Courts must act against erroneous selection board answers: Punjab and Haryana High Court

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that courts cannot remain passive when a selection board in a competitive examination provides clearly incorrect answers, as this could jeopardise deserving candidates' rights to equality and fair opportunity.

Advertisement

“The High Court cannot turn a blind eye if the selection board has selected an answer which cannot be accepted at all. If there is doubt, the benefit of the doubt must go to the 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 Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution,” Justice Jagmohan Bansal asserted.

The High Court clarified that while securing a government job is not a fundamental right, failing to appoint candidates due to governmental lapses constitutes a violation of the right to equality in employment once candidates meet the cut-off criteria. Justice Bansal stated, "The moment he cuts the ice and crosses the cut-off barrier, he cannot be ignored on account of lapses on the part of government machinery."

This ruling arose from a batch of 25 petitions challenging an answer key issued on December 17, 2018, and the final result declared on March 4, 2019, for Sub-Inspector posts. Petitioners argued that their objections to erroneous answers were dismissed without adequate consideration. Senior advocate DS Patwalia, representing the petitioners, claimed that an expert committee hastily rejected all objections despite clear evidence disproving certain key answers.

Following the High Court's directives, a newly constituted expert committee from Panjab University found inaccuracies in two of the selection board's answers. While Justice Bansal acknowledged that correcting these answers could affect some appointed candidates, he clarified that their appointments would remain intact due to no evidence of fraud or malpractice on their part. “These candidates have been serving for over five years, and any disruption would lead to undue hardship for their families,” the court observed.

Justice Bansal ordered that the joining date of petitioner-candidates selected as per this ruling shall be recognised as their official appointment date. The authorities are required to ensure compliance with all terms outlined in the original advertisement within three months.

Justice Bansal made it clear that the benefit of the judgment would extend only to the present petitioners. “This order may prompt fence sitters to approach this court. The benefit of this order shall be available only to present petitioners otherwise there would be no end of litigation and it may open Pandora’s Box,” it cautioned.