Chandigarh – The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a stern warning to unsuccessful candidates who file baseless petitions challenging expert-evaluated answers in competitive exams. In a landmark ruling, Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj emphasized that such litigation not only undermines the sanctity of competitive examinations but also burdens the judicial system unnecessarily.
The observation came during the hearing of a petition challenging the final answer key of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). The petitioner contended that a particular answer related to a river originating from the Har-ki-Dun glacier was erroneous. He claimed the correct answer should be “Yamuna” instead of “Sarswati,” as mentioned in the HSSC answer key.
Courts Are Not a Substitute for Expert Opinion
Rejecting the petition, Justice Bhardwaj noted:
“Let it be made abundantly clear that in future, if similarly misconceived and unmeritorious petitions are brought before this court seeking to substitute judicial opinion for expert academic conclusions without any demonstrable illegality, arbitrariness or mala fides, the same shall be dealt with sternly, and appropriate costs shall be imposed.”
The court clarified that individual candidates’ interpretations, especially when based on selective reading of RTI replies or academic papers, could not be used to override the conclusions reached by domain experts.
Sanctity of Evaluation Must Be Preserved
Justice Bhardwaj emphasized that the evaluation process in competitive exams must remain final and unchallenged, except in clear cases of procedural illegality or mala fide intent.
“Allowing individual candidates to question the correctness of answers as determined by domain experts would open the floodgates of litigation and undermine the sanctity of the evaluation process,” he asserted.
Read also: Tarunpreet Singh Sond Inaugurates ₹300 Cr Ortech Textiles Unit in Mohali
In the present case, the court found no procedural irregularity, and dismissed the petitioner’s argument as fallacious, noting that more than one river can originate from the same glacier. The Bench further noted that even the Haryana Sarasvati Heritage Development Board had not conducted any independent research to support the petitioner’s claim.
Warning Against Judicial Misuse
The High Court made it clear that courts cannot be transformed into academic review panels, reiterating that they lack jurisdiction to reopen questions resolved by duly constituted expert committees.
Justice Bhardwaj strongly cautioned that future petitions of similar nature will attract heavy costs and be treated as misuse of the judicial process.
“Such petitions filed without adequate legal or academic foundation result in an undue burden on the judicial system and divert precious time from matters involving genuine constitutional or legal questions,” the court noted.
