HARKIRAT SINGH GHUMAN VERSUS PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT & ORS.

HARKIRAT SINGH GHUMAN VERSUS PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT & ORS.

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  5874     OF 2022

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.5079 OF 2020)

HARKIRAT SINGH GHUMAN … Appellant(s)

VERSUS

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT & ORS. … Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Ajay Rastogi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and

order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab

and   Haryana   dated   23rd  January,   2020,   dismissing   the   writ

petition at the motion stage. 

3. The appellant is one of the applicants who had participated

in   the   selection   process   initiated   by   the   respondents   holding

selections   for   direct   recruitment   to   Punjab   Superior   Judicial

Service/Haryana Superior Judicial Service. 

1 | P a g e

4. That two separate advertisements came to be published for

holding   competitive   examination   for   direct   recruitment   for   8

vacancies   in   the   Punjab   Superior   Judicial   Service   and   11

vacancies   in   the   Haryana   Superior   Judicial   Service,   2019   by

notifications   dated   30th  May,   2019   and   7th  August,   2019

respectively   and   the   recruitment   was   made   in   terms   of   the

procedure   prescribed   under   the   Punjab   Superior   Judicial

Services Rules, 2007/ Haryana Superior Judicial Services Rules,

2007.

5. It   may   be   relevant   to   note   that   the   posts   came   to   be

separately   advertised   under   the   Punjab/Haryana   Superior

Judicial Service  Rules, 2007 but the process of selection is on

the same standards except that language paper is separate and

the applicants have to first qualify the written test followed with

viva­voce with a restriction that candidate has to secure 40% or

more marks in each paper and such of the qualified candidates

who fall within three times of the number of vacancies are called

for viva­voce but only such of the candidates will be considered to

have   successfully   qualified   the   Punjab/Haryana   Superior

Judicial Service Examination unless in open category candidate

obtains 50% marks and in reserved category candidate obtains

2 | P a g e

45% marks in the aggregate out of the total marks fixed for the

written test and viva­voce.  The format/pattern of examination is

the   same   for   both   the   recruitments   held   under   the   Punjab

Superior   Judicial   Service   Rules,   2007   and   Haryana   Superior

Judicial Service Rules, 2007.  

6. The appellant also applied pursuant to advertisement dated

30th  May,   2019   and   7th  August,   2019   with   regard   to

Punjab/Haryana   Superior   Judicial   Service   Examination,   2019

and a common written examination was held for both the States

of   Punjab   and   Haryana,   except   Language   Paper   separately

conducted from 29th November, 2019 to 1st December, 2019 and

it reveals from the record that 118 candidates appeared in the

State of Punjab and 230 in the State of Haryana.   

7. Thus, in total 348 candidates participated in the selection

process and appeared in the common written examination.  The

result of the written examination was declared on 18th December,

2019.   In Punjab Superior Judicial Service, 3 candidates from

open category and 1 candidate from backward category cleared

the examination and qualified for viva­voce.   At the same time,

under the Haryana Superior Judicial Service, 11 candidates from

3 | P a g e

open   category   out   of   which   3   candidates   were   common   who

qualified in both the States for viva voce.   

8. The appellant, being disappointed of not being qualified in

the written examination declared on 18th December 2019, filed a

writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh under Article 226 of the Constitution with his threefold grievance :

(i) That   in   Punjab/Haryana   Superior   Judicial   Services

Rules, there is no condition regarding securing minimum

marks in the main written examination and the condition

in the advertisement of securing minimum 40% or more

marks   in   each   paper   for   qualifying   for   viva­voce   is

contrary to the Scheme of Rules;

(ii) Paper V (Criminal Law) was of 200 marks but at the

commencement of the examination, the question paper

handed  over  to   the  candidates  was  incomplete and  it

contained only 4 questions whose aggregate came out to

be 160 marks instead of 200 marks as shown on the

overleaf of the question paper, but when the candidates

made complaint of the alleged discrepancy to the notice

4 | P a g e

of   the   invigilator,   after   approx.   one   hour   of   the

commencement   of   examination,   question   no.4   was

handed over as supplementary question paper to all the

candidates and apart from this being a procedural defect,

it created a panic among the candidates and no extra

time was given for answering the additional question and

this was one of the manifest procedural defect in Paper V

(Criminal Law) and has caused grave prejudice to the

appellant. 

(iii) Despite repeated demands, the respondents have failed to

provide   the   marks   obtained   by   the   appellant   in   the

written examination.     Even the application filed by the

appellant under the Right to Information Act came to be

rejected.

