CWP-28577 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 215 Rajat Gandhi and others Haryana Staff Selection CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. Constitution of India is for issuance of writ in the nature of quashing the order dated made by the petitioner Set-P, Question No. 55 of Set 1 of Set-O respectively by the petitioners were rejected direction to the petitioners who had opted Cotton and merit of the petitioners be re determined and consider the claim of the petitioners for selection and appointment as clerk from the date candidates lower in merit petitioners have been consequential benefits. 28577-2022 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: Rajat Gandhi and others Versus Haryana Staff Selection Commission and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. RK Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kartikey Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Suneel Ranga, DAG, Haryana. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition filed under Article Constitution of India is for issuance of writ in the nature of quashing the order dated 17.10.2022 (Annexure P made by the petitioners for grant of 1 mark , Question No. 55 of Set-C, Question No. O, Question No. 6 Set-W and Question No. 62 of Set respectively by the petitioners were rejected to the respondent to grant 1 mark of the above questions to the s who had opted Cotton and merit of the petitioners be re determined and consider the claim of the petitioners for selection and appointment as clerk from the date candidates lower in merit petitioners have been appointed and the petitioner be granted all the consequential benefits. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-28577-2022 Date of Decision: 21.07.2026 .… Petitioners Commission and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. RK Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kartikey Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Suneel Ranga, DAG, Haryana. filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for 17.10.2022 (Annexure P-3) whereby the claim for grant of 1 mark against Question No. 70 of C, Question No. 6 of Set-W, Question No. and Question No. 62 of Set-M respectively by the petitioners were rejected; and further for issuance of a respondent to grant 1 mark of the above questions to the s who had opted Cotton and merit of the petitioners be re- determined and consider the claim of the petitioners for selection and appointment as clerk from the date candidates lower in merit to the and the petitioner be granted all the of the for 3) whereby the claim of uestion No. M further for issuance of a respondent to grant 1 mark of the above questions to the determined and consider the claim of the petitioners for selection and to the and the petitioner be granted all the RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.24 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-28577 2. petitioners 20.06.2019 had advertised the posts of Clerks. The petitioners herein applied for the said advertised posts written examination detailed in tabulated form in para the paper-book). P, reads as follows: 3. Commission whereas the answer submitted by the petitioner Petitioner No. 23.05.2022 (Annexure P No. 1 had approached this Court as ‘Rajat Gandhi vs. State of Haryana and another’, which was disposed of by the Predecessor Bench of this Court (Annexure P said representation dated thereof, the respondent (Annexure P 4. petitioners the Right to Information Act, 2005 28577-2022 -2- It is inter alia submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the that the respondent-Commission vide Advertisement dated 20.06.2019 had advertised the posts of Clerks. The petitioners herein applied for the said advertised posts. The petitioners have appeared in the written examination and have been issued different sets of booklets as detailed in tabulated form in para No. 3 of the petition (at page No. 7 of book). The disputed Question No. 70 of Question P, reads as follows:- “70. Which is the commercial (A) Cotton (B) Sugarcane (C) Potato (D) Sunflower” In the revised answer key submitted Commission, the correct answer was shown to be “(B) Sugarcane” whereas the answer submitted by the petitioner Petitioner No. -1 Rajat Gandhi had filed a detailed representation dated 23.05.2022 (Annexure P-1). As no action was taken thereupon, petitioner No. 1 had approached this Court by way of filing as ‘Rajat Gandhi vs. State of Haryana and another’, which was disposed of by the Predecessor Bench of this Court (Annexure P-2) directing the respondents said representation dated 23.05.2022 (Annexure P thereof, the respondent-Commission had passed order dated (Annexure P-3) rejecting the case of petitioner(s). Learned Senior Counsel submits that in the meantime, the have submitted an application seeking ight to Information Act, 2005 before the Di submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the Commission vide Advertisement dated 20.06.2019 had advertised the posts of Clerks. The petitioners herein have . The petitioners have appeared in the and have been issued different sets of booklets as No. 3 of the petition (at page No. 7 of Question No. 70 of Question Booklet Set- Which is the commercial crop of Haryana? Sugarcane Sunflower” In the revised answer key submitted by the respondent- , the correct answer was shown to be “(B) Sugarcane” whereas the answer submitted by the petitioners was “(A) Cotton”. 