Can’t turn blind eye to wrong answers in exams: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that courts cannot stay silent if an answer chosen by a selection board in a competitive examination is clearly wrong as it would harm deserving candidates and violate their right to equality and fair opportunity.

“The High Court cannot turn a blind eye if selection board has selected an answer which cannot be accepted at all. If there is doubt, the benefit of the doubt must go to selection agency. However, in the absence of doubt, if opinion of selection agency is accepted, it would entail casualty of merit, miscarriage of justice and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India,” Justice Jagmohan Bansal asserted.

Emphasising its role as the “sentinel on the qui vive”, or watchful guardian of fundamental rights, he observed that securing a government job was not a fundamental right, but denial of appointment due to lapses on the government’s part would constitute a violation of the right to equality in employment, once a candidate crossed the cut-off mark.

“The Constitutional Courts are custodian of fundamental rights… One cannot be heard to claim that government job is his fundamental right, however, the moment he cuts the ice and crosses the cut-off barrier, he cannot be ignored on account of lapse on the part of government machinery,” Justice Bansal held.

The Bench was hearing 25 petitions challenging an answer key issued on December 17, 2018, and the final result declared on March 4, 2019, for Sub-Inspector’s posts. The petitioners alleged that correct objections to erroneous answers were summarily rejected without due application of mind.

Senior advocate DS Patwalia contended that the objections were decided in a mechanical manner. An expert committee constituted by the respondent agency rejected all objections, despite “authentic material” in the public domain disproving the correctness of certain key answers. Pursuant to directions issued by the court, a fresh expert committee constituted by Panjab University found answers, chosen by the commission for two questions, to be incorrect.

Justice Bansal noted that correcting the answer to at least one of the disputed questions could impact the appointments of some already selected candidates, but clarified that the appointments of those candidates would not be disturbed since there was no fraud, misrepresentation or malpractice on their part.

“They must have completed probation period. They are serving the respondent State for more than five years and any order disturbing their appointment would cause undue hardship to their families and ruin their lives and career,” the court observed.

Justice Bansal directed that the date of joining of petitioner-candidates selected pursuant to the order would be treated as their date of appointment for all intents and purposes. The needful would be done within three months.

Issuing a caveat, Justice Bansal made it clear that the benefit of the judgment would extend only to the present petitioners.

Case pertains to 2018 exam

The Bench was hearing 25 petitions challenging an answer key issued on December 17, 2018, and the final result declared on March 4, 2019, for Sub-Inspector’s posts. The petitioners alleged that correct objections to erroneous answers were summarily rejected without due application of mind.