Haryana Judicial Service Petition

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.
com)
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISIDCTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ________OF 2019
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Pranav Verma & Ors. …Petitioners
versus
Registrar General of
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana
At Chandigarh & Anr. …Respondents
PAPER BOOK
(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)
WITH I.A NO._______OF 2019
APPLICATION FOR STAY
PRASHANT BHUSHAN: COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
Sr. No. Particulars of Document Page No. of part to Remarks

which it belong
Part I Part II
(Contents (Contents
of Paper of file
Book) alone)
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)
(COURT FEE RS. 1550/-)
1. Listing Proforma A-A1 A-A1
2. Cover Page of Paper Book A-2
3. Index of Report proceedings A-3
4. Defect List A-4
5. Note Sheet NS1 to …
6. Synopsis and List of Dates B-I
7. Writ Petition with Affidavit. 1-28
8. ANNEXURE: P1 29-32
True copy of the report in the
Guardian, dated 08.10.2018,on
findings of IPCC’s latest report of
2018,
True copy of the order dated
15.09.2017 mentioning about the
order dated scrapping the Pre
Exam.
10. ANNEXURE: P3 35
True copy of the Corrigendum
dated 27.08.2018 by the Haryana
Public Service Commission.
11. ANNEXURE:P4 36-37

True copy of the final result of the
Preliminary Examination 2017.
12. ANNEXURE: P5 38
True copy of the announcement
dated 29.01.2019.
13. ANNEXURE: P 6 39
True copy of the order of the

Punjab and Haryana High Court
dated 13.02.2019 .
14. ANNEXURE: P 7 40-42

True copy of the revised result
dated 26.02.2019 .
15. ANNEXURE : P8 43-44

True copy of the result of the
Main Examination conducted for
2017, dated 11.04.2019 .

True copy of the list of few of
such candidates dated Nil.
17. ANNEXURE: P10 47-48

True Copy of the RTI reply dated
07.12.2015.
18. FILING MEMO

19. VAKALTNAMA
SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES
That the present writ petition is being filed under Article 32 of the
constitution. The Petitioner is challenging the entire selection process
and evaluation method adopted in Main (Written) Examination of Civil
Judge (Junior Division) in the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch),
2017 (hereinafter referred as “HCS (JB) 2017”) on the grounds of being
unreasonable, arbitrary and also malafide and hence, in violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution. Some of the facts which indicate that the
selection process for the HCS(Judicial Branch) 2017 has not been fair or
reasonable are as follows:
(i) A total 14301 students took the preliminary examination
held on 22.12.2018 for total 107 vacancies, of which 75
were for the General Category candidates;
(ii) 1282 students out of 14301, who were declared successful
in preliminary examination and took the main examination
held on 15th to 17th March, 2019;
(iii) The result of this Main Examination was declared on
11.04.2019. Surprisingly, only 9 students (inclusive of all
categories) have been selected for the interview for total
107 vacancies in the result declared on 11.04.2019. That
means a total of 99.298% of the students have failed and
only 0.702% managed to pass.
(iv) The ostensible explanation for selecting only 9 students,
even though normally three times the number of seats
notified are called for interview test, would be that, no other
candidate could score a minimum of 33% in all five subject

as well as get 50% aggregate for general category and 45%
for reserved categories like SC, BC(A), BC(B), ESM, PH.
The required number of candidates to be called for viva
voice was clearly mentioned as THRICE THE NUMBER
of advertised posts including bracketed candidates, if any,
in order of merit of main examination (subject to the
candidates securing the above-mentioned qualifying
marks).
(v) Furthermore what is remarkable is that at least 20-30
candidates, who appeared for the Main Exam but were not
selected for the interview are those who have already
cleared judicial examinations of other States or most of
them are sitting judges in their respective states. It means
that they couldn’t secure the minimum qualifying marks
either in aggregate i.e. 50% and 45% for reserved categories
like SC, BC(A), BC(B), ESM, PH or 33% in individual
exam which is rather surprising and invites disbelief.
(vi) Some of the candidates who have not been found fit for
being called for the interview are the toppers and gold
medalists in their respective reputed law colleges.
(vii) Through the information obtained under RTI Act, it is clear
that in the last examination cycle (2015 HCS Judicial
Branch Recruitment) leading to appointment of successful
candidates to State Judicial Services, there was “no marking
criteria” for the evaluation of answer scripts in the related
mains examination and that the “performance of the

