The Punjab and Haryana High Court has sternly warned against the misuse of judicial forums by unsuccessful candidates who file baseless petitions challenging answer keys and expert evaluations in competitive examinations.
The case stemmed from a plea filed by Lakshay Chahal, a candidate for the Junior Engineer (Civil) post under the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC), who questioned the correctness of the final answer key released for Question No. 38 in Booklet Series L. The Commission had indicated “Saraswati” as the correct answer, while Chahal argued that it should have been “Yamuna.”
"The petitioner sought to project his own understanding as superior to a duly constituted Expert Committee. This undermines the credibility of objective expert determination," remarked Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj, while delivering the judgment.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Upholds DCF Method for Valuation of Unquoted Equity Shares under Income Tax Rules
Chahal backed his claim using RTI replies from Haryana Sarasvati Heritage Development Board and the Central Water Commission. However, the Court found that the documents relied on were either irrelevant or selectively interpreted, with one such RTI reply only confirming that Tons River, a Yamuna tributary, originated from the Har-ki-Dun glacier—not the Yamuna itself.
"This Court expresses concern that the petitioner, instead of examining the entire report, indulged in a selective and erroneous reading," the judge noted.
Read Also:- Supreme Court stays arrest of Wajahat Khan in FIRs lodged outside West Bengal over social media posts
The Court observed that the Expert Committee’s answer key was formulated based on authoritative academic sources and that
“a court is recognized as an expert of experts under the law.”
It clarified that the geography-based question did not require highly specialized expertise and could be assessed through standard academic references already submitted.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Condemns Abuse of Bail Conditions Through Offering of Voluntary Deposits
The judgment also emphasized the sanctity and finality of competitive examinations.
"Allowing individual candidates to question the correctness of answers would open floodgates of litigation and undermine the finality of the selection process,"
the Court said, adding that unless there’s demonstrable illegality, arbitrariness, or mala fides, such challenges would not be entertained.
The Court highlighted precedents set by the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. and U.P. Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh, reiterating that judicial review in academic evaluations must be exercised with restraint and only in exceptional cases.
"Courts should presume the correctness of key answers. In case of doubt, the benefit must go to the examination authority, not the candidate," the judgment quoted from earlier Supreme Court rulings.
Read Also:- Allahabad High Court Rebukes Police Officer for Casual Attire, Grants Bail to Accused Cop in Bribery Case
In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition and cautioned that similar meritless petitions in the future may attract stern action and imposition of costs to deter abuse of the judicial process. "The sanctity of competitive examinations and the integrity of expert assessments cannot be allowed to erode through unwarranted litigation," the Court asserted.
Quote Highlight:
"If similarly misconceived and unmeritorious petitions are brought before the Court… appropriate costs shall be imposed to deter abuse of the judicial process." — Punjab & Haryana High Court
The writ petition was dismissed with the Court finding no merit in the petitioner’s challenge and affirming the authority and objectivity of the Expert Committee’s decision.
Title: Lakshay Chahal v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission and another