9.             All the three objections raised by the appellant were

repelled by the High Court at the motion stage, without calling for

the written response from the respondents under the judgment

and   order   impugned   dated  23rd  January,   2020,   which   is   the

subject matter of challenge in appeal before us.

5 | P a g e

10. It will be relevant to note that while entertaining the present

appeal   and   calling   upon   the   respondents   for   their   written

response,   this   Court   permitted   the   respondents   by   an   Order

dated   26th  February,   2020   to   continue   with   the   process   of

interview with a further direction that the result would not be

declared in the meantime. It is informed to this Court that in

terms of the liberty granted by this Court, respondents held the

interview, but result has not been declared because of the interim

order of this Court. 

11. The   appellant,   who   appeared   in­person   before   us,   has

primarily raised four objections in reference to the procedure

adopted by the respondents in holding written examination by

the   respondents   pursuant   to   the   advertisements   for   Punjab/

Haryana Superior Judicial Service Examination, 2019, as follows:

(i) Criminal Law Paper (Paper V), which was of 200 marks

contained only four questions(1,2, 3 and 5) and question

no.4 was missing and it was of 160 marks which was

made   available   to   the   candidates   and   after   the

discrepancy was brought to notice of the Invigilator, a

supplementary question paper was supplied indicating

6 | P a g e

question no.4 in the midst of examination calling upon

the candidates to attempt question no.4 and objection of

the   appellant   is   that   the   procedure   which   has   been

adopted by the respondents itself creates a doubt in the

process of selection that from where this question no.4

was   generated  and   how  it  was  made   available   to   the

candidates in the midst of the examination is a mystery

and   no   justification   has   been   tendered   by   the

respondents even in the counter affidavit filed before this

Court and  this fact has not been disputed that question

no.4 of Paper V (Criminal Law)  was made available to the

candidates   during   course   of   the   examination.   Thus,

according   to   him,   the   procedure   followed   by   the

respondents   is   neither   transparent   nor   fair   and   the

written examination may be cancelled or at least this

question   paper   deserves   to   be   cancelled   and   the

respondents be directed to hold Paper V (Criminal Law)

afresh and only thereafter the merit list be declared of the

candidates who qualified the main examination.

(ii) The   second   objection   of   the   appellant   is   that   in   the

question paper of General Knowledge (Paper VI), which

7 | P a g e

was of multiple choice/objective type paper, there were

no instructions on the overleaf of the examination paper

as   to   how  and   in   what   manner  the   paper   has   to  be

attempted by the candidates and the OMR sheet was not

supplied and the candidates were called upon to make a

circle out of the four multiple choices, which according to

them is correct option and the question paper supplied

has to be returned back to the Invigilators.   

12. The   submission   of   the   appellant­in­person   is   that   in

absence   of   the   multiple­choice   question   paper   being   made

available to the candidates to retain, it may not be possible to

respond as to which option out of the four options, is the correct

option.  According to him, the question paper, for the first time, is

made available to the appellant along with the counter affidavit

filed   before   this   Court   and   it   reveals   to   him   that   there   are

discrepancies in eight questions and in some questions either of

the four options are not correct. 

13. His   submission   is   that   even   till   today,   the   provisional

answer key has not been uploaded to make the candidates aware

of  the  right  option  out of  the  four options available  and  the

8 | P a g e

candidate has no liberty to raise any objection and if the answer

key is uploaded after the final result is declared, obviously after

the viva­voce is over, no one is going to entertain the objection, if

any, to be raised at the later stage and that became fait accompli.

(iii) Further objection of the appellant is that Bare Acts were

made available to the candidates but this fact was not

indicated in the advertisement, which, according to him,

is contrary to the Scheme of Rules. 

(iv) Further apprehension of the appellant is that the answer

scripts were examined by the examiners in haste and the

reason to support is that, the last examination was held

on 1st  December, 2019 and within a short period of 17

days, the result was declared of the written examination

on 18th December, 2019 which was not humanly possible

and to support his submission, the appellant submits

that when he applied for obtaining the marks which he

had secured in the written examination, under the right

to   information,   that   was   declined   and   his   application

came to be rejected by the competent authority under the

right to information by an order dated 6th January, 2020.

9 | P a g e

14. Noticing the four objections indicated above to its logical

conclusion, the appellant submits that the procedure followed by

the respondents is neither fair nor transparent and so many

infirmities have been committed in the process of selection and

the only inevitable solution is to cancel the written examination

held by the respondents pursuant to the advertisements issued

by the States of Punjab and Haryana holding common selection

for Punjab/Haryana Superior Judicial Service Examination, 2019

and to hold the written examination afresh in accordance with

the Scheme of Rules 2007.  

