Vardhman Ranjan vs. State Of Haryana Through Its Chief Secretary

Facts

The petitioners, who applied for the HCS (Executive Branch) and other allied services, are challenging the preliminary examination result declared on 04.05.2026, pursuant to Advertisement No.22/2026 dated 30.01.2026. The selection process involved a General Studies Examination and a Civil Services Aptitude Test. After the examination on 26.04.2026, an answer key was uploaded, inviting objections. A revised key was uploaded on 02.05.2026 based on expert opinions, and the result was declared on 04.05.2026, excluding the petitioners. The petitioners argued that the revised answer key was prepared without affording them an opportunity to be heard or to file objections to the objections raised by other candidates. The respondent-HPSC contended that all objections were forwarded to subject experts, and the revised key was based on their opinions, asserting no rule mandated confronting candidates with other objections.

Held

The Court held that the petitioners' contention regarding the lack of opportunity to file cross-objections to the objections raised by other candidates was not sustainable. Relying on previous judgments of the High Court, including Sukhnoor Singh Versus Haryana Public Service Commission and Amit and Others Versus State of Haryana and Others, the Court found that the advertisement did not contain any rule, regulation, or condition permitting candidates to file cross-objections. The Court noted that the respondent-Commission acted in a bona fide and transparent manner by referring objections to subject experts. The Court also considered the established legal principle that in cases of doubt, the benefit should be extended to the selection committee. Upon examining the disputed questions, the Court found that it could not be conclusively held that the answers suggested by the subject experts were manifestly incorrect, thereby leaving no scope to substitute their opinion. While acknowledging a doubt with respect to Question No. 59, the Court applied the principle of extending the benefit of doubt to the Selection Commission. The Court also addressed other disputed questions, finding the petitioners' contentions to be misconceived. The Court emphasized that interfering at the behest of a few unsuccessful candidates would stall the entire selection process, which would be precarious for the public and other candidates. Therefore, the petitions were dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the preliminary examination result declared on 04.05.2026 for the post of HCS (Executive Branch) and other allied services, based on a revised answer key, is liable to be set aside due to the alleged incorrectness of answers to specific questions (Nos. 17, 30, 31, 32, 59, 80, and 92) and the process of revision without providing an opportunity to the petitioners to raise objections to the objections of other candidates? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and administrative law). Petitioner's Contentions: - The revised answer key was prepared without granting them an opportunity to be heard or to file objections to the objections of other candidates, violating principles of natural justice, as per the judgment in Ramandeep Kaur Versus Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). - The answers prepared by the experts are contrary to authentic books and statutory provisions, and expert opinions cannot be relied upon mechanically; courts must apply their mind. Respondent's (HPSC) Contentions: - Multiple objections were received, forwarded to subject experts, and the answer key was revised based on their reports. The Commission is not an expert body. - There is no rule, regulation, or advertisement condition mandating that candidates must be confronted with objections raised by other candidates before finalizing the result. - As per expert reports, there is no change in the answers to the disputed questions. It is settled law that finalized answer keys by experts are considered final, and in case of doubt, the benefit goes to the examination authority.