Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging Preliminary Exam Results for Haryana Civil Services
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, J., has dismissed multiple petitions challenging the preliminary examination results for the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and other allied services. The petitions were filed by candidates who contested the correctness of the answer keys provided by the examination authority.
The case, titled "Vardhman Ranjan v. State of Haryana," involved several petitioners who argued that the answer key for the preliminary examination, conducted on April 26, 2026, was flawed. The petitioners claimed that specific questions in the General Studies Examination and the Civil Services Aptitude Test were incorrectly evaluated, leading to unfair results.
The court, while addressing the petitions, emphasized the importance of judicial restraint in matters involving academic expertise. The judgment highlighted that courts should interfere with examination processes only when there is clear evidence of a glaring and manifest error in the answer keys. In this case, the court found no such error that would warrant interference.
The petitioners also argued that they were not given the opportunity to file cross-objections against the revised answer key prepared by subject experts. However, the court noted that there is no statutory requirement for allowing cross-objections in such cases. Accepting the petitioners' contention would lead to an unending cycle of objections, hindering the finalization of the selection process.
The court observed that the examination authority acted transparently and in good faith by referring the objections to subject experts and revising the answer key accordingly. The court further stated that the opinions of subject experts cannot be conclusively held as manifestly incorrect, and any benefit of doubt should favor the examination authority.
In light of the court's findings, the petitions were dismissed, allowing the examination process to proceed without further delay. The court's decision ensures that the upcoming final examination can be conducted as scheduled, safeguarding the interests of the selected candidates and the public.
Bottom line:-
Judicial review in examination processes should be exercised with restraint, and benefit of doubt is to be given to the examination authority when expertise in academic matters is involved.
Statutory provision(s): Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
The judgment reaffirms the principle that academic matters, particularly those involving specialized knowledge, are best left to the discretion of experts. It underscores the need for judicial restraint and the importance of maintaining the integrity of examination processes.
Vardhman Ranjan v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2927473