15. To sum up further, the appellant states that the High Court

has   even   noticed   his   submission   so   far   as   the   manifest

discrepancy pointed out in Paper V (Criminal Law) is concerned,

but still non­suit the claim of the appellant for the reason that he

has not raised any objection during the interregnum period after

the written examination was held and the result was declared on

18th December, 2019.  

16. The   appellant   further   submits   that   the   advertisement   is

completely silent of the mechanism to be adopted if the candidate

who   had   participated   in   the   selection   process   is   having   any

10 | P a g e

grievance, no in­house remedy is provided in the advertisement

which is available to the candidates.  In the given circumstances,

the reason assigned by the High Court to non­suit the claim of

the appellant is not sustainable and needs to be interfered with

by this Court.

17. Various applications were filed by such other candidates

who had qualified the written examination and appeared for vivavoce under the interim order of this Court, but since the result

has not been declared, they are also under dilemma as to what

will be their fate, this Court by various orders permitted all of

them to intervene in the proceedings.

18. Per contra, counsel for the respondents while supporting

the   finding  recorded   by  the   High  Court   under   the   impugned

judgment submits that Paper V (Criminal Law) was held on 1st

December, 2019 from 9.00 a.m. to 12 noon and the paper was

distributed   to   the   candidates   5   minutes   before   time   and

immediately thereafter, it was noticed that question no.4 was

missing from the question paper.   Within one hour and before

10.00   a.m.,   question   no.4   was   made   available   to   all   the

candidates by way of supplementary question paper and as such,

11 | P a g e

no   prejudice   was   caused   to   any   of   the   candidates   due   to

inadvertent   human   error   committed   by   the   respondents.

Counsel   further   submits   that   such   a   discrepancy   certainly

cannot be countenanced, but as the level playing field was the

same   for   all,   no   prejudice   has   been   caused   to   either   of   the

candidates who had participated in the process of selection.  

19. Learned counsel further submits that so far as the grievance

in reference to Paper VI of General Knowledge is concerned, no

such objection was raised by the appellant before the High Court,

but the fact is that it is a multiple­choice question paper and

instructions   are   made   available   to   all   the   candidates   on   the

overleaf indicating the manner in which the questions have to be

attempted.  It was specifically mentioned that the correct answer

has to be encircled with a pen and encircling more than one

option or any over­writing/cuttings etc. would entail cancellation

of the said question with no negative marking and to be answered

in two hours duration and there is no reason for the appellant of

making complaint to this Court for the first time and in support

thereof, counsel further submitted that the result was declared

after almost 17 days on 18th  December, 2019, but neither he

made any representation nor filed any complaint either to the

12 | P a g e

Registry of the High Court or being a lawyer was aware of this

fact that the remedy is available to him to approach the High

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, but no grievance was

raised   and   he   was   awaiting   for   outcome   of   the   written

examination,   and   when   he   could   not   succeed,   all   sorts   of

complaints are filed by him of filing a writ petition which cannot

be permitted to be raised at a belated stage and this what the

High Court has observed in the judgment impugned.

20. So   far   as   the   objection   with   regard   to   his   application

submitted under the Right to Information Act, 2005 is concerned,

learned   counsel   submits   that   the   marks   of   the   written

examination could not be made available until the process of

selection   is   finalised   and   that   was   the   reason   which   was

communicated to him by the Public Information Officer (PIO) by a

communication dated 6th January, 2020 taking recourse to Rule

4(2)   of   the   High   Court   of   Punjab   and   Haryana   (Right   to

Information) Rules, 2007 and, if at all, he is aggrieved by the

communication   made   dated   6th  January,   2020,   inbuilt

mechanism has been provided under the Right to Information

Act, 2005 and even if the marks are not made available, it would,

13 | P a g e

in   no   manner,   defeat   the   process   of   selection   held   by   the

respondents.  

21. Counsel further submits that so far as the apprehension of

undue haste in declaring the result of written examination is

concerned, the alleged apprehension has no legs to stand and the

answer sheets have been examined by the examiners authorised

by the High Court and evaluated within a reasonable time, no

adverse inference can be drawn and such like objections deserve

to be outrightly rejected.

