Himachal HC upholds expert opinion in constable recruitment exam

The High Court has reiterated the limited scope of judicial interference in matters involving academic expertise while dismissing a writ petition challenging the answer key of a competitive examination held for the posts of Constable in the HP Police Department.

The core issue before the HC was whether the opinion of a subject expert can be disputed on the basis of material produced by an aggrieved candidate. The petitioner had challenged the expert-approved answer to Question No. 83, which asked for the “shortest unit of language”.

After examining the material placed on record, including reference books relied upon by the petitioner, the HC noted that while both (varn) and (dhvani) are treated as correct in different linguistic contexts, authoritative explanations clarify that varn represents the shortest written unit of language and “dhvani” refers to the shortest spoken sound produced verbally. Since the question specifically pertained to the shortest unit of language in general, the expert’s conclusion that ‘varn’ is the correct answer was held to be fully justified.

Justice Sandeep Sharma found no error or perversity in the expert’s opinion. Relying on settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the HC emphasised that “courts should not re-evaluate or scrutinise answer sheets, academic matters must be left to subject experts and the answer key prepared by experts carries a presumption of correctness, with the benefit of doubt going in favour of the expert rather than the candidate.”

The HC further observed that the petitioner’s objection had been duly forwarded to and considered by the expert before finalisation of the result. Therefore, no procedural illegality or infirmity could be attributed to the State Public Service Commission. Holding that the challenge lacked merit, the HC dismissed the writ petition.