The Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed the plea of a Punjab Civil Judge 2016 candidate, Rustam Garg, for the re-evaluation of his English paper answer. The Court found that the original evaluation of a particular answer was seriously flawed and ordered a fresh assessment by an independent expert.
“Preferable & legally tenable course, when the impugned evaluation is found to be wholly erroneous, is not for the court to undertake the evaluation itself but rather to remit the matter to another equally competent expert or panel of experts, dissociated from the original process, for an independent & unbiased re-assessment,”
— Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel
Read Also:- J&K High Court Cancels Seniority Benefits for Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers Before Regularization
The Court was deciding whether the candidate’s answer in the English paper should be re-evaluated. The judges emphasized that the sanctity of the judicial process must be maintained and courts should not replace academic evaluators. They directed that re-evaluation be carried out by a different expert, unrelated to the original evaluation.
Initially, the Court considered the petitioner’s argument that he had written multiple answers to a question and that any correct one should have been evaluated. However, this submission was rejected. The Court stated that allowing evaluation of multiple answers for the same question would lead to confusion and undermine the fairness of the examination.
Read Also:- Rajasthan High Court Quashes Land Allotment for Hostel, Cites Illegal Diversion from School Use
“It is not reasonable, by any stretch of imagination, that an examinee can be permitted to write multiple answers on an impulse and then expect the examiner to evaluate all of them,”
— Punjab & Haryana High Court
The bench clarified that only the first answer written should be considered by the examiner, as accepting otherwise would defeat the purpose of a fair and consistent evaluation system.
Read Also:- Village Policemen Not Equal To Home Guards: Allahabad High Court Refuses Relief On Pay Parity
However, the Court took note of the fact that even the first answer provided by the petitioner was not incorrect based on standard English usage. The judges stated that although courts do not have the authority to replace expert academic opinion, in rare situations like this, where the mistake is obvious, the matter must be reviewed.
“Even on the touchstone of ordinary knowledge of English language, the answer given by the petitioner cannot be said to be incorrect,”
— Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Court also warned that judicial review should be exercised carefully in academic matters. Courts are not equipped to function as examiners and must defer to academic authorities, except in clear cases of error.
“The Court cannot arrogate unto itself the role of the examiner… to do so would be to transgress the boundaries of judicial propriety,”
— Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Court has now directed that the candidate’s answer to the idiom-based question — “Mohan is a painter of the first water” — be re-evaluated by a new expert, not involved in the earlier assessment. The results must be submitted in a sealed cover before the next hearing, scheduled for July 7.
Case Title: Rustam Garg v. Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh and others
Petitioner in Person: Mr. Rustam Garg
For Respondent No.1: Mr. Rajiv Anand, Advocate
For Respondents No. 2 & 3: Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Senior DAG, Punjab
