a provisional answer key is to be uploaded
inviting objections from the candidates to be furnished within a
reasonable time and after collating such objections, the same be
placed before a subject expert committee to be constituted by the
recruiting/competent authority and after the report is submitted by
the expert committee, the same be examined by the recruiting
authority and thereafter the final answer key is to be uploaded –
No presumption is to be drawn that the result has to be declared,
but at least the candidates may be provided the final answer keys to
enable them to make their own assessment – Further, in cases where
the written examination is followed with interview/viva-voce and
the members in the interview board are made aware of the marks
secured by the candidates in the written examination that may likely
to form bias affecting the impartial evaluation of the candidates in
viva-voce and it may always be avoided – On facts, respondents to
valuate the marks obtained of question nos. 1,2,3 and 5 of Paper V
[2022] 11 S.C.R. 124
124
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
125
(Criminal Law) (out of total 160 marks) and thereafter, a fresh result
of the written examination be declared – Those who qualify and
fall in the zone of three times the number of vacancies may be called
for viva--voce and result of the selection process be finally declared
in accordance with the scheme of 2007 Rules – Impugned judgment
set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 So far as Paper VI (General Knowledge) is
concerned, it is a multiple-choice question paper having 100
questions and all instructions were made available to the
candidates specifically indicated on the overleaf of the question
paper and all the candidates have attempted the paper including
the present appellant. That all the candidates who had appeared
in Paper VI (General Knowledge) had a common level playing
field and in the absence of any material on record in rebuttal, the
submission is not sustainable and deserves rejection. But to keep
transparency in the process of holding examination, particularly
in such cases where there is a multiple--choice question paper, it
is always advisable that for such question papers, there shall
always be an OMR sheet which may be provided to the candidates
so that the question paper can be retained by each of the
participants and after the examination is held, a provisional answer
key is to be uploaded inviting objections from the candidates
who had participated in the selection process, to be furnished
within a reasonable time and after collating such objections, the
same be placed before a subject expert committee to be
constituted by the recruiting/competent authority and after the
report is submitted by the subject expert committee, the same
be examined by the recruiting authority and thereafter the final
answer key is to be uploaded. It is made clear that no presumption
is to be drawn that the result has to be declared, but at least the
candidates may be provided the final answer keys to enable them
to make their own assessment. This is one of the mechanisms by
which fairness and transparency which is a sine qua non in the
public employment can be resorted to. [Paras 25, 26][136-A-F]
1.2 So far as the other two objections in reference to

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.