Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a writ petition filed by a judiciary aspirant who was not awarded 2.5 marks for a correct answer, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu*, CJ., and Sumeet Goel, J., allowed the petition holding that the petitioner undisputedly gave a correct answer and other candidates who wrote the same answer were awarded marks. The Court directed the State to award the petitioner 2.5 marks and appoint her as a Civil Judge (Jr. Div.).
Background
The petitioner was a judicial aspirant who applied for the post of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) under an advertisement issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission (‘HPSC’). In the main written examination, the evaluator did not award any marks for a correct answer which resulted in the petitioner being deprived of 2.5 marks. This led to the petitioner not securing the passing mark of 550. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the HPSC and the High Court , but received no response. Hence, the present petition was filed.
The High Court did not dispute that the petitioner’s answer was correct but contended that the evaluator did not award any marks since the answer had some cutting/cancelling out. Additionally, re-evaluation was not permissible in terms of the advertisement.
Analysis and Decision
Regarding the reliance placed on another candidate’s case Mukul Dhankhar v. State of Haryana1 wherein this Court refused to interfere in the evaluation of a descriptive answer in the English Language segment, the Court noted that in the present case, the candidates only had to correct the grammatical mistake(s) contained in the sentences given, and the petitioner undisputedly gave the correct answer. Additionally, the petitioner’s answer was the same as two other candidates who received the 2.5 marks. Noting this, the Court stated that it had no option but to allow the petition and direct the State to award marks to the petitioner.
Further noting that there were still vacancies remaining, the Court held that the petitioner could be accommodated for appointment.
Thus, the Court allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to be appointed as Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), if otherwise suitable and was not facing any other legal disability.
[Heena Shehrawat v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 644, decided on 05-02-2025]
*Order authored by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Rahul Gautam, Yogesh Vashista, and Navneet Sharma
For the respondents: AAG Aditya Pal Singh, Senior Advocate Munisha Gandhi, and Shubreet Kaur
1. CWP-34049 of 2024
