Tarun Walia and Others vs State of Punjab and Others

Hemant Gupta, J.—This order shall dispose of bunch of writ petitions wherein challenge is to the result generated of the preliminary examination for the purpose of the shortlisting the candidates for Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) main examination. An advertisement was issued to start the process of selection in respect of 71 posts of Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch). The examination is to be conducted in three stages firstly the Preliminary examination followed by the main written examination and viva voce. The Preliminary Examination is for shortlisting of candidates to appear in the main examination.

The preliminary examination was conducted on 08.06.2013. It consisted of 125 multiple choice questions. All the petitioners have appeared in the said examination and are aggrieved in respect of the result generated on account of allegedly wrong answer keys.

On 08.07.2013, Mr. K.K. Kareer learned Registrar (Recruitment) stated that the Committee of this Court shall re-examine the answer key of questions No. 9, 16, 23, 27, 35, 49, 57, 64, 83, 86, 87, 96, 98, 99, 100, 109, 110, 114, 116 and 119. Today, Mr. Kareer has pointed out that the Committee has examined the questions and corrected answer keys in respect of question Nos. 27 and 114. However, it was stated that answer keys in respect of all other questions is correct.

With the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Kareer, we have gone through the questions and find that stand of the respondents in respect of certain questions cannot be said to be incorrect in any manner in respect of questions No. 8, 9, 23, 72, 83, 99, 109, 110 and 116. However, we find that the answer keys in respect of questions No. 35, 49, 57, 64, 86 are ambiguous and vague which were sufficient to mislead the candidates so as to answer the multi choice questions appropriately. We are conscious of the fact that the power of judicial review of this Court is limited while examining the answer keys and that this Court will not sit over the wisdom of the examiner in respect of answer keys so finalized. But if the bare perusal of the statutes lead to a conclusion that the choices are vague, ambiguous and can mislead a candidate, this Court is duty bound to intervene and suggest the corrective measures. The questions said to be either vague or ambiguous are mentioned below:

Question No. 35 relates to Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In view of the provisions of the Code, both the options ''B'' and ''D'' are correct. In fact, the correct answer has been bifurcated into two parts. Thus, the options and the answer key becomes misleading.

Question No. 49 relates to the Section 3 of the Evidence Act. The expression ''Proved'' has been defined as to when the Court either believes a fact to exist or considers its existence probable, to act up on the supposition that it exists. The answer key gives option ''A'' as the correct answer, whereas in terms of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, the correct answer is option ''B''.

In respect of question No. 57, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sucha Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, wherein reliance was placed upon the judgment Hon''ble Supreme Court reported as Dinesh Borthakur Vs. State of Assam, wherein it has been held that evidence of a sniffer dog is hearsay evidence. As per the answer key, the correct answer is option ''D''. But such option is contrary to the interpretation of law. Thus the answer key generated is obviously incorrect.

The option ''A'' and option ''C'' given against question No. 64, are same though worded with slight variation. The answer as per key is ''D'' that is option ''A'' and ''B'' are correct. Since the options are overlapping and option ''B'' may not be correct, giving rise to vagueness and ambiguity.

In respect of question No. 86, Mr. Kareer relies upon a judgment in AIR 1932 81 (Privy Council) . The grievance of the petitioners is that ''Shias'' and ''Sunnis'' are governed by separate Islamic law, therefore the choices are vague. A perusal of the judgment of Privy Council referred by Mr. Kareer shows that it was dealing with a case governed by law of ''Hanafi''. Therefore, whether such judgment would be relevant and applicable in view of The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, needs to be examined by the Committee in the light of the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners.

We have found that the answer key in respect of the some of the questions is incorrect which may affect large number of students, therefore, we leave it to the committee to revise the result by correcting the answer key or delete the questions while preparing the revised result. The needful be done by 19.07.2013.

Lastly, some of the learned counsel for the Petitioners pointed that in some States there is a practice that before the result is declared after examination, the answer key is displayed and the objections are invited from the candidates. Such opportunity to the candidates before finalizing the final answer key would avoid the possibility of the revision of the result at subsequent stage and invocation of the jurisdiction of the Courts by way of writ petitions after the result is generated. It is for the respondents to examine the said aspect so as to streamline the functioning of the examination. The writ petitions stand disposed of.