22. Ms.   Malvika   Kapila,   counsel   for   one   of   the   intervenors,

Aashish Saldi s/o Hans Raj Saldi, brought to our notice that the

applicant   is   in­service   officer   who   is   presently   serving   as

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and had participated in

the   limited   competitive   examination   against   10%   of   quota

reserved for in­service officers and he had participated in the

selection   process   initiated   by   the   State   of   Punjab   under   the

limited competitive examination for the eligible judicial officers

held by the respondents in terms of Rule 7(3)(b) of the Punjab

Superior   Judicial   Service   Rules,   2007   and   he   was   the   only

candidate   who   qualified   in   the   written   examination   and   was

14 | P a g e

called for viva­voce but the final fate is not known to him and the

fact is that he is not even remotely concerned with the present

grievance which has been raised by the appellant in the instant

proceedings   and   despite   been   appeared   in   the   interview,   his

result has been withheld under the interim orders of this Court.

23. Learned counsel submitted that at least the respondents be

directed to declare the result of the applicant who is not even

remotely concerned with the complaint in reference to which the

present appellant has approached this Court and this fact has

not been disputed by either of the parties.

24. We   have   heard   counsel   for   the   parties   and   with   their

assistance perused the records of the case. 

25. We  deal with  the  first  objection  later and  would  like  to

observe that so far as Paper VI (General Knowledge) is concerned,

it is a multiple­choice question paper having 100 questions and

all instructions were made available to the candidates specifically

indicated   on   the   overleaf   of   the   question   paper   and   all   the

candidates   have   attempted   the   paper   including   the   present

appellant.   

15 | P a g e

26. That   all   the   candidates   who   had   appeared   in   Paper   VI

(General Knowledge) had a common level playing field and in the

absence of any material on record in rebuttal, the submission is

not sustainable and deserves rejection.  But to keep transparency

in the process of holding examination, particularly in such cases

where  there  is  a  multiple­choice  question  paper,  it  is always

advisable that for such question papers, there shall always be an

OMR sheet which may be provided to the candidates so that the

question paper can be retained by each of the participants and

after the examination is held, a provisional answer key is to be

uploaded   inviting   objections   from   the   candidates   who   had

participated in the selection process, to be furnished within a

reasonable time and after collating such objections, the same be

placed before a subject expert committee to be constituted by the

recruiting/competent authority and after the report is submitted

by the subject expert committee, the same be examined by the

recruiting authority and thereafter the final answer key is to be

uploaded.   We make it clear that no presumption is to be drawn

that the result has to be declared, but at least the candidates

may be provided the final answer keys to enable them to make

their own assessment.  This is one of the mechanisms by which

16 | P a g e

fairness and transparency which is a sine qua non in the public

employment can be resorted to.

27. So far as the other two objections in reference to Bare Acts

made available to the candidates and the apprehension of haste

in declaration of result are concerned, both the objections are

completely baseless and deserve rejection.   

28. So far as the marks of the written examination not being

supplied to the appellant under the Right to Information Act,

2005 by communication dated 6th January, 2020, are concerned,

this position has been settled by a catena of judgments of this

Court that as long as the process is not complete, the marks of

the written examination are not to be uploaded or made available

to the candidates and if it is being permitted, that will not be in

the interest of the applicants.   The disclosure of the marks in the

main   examination   before   it   is   finalised   and   the   viva­voce   is

conducted,   would   be   against   the   principles   of   transparency,

rather it will invite criticism of bias or favouritism.  

29. To   clarify   further,   in   such   cases,   where   the   written

examination is followed with viva­voce, declaration of result of the

written examination before conducting viva­voce may not be valid

17 | P a g e

and justified but in cases where determination of merit is based

on written examination, it must be declared and made available

to candidates without any loss of time and this Court can take a

judicial notice of the fact that in such cases where the written

examination   is   followed   with   interview/viva­voce   and   the

members in the interview board are made aware of the marks

secured by the candidates in the written examination that may

likely   to   form   bias   affecting   the   impartial   evaluation   of   the

candidates in viva­voce and in our considered view, it may always

be avoided. 

30. So far as the objection in reference to Paper V (Criminal

Law) is concerned, we find substance in the submission made

and after this fact has not been disputed by the respondents as

well   that   initially   when   the   question   paper   was   supplied,   it

contained only four questions (i.e. question nos.1, 2, 3 and 5),

held on 1st December, 2019 from 9.00 a.m. to 12 noon and the

question paper was distributed to all the candidates containing

four questions  and question no.4 was found to be missing and

this act cannot be said to be an inadvertent human error as

being projected by the respondents and after the objection being

raised by the candidates of question no.4 not made available, the

18 | P a g e

Invigilators   informed   to   the   concerned   authorities   and   a

supplementary sheet was made available to the candidates after

one hour of the main examination commenced i.e. by 9.00 a.m.  