1 Rajat Gandhi had filed a detailed representation dated . As no action was taken thereupon, petitioner by way of filing CWP-12415-2024, titled as ‘Rajat Gandhi vs. State of Haryana and another’, which was disposed of by the Predecessor Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.06.2022 to take decision on the above- 23.05.2022 (Annexure P-1). In compliance Commission had passed order dated 17.10.2022 rejecting the case of petitioner(s). Learned Senior Counsel submits that in the meantime, the submitted an application seeking RTI information under before the Director, Agriculture and submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the Commission vide Advertisement dated have . The petitioners have appeared in the and have been issued different sets of booklets as No. 3 of the petition (at page No. 7 of . 1 Rajat Gandhi had filed a detailed representation dated . As no action was taken thereupon, petitioner 2024, titled as ‘Rajat Gandhi vs. State of Haryana and another’, which was disposed vide order dated 01.06.2022 . In compliance Learned Senior Counsel submits that in the meantime, the information under rector, Agriculture and RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.24 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-28577 Farmers Welf 28.07.2022 (Annexure P that ‘Cotton and Sugarcane are the main cash/commercial crops of Haryana’. Economic Survey of Haryana 2018 Economics and Statistical Analysis Haryana, crop commercial is 117 Hectares; whereas the are cultivation is 648 Hectares. It is contended that ther Economic Survey of Haryana 2018 area is larger than Sugarcane. As such, it is clear that the revised answer key submitted by the respondent information f 5. facts the answer of the petitioners could not have been taken to incorrect and the petitioners were entitled to additional mark and thereafter selection. It is contended that No. 70 reproduced above is granted for this question, the petitioners are entitled to be selected. 6. the petition same person who had also brought to the notice of this Court Predecessor Bench had passed the order dated respondents to file an affidavit objections who had not finalized the initial answer key against 28577-2022 -3- Farmers Welfare Haryana. In response thereto 28.07.2022 (Annexure P-4) was received as per which it was informed ‘Cotton and Sugarcane are the main cash/commercial crops of Further, learned Senior Counsel points out that Economic Survey of Haryana 2018-19 issued by the Department of Economics and Statistical Analysis Haryana, crop commercial is 117 Hectares; whereas the are cultivation is 648 Hectares. It is contended that ther Economic Survey of Haryana 2018-19, it is clear that Cotton area is larger than Sugarcane. As such, it is clear that the revised answer key submitted by the respondent-Commission information from the same Department as the present one. Learned Senior Counsel submits that therefore, in view of the facts the answer of the petitioners could not have been taken to incorrect and the petitioners were entitled to additional mark and thereafter selection. It is contended that in case, No. 70 reproduced above is granted for this question, the petitioners are entitled to be selected. It is additionally pointed out by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners’ objections have been rejected by the same person who had got finalized the initial answer key also brought to the notice of this Court Predecessor Bench had passed the order dated respondents to file an affidavit apprising the Court have been sent to independent who had not finalized the initial answer key against . In response thereto, RTI Information dated 4) was received as per which it was informed ‘Cotton and Sugarcane are the main cash/commercial crops of Further, learned Senior Counsel points out that as per 19 issued by the Department of Economics and Statistical Analysis Haryana, the area under Sugarcane crop commercial is 117 Hectares; whereas the area under Cotton cultivation is 648 Hectares. It is contended that therefore, even as per the 19, it is clear that Cotton cultivation area is larger than Sugarcane. As such, it is clear that the revised answer Commission is incorrect and contrary to rom the same Department as the present one. Learned Senior Counsel submits that therefore, in view of the facts the answer of the petitioners could not have been taken to be incorrect and the petitioners were entitled to additional mark and in case, 01 mark for this question No. 70 reproduced above is granted for this question, the petitioners are is additionally pointed out by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners’ objections have been rejected by the finalized the initial answer key. This fact was also brought to the notice of this Court in pursuance to which the Predecessor Bench had passed the order dated 09.04.2024 directing the apprising the Court as to whether the have been sent to independent examiner i.e. Chief Examiner, who had not finalized the initial answer key against which the objections RTI Information dated 4) was received as per which it was informed ‘Cotton and Sugarcane are the main cash/commercial crops of as per 19 issued by the Department of under Sugarcane under Cotton cultivation area is larger than Sugarcane. As such, it is clear that the revised answer is incorrect and contrary to Learned Senior Counsel submits that therefore, in view of the be incorrect and the petitioners were entitled to additional mark and 01 mark for this question No. 70 reproduced above is granted for this question, the petitioners are is additionally pointed out by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners’ objections have been rejected by the . This fact was nce to which the the as to whether the , the objections RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.24 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-28577 have been sought. filed by the respondent till date. 7. referred to No. 1-Commissio follows:- 8. lesser marks than the last short documents under the EWS Category, therefore, he cannot be considered 28577-2022 -4- have been sought. It is also pointed out that no such affidavit has been filed by the respondent till date. