Punjab and Haryana High Court refuses relief to candidate who failed judiciary exam by less than 1 mark

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently refused to re-evaluate a judiciary candidate’s answer to one of questions in the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) 2023-24 examination for which results were declared in October 2024 [Jasmine v State of Haryana and Others]..The candidate Jasmine had fallen short of 0.90 marks in the examination held for appointment of ‘Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate’ – she secured 549.10 marks against the cut-off marks of 550 marks. She claimed that one of the questions answered by her in the mains examination was incorrectly evaluated..The Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel observed that while a writ Court is endowed with wide and plenary jurisdiction, empowered to administer justice and uphold constitutional rights, it must exercise such authority with due caution and judicial restraint.The evaluation process is an exercise of specialized discretion entrusted to the examiner and it is not the writ court’s role to encroach upon this domain, the Court added..“Thus, the Court’s intervention must be reserved for matters where justice demands it, not guided by an emotive appeal at the instance of an unsuccessful candidate,” it further said, while emphasizing that a court can interfere only when the evaluation appears to be grossly incorrect..In the present case, the Court said the award of zero mark to Jasmine’s answer cannot be said to be palpably incorrect or egregious. She is seeking the Court to be a super-evaluator, supplanting its view for that of the examiner or expert, it added.“This Court is indubitably convinced that it cannot tread this path, in the factual matrix of the present case. Further, Clause 33 of the Advertisement clearly proscribes re-evaluation of the answer sheets. It only permits limited re-checking of the answer sheets, to the extent i.e as to whether some part of the answer sheet has been left unevaluated or there is a totalling error. In the case in hand, none of these situations emerge, much less are pleaded. Ergo, in the attending facts and circumstances of the writ petition in hand, the same deserves to be rejected," the Court said as it proceeded to dismiss the plea..Punjab and Haryana High Court refuses relief to candidate who failed judiciary exam by 0.6%.Advocates Pankaj Nanhera, Rahul Gautam and Navneet Sharma represented the petitioner.Additional Advocate General Deepak Balyan represented the State of Haryana. Advocate Balvinder Sangwan and Savreet Brar represented the Haryana Public Service Commission.Senior Advocate Sanjay Kaushal with advocates Kanwal Goyal and Harshita Shara represented the High Court..[Read Judgment]