Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 457 (HP)

Sh. Piyush Dhanotia v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2023-11-21

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2023
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: “i) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus, Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, thereby direct the respondents to modify the result dated 10.11.2023 (Annexure P4) and thereby call for three candidates for each vacancy, for viva voice i.e. 51 candidates for 17 posts. ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to draw and modify category wise detailed merit list before conducting the interview/viva voice. iii) That the respondent no.2 may kindly be directed to declare the marks of the petitioners/all candidate who appeared in the H.P. Judicial service competitive (Mains) Examination 2023, before conducting the interview/viva voice. iv) That the respondents may kindly be directed to get the papers of Main Exam of the petitioners to be rechecked and reevaluated by an Independent Expert Committee constituted by this Hon’ble Court or any other appropriate authority.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in terms of Press Note dated 10.11.2023, Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission has declared the result of the main examination and twenty five candidates have been declared eligible for the personality test (Viva Voce), but Public Service Commission has not adhered to Notification dated 01.07.2016 (Annexure P5), in terms whereof, for each vacancy three candidates are to be called for Viva-Voce. He has further argued that the respondents be directed to have the main examination papers of the petitioners rechecked and reevaluated by an independent expert and also to constitute a Committee headed by a retired Judge of either the Hon’ble Supreme Court or High Court for evaluating the selection process by granting at least 50 grace marks to the petitioners by adhering to the principle of moderation as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranav Verma and Others vs. Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and Another, (2020) 15 Supreme Court Cases 377. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, has informed the Court that only 25 candidates qualified the main examination for personality test as is evident from Press Note dated 10.11.2023. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, has informed the Court that only 25 candidates qualified the main examination for personality test as is evident from Press Note dated 10.11.2023. From amongst them, Public Service Commission shall invite candidates for personality test (Viva-Voce) in the ratio of 1:3 where possible and where this ratio cannot be maintained for paucity of candidates, then all the candidates of that category shall be invited for the personality test. He further informed the Court that the answer sheets of the main written examination are evaluated by the same examiner for a particular subject and therefore, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioners is not applicable in the facts of the case. He further submitted that a candidate can not pray for issuance of a mandamus for the reevaluation/rechecking of an answer sheet in the absence of any such provision being there in the Rules or Regulations governing the process of recruitment. Accordingly, he prayed that as there is no merit in the present petition, the same be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the Writ Petition and the documents appended therewith, this petition apparently is misconceived. 5. The petitioners unfortunately have not passed the main examination and that being the case, they have no locus to file and maintain this Writ Petition as far as relief No.1 is concerned. Besides this, it is no one’s case that qualified candidates have not been invited for viva voce though they fall in the ratio of 1:3 as per merit. 6. Reliance placed by the petitioners on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranav Verma and Others vs. Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (supra), is completely misconceived, for the reason that herein it is not the case where answer sheets in one subject have been evaluated by different examiners so as to occasion a situation wherein, because different examiners have examined answer sheets of the same subject, therefore, moderation is necessary. 7. 7. On the issue of rechecking, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Shrivastava vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and Others, (2004) 6 Supreme Court Cases 714, has held that in the absence of any provision for reevaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for reevaluation of this marks. This law has been subsequently also reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The law was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur and Another, (2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases 759 and thereafter, even in Pranav Verma and Others vs. Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (supra). In the present case, in the absence of provision of reevaluation/rechecking being there in the Regulations, no such direction can be passed. 8. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, as there is no force in either of the contentions that have been raised by way of this petition by the petitioners, the same is dismissed at this stage only. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.