M A I N   N E W S

HCS (Judicial) Prelims
HC panel to look into accuracy of answer keys
Saurabh Malik/TNS

Row over marks The issue of accuracy of the answer keys was raked up by a candidate, Krishan Kant He said Satnam Singh, the last candidate on the list, had secured 301 marks, whereas he had secured 293 marks Kant’s counsel said the petitioner was deprived of marks as he opted “for the legally correct answers”

Chandigarh, August 13
Just six months after 14 posts of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service were advertised, a committee of Punjab and Haryana High Court judges would look into the accuracy of answer keys to at least four questions in the preliminary examination.

The issue of accuracy of the answer keys was raked up by a candidate, Krishan Kant, before the High Court. In his petition against the State of Haryana and another respondent, Kant sought quashing of the result. Directions were further sought to constitute a committee to consider questions number 46, 61, 62 and 103 of question booklet A.

In the petition placed before the Bench of Justices Ajay Kumar Mittal and GS Sandhawalia, Kant had said that the respondents should be directed to redraft the answer keys after reconsideration of the questions and prepare a new merit list after rechecking the papers.

Going into the background of the controversy, Kant asserted that the posts were advertised vide notice dated January 2. Being eligible, he applied and appeared in the examination on May 13 in the general category.

On May 22, the results of the preliminary examination were declared. The merit-wise list of general category candidates was prepared and uploaded on the high court website. In all, 105 candidates qualified.

Satnam Singh, the last candidate on the list, had secured 301 marks, whereas the petitioner had secured 293 marks. His counsel said the petitioner was deprived of marks as he opted “for the legally correct answers”.

The respondents, as such, be directed either not to hold the main written examination or the petitioner may be allowed to appear provisionally in the main examination scheduled for August 24, the counsel argued

The Bench observed that a similar issue was examined by the high court earlier. “Identical issue arose before this court, wherein, the matter was ordered to be placed before the Committee with the leave of the Acting Chief Justice to examine the correctness of these questions… The present writ petition is disposed of in terms of order dated October 17, 2011, passed in the case of Akhil Jain versus the State of Haryana and another respondent,” the Bench concluded.