Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1606 (HP)

Lalit Mohan v. H. P. Public Service Commission

2015-11-02

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, stated at the Bar that he is under instructions not to file rejoinder. His statement is taken on record. Accordingly, right of the writ petitioner to file rejoinder is closed. 2. By the medium of this writ petition, the writ petitioner has sought quashment of order, dated 24.08.2015 (Annexure A6), made by the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") in OA No. 2799 of 2015, titled as Lalit Mohan versus H.P. Public Service Commission (for short "the Commission") wherein and whereunder his prayer for interim relief has been rejected by the Tribunal (for short "the impugned order"). 3. In nutshell, the writ petitioner has questioned the result of the preliminary examination of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Services Combined Competitive Examination conducted by the respondent-Commission, in which he has been declared to be unsuccessful. 4. It is apt to record herein that after participating in the preliminary examination, the writ petitioner has filed objections in terms of the mechanism in place, viz-a-viz questions No. 67, 74 and 84 of Booklet Series "C" of Paper-II (Aptitude Test) and after obtaining some marks in that process, has now questioned Question No. 68 of Booklet Series "C" of Paper-I (General Knowledge) and Question No. 76 of Booklet Series "C" of Paper-II (Aptitude Test). 5. As per the mechanism in place, the writ petitioner had to file objections at the relevant point of time, i.e. within time frame from the date of displaying the answer key by the Commission, which he has not done. 6. Moreover, the respondent, in para 3 of the reply, has specifically replied the same and has taken the ground. It is apt to reproduce para 3 of the reply on merits herein: "Para 3: That as per the prevailing instructions/decision of the Commission, the respondent Commission had displayed the answer key on 16.06.2015 before declaring the result of H.P. Administrative Services (Preliminary) Examinations2014 giving the opportunity to the candidates to file objections if any, against the answer key within 7 days i.e. up to 22.06.2015. In response, the Commission received some objections from the candidates against the Answer key. In response, the Commission received some objections from the candidates against the Answer key. The petitioner had objected question No. 67, 74 & 84 of Booklet series 'C' of Paper-II (Aptitude Test) by preferring a representation within the time allowed to the appeared candidates to raise objections. A Copy of representation is attached as Annexure R1. All the representations along with the representation of the Petitioner were placed before the Expert Committee for taking their opinion. After giving due thought to the objected questions, the Expert Committee examined the objections, some mistakes were found and were rectified before preparing the result. After taking into account the opinion rendered by the Expert, the Commission had declared the result of H.P. Administrative Services (Preliminary) Examinations 2014 on 24.07.2015. It is pertinent to mention here that the result of H.P. Administrative Services (Preliminary) Examinations 2014 has been prepared strictly in accordance with the opinion rendered by the Expert of the subject on the objections raised by the appeared candidates. However, no objections have been raised by the petitioner against the question/answer key of Question Nos. 68 of Booklet series 'C' of Paper-I (General Knowledge) and question No. 76 of Booklet series "C" of Paper-II (Aptitude Test) in his representation which are challenged in the present writ petition. Now objecting the correctness of questions and answers at this stage is afterthought and the objections raised at this stage is not maintainable." 7. The similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in a batch of writ petitions, CWP No. 9169 of 2013, titled as Vivek Kaushal & others versus Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, being the lead case, decided on 17.07.2014, and it has been held that any person aggrieved has to make objections within a stipulated period. No such objection was made within the stipulated period and the writ petitions were dismissed. 8. The said judgment has also been followed in another batch of writ petitions, CWP No. 6812 of 2014, titled as Arvind Kumar & others versus Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, being the lead case, decided on 16.10.2014. 9. Applying the test to the instant case, no case for interference is made out. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed alongwith all pending applications.