- (1.) The petitioners in these three writ petitions seek a writ of mandamus for holding a separate examination in paper IV i.e. Cost Accounts and Financial Management or in the alternative for awarding 21 marks to the petitioners in the said paper on the ground that part of question Nos. 3 and 6 were out of syllabus in the examination held on 10.5.2010. As per the petitioners, question No. 1, concerning cash flow statement, was required to be solved with direct and indirect method whereas in the past examination held during the last 25 years, this was asked only in indirect method. It is further stated that direct method is not in use now a days and the syllabus also did not indicate the direct method. Plea further is that maximum number of adjustment was asked in this question, which required preparing different accounts i.e. Plant accounts, machinery accounts, debtor accounts, provision accounts. Question No. 3 of reconciliation of cost and finance account was of 15 marks and was asked in a manner that it covered both practical and theoretical part. In this background, the petitioner has made the prayer for issuing mandamus either to grant grace marks or to hold a separate examination of paper IV.
(2.) Almost identical issue was raised by some of the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No. 15781 of 2010 titled1 (Virender Sharma and others v. State of Haryana and others), which was decided on 22.9.2010. The prayer made in Civil Writ Petition No. 15781 of 2010 was also for holding a separate examination in paper V, which was Local Rules and Public Works Accounts or in the alternative for awarding 21 grace marks. Finding no merit in the prayer made in the said writ petition, the same was dismissed by this Court. The Court had considered the question of jurisdiction of the Courts and the Tribunals to exercise the power of judicial review regarding departmental examination being out of syllabus.
(3.) Besides other judgements, a recent judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and another, 2010 6 SCC 759was noticed. It is held in this case that the Court can not take upon itself the task of examiner or Selection Board and examine discrepancies and inconsistencies in the question paper and evaluation thereof. It is further observed in this case that it is not possible for the High Court to examine question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when the State Public Service Commission has assessed the inter-se merit of the candidates. After making reference to some other precedents, this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 15781 of 2010 has held as under:- After making reference to large number of precedents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is the settled legal proposition that the court cannot take upon itself the task of statutory authorities. In this regard, reference is made to Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. v. Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao, 1996 7 SCC 499, Govt. of Orissa v. Hanichal Roy, 1998 6 SCC 626, UC v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar, 1994 2 SCC 718and A. Umarani v. Coop. Societies, 2004 7 SCC 112. Having so observed, the Hon'ble Supreme Court finally has held as under:- In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for Respondent 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court.;