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent reply-affidavit dated 29.11.2023 Commission and the relevant extract of “10. .....It is clear from the above table that the answer to the objected questions by the petitioners any answer key. It is worthwhile to mention the objections received regarding Commission has sent all the questions including objection raised by the petitioners to Chief rechecking and on the basis of revised answer key the final revised result dated 23.06.2022 has been declared. Further, the petitioners have relied upon information obtained under RTI Act, 2005 from the Director of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Haryana (P regard it is submitted that the information obtained under the RTI from an Office cannot be considered in deciding the correctness of answer. The answers to the questions are academic in nature. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the Commission is not an expert body to decide the correctness of the answer and it is left to the Chief who is paper setter and provides the answer key. The Commission relies upon the report of the Chief and based on the finalized answer key by the Chi Examiner, the final evaluation is done.” It is further pointed out that petitioner No. 1 had secured lesser marks than the last short-listed candidate called for scrutiny of documents under the EWS Category, therefore, he cannot be considered It is also pointed out that no such affidavit has been learned counsel for the respondent-State has 29.11.2023 filed on behalf of respondent n and the relevant extract of Para 10 the reply reads as from the above table that the answer to the objected questions by the petitioners have not changed in key. It is worthwhile to mention here that after regarding final answer key the has sent all the questions including the raised by the petitioners to Chief-Examiner for on the basis of revised answer key the final revised result dated 23.06.2022 has been declared. Further, the petitioners have relied upon information obtained under RTI Act, 2005 from the Director of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Haryana (P-4). In this regard it is submitted that the information obtained under the RTI from an Office cannot be considered in deciding the correctness of answer. The answers to the questions are academic in nature. Further, it is pertinent to mention here is not an expert body to decide the correctness of the answer and it is left to the Chief-Examiner who is paper setter and provides the answer key. The Commission relies upon the report of the Chief-Examiner and based on the finalized answer key by the Chief- Examiner, the final evaluation is done.” It is further pointed out that petitioner No. 1 had secured listed candidate called for scrutiny of documents under the EWS Category, therefore, he cannot be considered It is also pointed out that no such affidavit has been has filed on behalf of respondent the reply reads as from the above table that the answer to not changed in here that after final answer key the the for on the basis of revised answer key the final Further, the petitioners have relied upon information obtained under RTI Act, 2005 from the Director of 4). In this regard it is submitted that the information obtained under the RTI from an Office cannot be considered in deciding the correctness of answer. The answers to the questions are academic in nature. Further, it is pertinent to mention here is not an expert body to decide the Examiner who is paper setter and provides the answer key. The Examiner It is further pointed out that petitioner No. 1 had secured listed candidate called for scrutiny of documents under the EWS Category, therefore, he cannot be considered RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.24 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-28577 to the post in question. Similar objections have been made in respect of the remaining petitioners. 9. State counsel has submitted on instructions from Sh. Dhruv, Law Officer (HSSC) who is presen been examined by an independent examiner but it was sent to the Chief Examiner. 10. acknowledged that 70 is marked as correct, then the 11. brought the attention of this Court to by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court ‘Rustam Garg others’, wherein following directions have been given 28577-2022 -5- to the post in question. Similar objections have been made in respect of the remaining petitioners. As regards, the compliance order dated State counsel has submitted on instructions from Sh. Dhruv, Law Officer (HSSC) who is present in Court that the petitioners’ objection have not been examined by an independent examiner but it was sent to the Chief However, on a Court query, learned State counsel has acknowledged that in case, the answer of the petitioners to question No. 70 is marked as correct, then the petitioners At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has brought the attention of this Court to the order dated by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court Rustam Garg vs. Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh and wherein following directions have been given “Analyzing the case put forth by the petitioner, in the backdrop of the judgment of Jasmine is of the considered opinion, that even on the touchstone of ordinary knowledge of English language, the answer given by the petitioner cannot be said to be incorrect. This Court, but of-course, cannot turn a Nelson’s eye to such an ex defect in the evaluation. Hence, the first answer to the question in issue calls for re-evaluation. Having said that, even in accentuating circumstances as have arisen in the writ petition in hand, the court exercise circumspection when it comes to re answer by the Court itself. It is not within the legitimate province of this court to substitute its own evaluative judgment for that of the expert academic authority. The to the post in question. Similar objections have been made in respect of order dated 09.04.2024, learned State counsel has submitted on instructions from Sh. Dhruv, Law Officer the petitioners’ objection have not been examined by an independent examiner but it was sent to the Chief However, on a Court query, learned State counsel has answer of the petitioners to question No. petitioners shall eligible for the selection. learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has the order dated 27.05.2025, passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP-17608-2019 titled as Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh and wherein following directions have been given:- Analyzing the case put forth by the petitioner, in the backdrop of the judgment of Jasmine case (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion, that even on the touchstone of ordinary knowledge of English language, the answer given by the petitioner cannot be said to be incorrect. This Court, cannot turn a Nelson’s eye to such an ex-facie defect in the evaluation. Hence, the first answer to the evaluation. Having said that, even in accentuating circumstances as have arisen in the writ petition in hand, the court must exercise circumspection when it comes to re-evaluation of an answer by the Court itself. It is not within the legitimate province of this court to substitute its own evaluative judgment for that of the expert academic authority. The to the post in question. Similar objections have been made in respect of , learned State counsel has submitted on instructions from Sh. Dhruv, Law Officer the petitioners’ objection have not been examined by an independent examiner but it was sent to the Chief However, on a Court query, learned State counsel has answer of the petitioners to question No. learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has passed as Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh and Analyzing the case put forth by the petitioner, in the case (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion, that even on the touchstone of ordinary knowledge of English language, the answer given by the petitioner cannot be said to be incorrect. This Court, facie defect in the evaluation. Hence, the first answer to the Having said that, even in accentuating circumstances must evaluation of an answer by the Court itself. It is not within the legitimate province of this court to substitute its own evaluative judgment for that of the expert academic authority. The RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.24 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-28577 28577-2022 -6- Court cannot arrogate unto itself the role of the examiner, for to do so would be to transgress the boundaries of judicial propriety & venture into realms where Courts lack both the training & competence. The preferable & legally tenable course, when the impugned evaluation erroneous, is not for the court to undertake the evaluation itself but rather to remit the matter to another equally competent expert or panel of experts, dissociated from the CWP-17608-2019 12 original process, for an independent & unbiased re-assessment. Such an approach not only preserves the sanctity of the judicial process but also upholds the institutional competence. It is one thing for this Court to hold that the original assessment is infirm to such an extent as to warrant reevaluation; it is quite another & indeed impermissible for it to delve into the academic merit of an answer & render its own evaluative opinion thereon. The latter would tantamount to transgression of judicial function and overreach into the domain statuto designated expert body, which this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, must scrupulously eschew. Ergo, in view of the prevenient ratiocination of the peculiar factual milieu of the writ petition in hand, it is directed as follows: (i) The respondents are directed to have the first answer to the question in issue, namely, “Mohan is a painter of the first water” in the English paperaproposthe idiom, namely, “of the first water” re-evaluated by an examiner, other than the examiner/evaluato examined the said answer, in accordance with extant procedure& submit (in a sealed cover) the said re-evaluation, for perusal of this Court on or before the next date of hearing. ate unto itself the role of the examiner, for to do so would be to transgress the boundaries of judicial propriety & venture into realms where Courts lack both the The preferable & legally tenable evaluation is found to be wholly erroneous, is not for the court to undertake the evaluation itself but rather to remit the matter to another equally