31. The respondents may substantiate in their defence that no

prejudice was caused to any of the candidates on account of the

inadvertent human error being committed, but in our view, this

is a serious lapse on the part of the recruiting authority and

somebody must be held responsible for it and such kind of lapses

certainly cannot be countenanced by this Court but, at the same

time,   there   is   no   objection   even   of   the   present   appellant   in

reference to the four questions (nos.1, 2, 3 and 5) of Paper V

(Criminal Law) which was made available to the candidates even

5 minutes before the scheduled time of the examination and even

if we take a judicial notice of the lapses being committed by the

respondents with reference to question no.4, which was indeed

missing from the question paper and supplied to the candidates

after one hour of commencement of the examination, at least so

far as the four questions are concerned, since no objection has

been raised by the appellant in reference to these questions, this

Court   has   to   consider   as   to   whether   in   such   peculiar

circumstances,   the   written   examination,   as   such,   has   to   be

19 | P a g e

cancelled or other option is possible.   In our view, in the given

circumstances, the other option which is left to this Court is

either to conduct the  examination  of  Paper V  (Criminal  Law)

afresh or let the valuation of the four questions (question nos. 1,

2, 3 & 5) of Paper V (Criminal Law) of 160 marks may provide a

common level playing field to all the candidates.   

32. At this stage, the Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that

the   Punjab/Haryana   Superior   Judicial   Service   Examination,

2019 has been held after 4­5 years and since the fate of the

examination 2019 is still sub­judice in this Court, fresh selection

process   could  not   have  been   initiated  and  if  this   irregularity

pointed   out   can   be   possibly   eliminated   from   the   process   of

selection, particularly in the written examination, the endeavour

of the Court should always be to salvage the selection as possible

and taking in totality of the matter, this Court is of the view that

it   will  serve   the  purpose  to   accept  the   latter  option   and  the

respondents may be directed to valuate question nos.1, 2, 3 and

5 of Paper V (Criminal Law) of 160 marks and we make it clear

that question no.4 which was supplemented at a later stage of 40

marks has to be excluded while valuating the marks secured by

the candidates in Paper V (Criminal Law) and this, in our view,

20 | P a g e

may serve the purpose and also salvage the examination process

which was initiated by the respondents in 2019 but could not be

finalised for one or other reason and cancellation or holding the

examination afresh of Paper V (Criminal Law) will not be in the

interest of either of the parties. 

33. A   request   was   made   to   this   Court   that   since   those

candidates who had qualified in the written examination and had

appeared in the viva­voce and whose result has been withheld

under the interim orders of this Court, at least they may not be

called upon to appear for interview afresh.  We find it difficult to

uphold the submission made for the reason that the interview

board   which   conducted   the   viva­voce   of   the   candidates   who

qualified   in   the   written   examination   was   different,   there   are

hardly   candidates   who   had   qualified   against   the   number   of

vacancies and it would be advisable that there should be one

common board to evaluate the performance of all the candidates

who may now qualify in the revised declaration of the result of

written examination and that, in our view, would do justice to the

candidates. 

21 | P a g e

34. We would like to note that so far as the intervenor Aashish

Saldi   is   concerned,   he   appeared   in   the   written   examination

against 10% quota reserved for in­service officers and he had

participated   in   the   selection   process   initiated   under   Punjab

Superior Judicial Services in terms of Rule 7(3)(b) of the Punjab

Superior Judicial Services Rules, 2007 and who has no lis with

the present process, at least the final fate of participation of the

officer be declared by the respondents and may be processed

further in accordance with the Rules. 

35. The   appeal   accordingly   succeeds   and   the   impugned

judgment of the High Court dated 23rd January, 2020 is hereby

set aside and   we direct the respondents to valuate the marks

obtained of question nos. 1,2,3 and 5 of Paper V (Criminal Law)

(out of total 160 marks) and after undertaking the process, a

fresh   result   of   the   written   examination   be   declared   of   the

candidates   in   reference   to   Punjab/Haryana   Superior   Judicial

Service Examination, 2019 and those who qualify and fall in the

zone of three times the number of vacancies may be called for

viva­voce and result of the selection process, thereafter be finally

declared in accordance with the scheme of Rules, 2007.

22 | P a g e

36. We further direct that the result of the intervenor (Aashish

Saldi),   who   had   participated   as   an   in­service   officer   in   the

selection   process   initiated   under   Punjab   Superior   Judicial

Services shall be declared and further action may be taken in

accordance with Rules, 2007. 

37. The   directions   be   complied   with   within   a   period   of   two

months.

38. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

…………..…………J.

                                                           (Ajay Rastogi)

…………..…………

J.

                                                                (C.T. Ravikumar)

New Delhi

August 29, 2022.

23 | P a g e