Pleas challenging answers in competitive exams to attract action: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has flagged the growing trend of unsuccessful candidates filing unwarranted petitions to challenge the correctness of competitive exam answers determined by subject experts, while cautioning that such baseless litigation will attract stern action and heavy costs in future.

Issuing a warning, Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj ruled that the courts could not be asked to substitute judicial opinion for academic conclusions purely on the basis of a candidate’s disagreement. “Let it be made abundantly clear that in future, if similarly misconceived and unmeritorious petitions are brought before this Court seeking to substitute judicial opinion for expert academic conclusions without any demonstrable illegality, arbitrariness or mala fides, the same shall be dealt with sternly, and appropriate costs shall be imposed to deter abuse of the judicial process,” he stated.

Justice Bhardwaj added the sanctity of competitive exams and the integrity of expert assessments could not be allowed to be eroded through unwarranted litigation. The issue came before the Bench after a candidate challenged one of the questions in the Haryana Staff Selection Commission’s final answer key for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil).

The petitioner argued that the key was “ex facie erroneous”, claiming that the correct answer to “the river originating from the Har-ki-Dun glacier in West Garhwal” was “Yamuna” and not “Sarswati”, as indicated in the answer key.

Justice Bhardwaj observed that the petitioner’s grievance was based solely on his personal interpretation, supported by selective reading of RTI response and academic material. “This Court expresses its concern that the petitioner relied on responses under the Right to Information Act and misapplied the content of scholarly research papers, seeking to project his understanding as superior to that of a duly constituted expert committee,” the Bench ruled.

It further observed that the Haryana Sarasvati Heritage Development Board — cited as an expert — itself relied upon a research paper and had not conducted any independent study to support the petitioner’s claims. “Merely because a tributary of the Yamuna also originates from the same source does not mean that no other river originates there,” Justice Bhardwaj said, describing the petitioner’s argument as “fallacious”.

The Bench added that competitive exams involved intense competition and minimal margins for error, making the finality of the answer key crucial. “Allowing individual candidates to question the correctness of answers, as determined by domain experts, would open the floodgates of litigation and undermine the sanctity of the evaluation process,” he asserted.

The court stated that procedural lapse, irregularity, or illegality had not been demonstrated. Mere disagreement with an expert committee’s findings did not confer jurisdiction on the court to interfere. “Courts cannot be expected to reopen settled academic findings at the instance of a candidate who, without requisite expertise, challenges decisions taken by those duly qualified,” Justice Bhardwaj observed.

Before parting, the Bench asserted: “It is further disconcerting that such petitions, filed without adequate legal or academic foundation, encourage similarly ill-founded litigation. This results in an undue burden on the judicial system and a diversion of precious time and resources from matters involving genuine constitutional or legal questions.”