competent expert or panel of experts, dissociated from the 2019 12 original process, for an independent & assessment. Such an approach not only preserves the sanctity of the judicial process but also upholds the institutional competence. It is one thing for this Court to hold that the original assessment is infirm to such an extent evaluation; it is quite another & indeed impermissible for it to delve into the academic merit of an answer & render its own evaluative opinion thereon. The latter would tantamount to transgression of judicial function and overreach into the domain statutorily reserved for designated expert body, which this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, must scrupulously eschew. Ergo, in view of the prevenient ratiocination of the peculiar factual milieu of the writ petition in hand, it is The respondents are directed to have the first to the question in issue, namely, “Mohan is a painter of the first water” in the English paperaproposthe idiom, namely, “of the evaluated by an examiner, other than the examiner/evaluator who had previously examined the said answer, in accordance with extant procedure& submit (in a sealed cover) evaluation, for perusal of this Court on or before the next date of hearing. ate unto itself the role of the examiner, for to do so would be to transgress the boundaries of judicial propriety & venture into realms where Courts lack both the The preferable & legally tenable is found to be wholly erroneous, is not for the court to undertake the evaluation itself but rather to remit the matter to another equally competent expert or panel of experts, dissociated from the 2019 12 original process, for an independent & assessment. Such an approach not only preserves the sanctity of the judicial process but also upholds the institutional competence. It is one thing for this Court to hold that the original assessment is infirm to such an extent evaluation; it is quite another & indeed impermissible for it to delve into the academic merit of an answer & render its own evaluative opinion thereon. The latter would tantamount to transgression of judicial function rily reserved for designated expert body, which this Court, in exercise of writ Ergo, in view of the prevenient ratiocination of the peculiar factual milieu of the writ petition in hand, it is The respondents are directed to have the first to the question in issue, namely, “Mohan is a painter of the first water” in the English paperaproposthe idiom, namely, “of the evaluated by an examiner, other r who had previously examined the said answer, in accordance with extant procedure& submit (in a sealed cover) evaluation, for perusal of this Court RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.24 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-28577 12. stage, the present writ petition is matter is remitted back for re 13. conspectus of the above facts respondent authority other than the Chief Examiner who had previously rejected t objections of the petitioners and had submitted the answer directed that the Re (Annexure P Survey of Haryana 2018 Statistical Analysis Haryana. The needful be done within a period of months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 14. 15. 21.07.2026 rishu 28577-2022 -7- (ii) List the matter on 11.07.2025 for further consideration. (iii) No disposition as to costs, for the nonce.” It is submitted that the petitioners shall be satisfied, if, at this the present writ petition is disposed of in the above terms and the matter is remitted back for re-evaluation. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the conspectus of the above facts, the matter is remitted back to the respondent-Commission for re-evaluation to be carried out by the authority other than the Chief Examiner who had previously rejected t objections of the petitioners and had submitted the answer directed that the Re-evaluator shall keep in mind the RTI Information (Annexure P-4) as well as the information Survey of Haryana 2018-19 issued by the Statistical Analysis Haryana. The needful be done within a period of from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The present writ petition is disposed of Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable List the matter on 11.07.2025 for further n. (iii) No disposition as to costs, It is submitted that the petitioners shall be satisfied, if, at this disposed of in the above terms and the Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the the matter is remitted back to the evaluation to be carried out by the authority other than the Chief Examiner who had previously rejected the objections of the petitioners and had submitted the answer-key. It is also evaluator shall keep in mind the RTI Information 4) as well as the information received from the Economic Department of Economics and Statistical Analysis Haryana. The needful be done within a period of 04 from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. disposed of in the above terms. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No List the matter on 11.07.2025 for further n. (iii) No disposition as to costs, It is submitted that the petitioners shall be satisfied, if, at this disposed of in the above terms and the Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the the matter is remitted back to the evaluation to be carried out by the he key. It is also evaluator shall keep in mind the RTI Information Economic Department of Economics and 04 RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.24 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.