Court Can't Be Super-Evaluator: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Order Re-Evaluation Of Subjective Question In Haryana Civil Judge Exam

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to grant relief to a candidate of Haryana Civil Judge Candidate seeking re-evaluation of the answer of a subjective/ descriptive question, noting that there is no violation of legal principles or constitutional rights.

The Court was considering a Writ-Petition against final result of Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) to the extent that it declares the petitioner as an unsuccessful candidate by laying challenge to Clause 33 of the advertisement and for issuance of ensuing direction(s) for carrying out the re-evaluation to one of the questions answered by the petitioner as also for awarding of requisite marks for same and for her consequential appointment to the post of Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate under the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial) Examination 2023-24.

The division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel held, "The petitioner is indeed seeking this Court to be a super evaluator, supplanting its view for that of the examiner/expert. This Court is indubitably convinced that, it cannot tread this path matrix of the present case".

The Court further held, "The petitioner has failed to establish any manifest flaw or illegality in the Clause 33 that would justify judicial intervention. In the absence of any clear violation of legal principles or constitutional rights, this Court finds no compelling or riveting cause(s) to interfere with the validity of Clause 33. Mere dis-satisfaction with the clause, without the presentation of concrete edifice of its legal defect, does not warrant any alteration of or annulment of the provision."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Umeshwar Srivastava while the Respondent was represented by Additional Advocate General Naveen S. Bhardwaj.

Facts of the Case

The basis of the relief sought by the Petitioner was that her answer to one of the questions has not been correctly evaluated on account of which no marks were awarded to her for the said question. The petitioner is stated to have secured a total of 493.10 marks but could not get selected as the cut-off marks for the final merit list for Scheduled Caste was 495 marks. The petitioner sought a copy of her answer sheets, through RTI, and on perusal of the same, she is stated to have found that one of the questions answered in the English examination was incorrectly evaluated and she was awarded zero marks for the same.

Counsel for the Petitioner argued that a perusal of the answer in issue given by the petitioner to the question in issue for which no marks were awarded to her, reveals that it is in fact a correct one. He further submitted that the petitioner had sought independent opinion from various esteemed Professors/Teachers and online search engines and Artificial Intelligence database and it is confirmed that her answer was not only grammatically correct but was also aligned with the Standard English. It was thus argued that the said evaluation of the answer given by the petitioner has resulted in an iniquitous effect upon her which violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset referred to decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 2019 and reiterated that indubitably, it is an ineluctable legal principle that once a candidate has voluntarily applied for and participated in a selection process, she is interdicted from subsequently challenging its legality or fairness of the process, based on the doctrine of estoppel. This principle operates to prevent a party from approbating and reprobating at the same time viz.; one cannot accept the benefits of a process while simultaneously disputing its validity. Such conduct would be contradictory and inconsistent, akin to blowing hot and cold simultaneously, undermining the integrity of the process and the principles of fairness that govern administrative procedures. The Court held that Estoppel by election is one among the species of estoppel, which essentially is a rule of equity. By this law, a person may be precluded, by way of his actions, or conduct, or silence when it is his duty to speak from asserting a right which he would have otherwise had.

The Court rejected the contention that challenge could be posed to Clause 33 in the given case.

"It is within the exclusive prerogative of the selection agency to establish and prescribe the rules, modalities & methodology, governing the conduct of an examination/selection. Such rules, designed to ensure a fair and transparent process, are generally presumed to be valid. However, they may be subject to challenge only if they are found to be arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory, resulting in an unjust or inequitable outcome. Any challenge to the validity of these rules must demonstrate a clear and unequivocal violation of Constitutional principles, such as equality before the law or prohibition of unjust discrimination, rather than mere desiderium arising from unpalatable result emanating therefrom," the Court observed.

The Court concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish any manifest flaw or illegality in the Clause 33 that would justify judicial intervention.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Diksha Kalson vs. State of Haryana and others (2025:PHHC:028434-DB)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Umeshwar Srivastava, Advocate Gaurav Seherawat, Advocate Gaurav Yadav, Advocate Birinder Pal, Advocate

Respondent- Additional Advocate General Naveen S. Bhardwaj,

Click here to read/ download Order