candidate in the Written Examination is depends solely on
the discretion on the examiner”. Further, the Punjab and
Haryana High Court responded that information was not
available with the concerned branch about existence of
model answers or their copies and principles governing
grace marks.
(viii) Moreover, the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana
has already scrapped the entire Preliminary Examination
held earlier on 16.07.2017 on account of examination paper
leak vide order dated 13.09.2017 in CRM No. 28947 of
2017 after an initial enquiry. Directions were also passed
for conducting a Regular Enquiry and a further probe in the
entire issue, and an FIR was also directed to be lodged
against Ms. Sunita, Ms. Sushila and Dr. Balwinder Sharma,
Registrar (Recruitment) in the act of leakage of question
paper of HCS (JB) Preliminary Examination 2017.
It is respectfully submitted that the results of the Main Exam of HCS
(JB) 2017 show that there is a serious problem with the evaluation
method of the exam, which is being conducted for selecting the judicial
officers in Haryana, and unless this evaluation method or selection
process for HCS is re-examined to make it more rational and reasonable,
without compromising on merits, one of the most important factors
responsible for huge pendency or delay in justice i.e. lack of sufficient
number of judicial officers will not be tackled.

In fact, in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan Vs. UP Public Service
Commission, (Civil Appeal 1867 of 2006), On behalf of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana on 17.01.2019 stated, that the cadre of Civil Judge
(Junior Division) is concerned, the process of filling up 109 vacancies is
underway and the date for completion thereof is stated to be 30.04.2019.
Further, it was directed that the said process be completed on or before
the said date i.e. 30.04.2019. Hence, it becomes even clearer that the
whole process was done in haste and hurried manner. This entire process
of checking around 5 papers of each 1280 candidates was completed in
a short span of around 24 days. Therefore, the entire process in such a
manner again raises concerns regarding its correctness and reliability.
That the Respondents herein carried out the process of evaluation in an
extremely hurried and arbitrary manner, and in that regard the due time
taken by other States who conduct their Judicial Service Examinations
on a pattern similar to that of the State of Haryana, is instructive to note.
Many other State judicial services examinations also took place around
the same time as that of Haryana Mains. These are depicted in the table
below:
S. Name of the Date No. of Seats Number of No. of No. of Whether Days
No. Main Candidates in Papers Copies Result passed
Examination the Main to be declared since the
Examination checked Mains
(approx.) Exam
1. The Uttar 30/01/20 610 1400 5 7,000 No More
Pradesh Civil 19 to than 80
Judge (Jr. days
Division) 01/02/20
Mains 19
Examination
2. The Delhi 09/02/20 147 650 5 2,600 No More
Judicial 19 to than 70
Service Main 10/02/20 days
Examination 19
3. The Himachal 30/03/20 4 84 5 420 No More
Pradesh 19 to than 20
Judicial 03/04/20 days
Service 19
(Main)
Examination
With the aforesaid instances of other State Judicial Service examinations
which are conducted on a pattern similar to the State of Haryana, the
petitioners here want to emphasize upon the necessity of devoting due
time for a fair, reasonable and thorough evaluation of the answer sheets,
and that such has been a constant and uniform practice in all States. It is,
accordingly, inconceivable that within a span of a mere 24 days, the
Respondents herein conducted the exam and also declared the final
result in a hasty and hurried manner. This, by itself, prima facie points to
the scope of arbitrary evaluation
Therefore, the Petitioners are seeking quashing of the aforesaid result
and seeking re-evaluation of all the papers of the Main Examination of
the petitioners by an independent committee of the experts.
The guidelines have been clearly issued in the case of Centre for Public
Interest Litigation vs. Registrar General of The High Court of Delhi,
(2017) 11 SCC 456, where it was held that aspirants of every State
Judicial Services expect minimum compliance with the guidelines issued

in the abovementioned case and adherence to process of evaluation of
mains examination answer-scripts as laid down in:
a) Sanjay Singh and Anr. v. U.P. Public Service Commission,

Allahabad and Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 720,
b) Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar v. U.P.S.C. and Ors. (2013) 12
SCC 489; and
c) Sujasha Mukherji v. High Court of Calcutta, (2015) 11 SCC
395
Hence, the petitioners are seeking the indulgence of this Hon’ble Court
in light of:
a) Non-availability of information on process of evaluation, standard
utilized (model answer keys or oral/written instructions) to ensure
uniformity of process, whether one examiner checked all papers
of one subject or multiple examiners were assigned for each
subject, etc.
b) Non-availability of information to manner and extent of
compliance with the guidelines made available in Centre for
Public Interest Litigation vs. Registrar General of The High Court
of Delhi, (2017) 11 SCC 456.
c) Ineffective and infructuous remedy of paid re-checking (re-
totalling of marks) without the disclosure of marks of candidates
who had not qualified.
The present amended notification for 107 posts was released post the
decision in 2016 CPIL vs. Registrar General of High Court of Delhi
(Supra). Therefore, any evaluation without some marking criteria,
uniformity, oversight provisions is in contravention of the spirit and

letter of the judgment. Further, arbitrary evaluation with no remedial
provision is also violative of Constitutional Provisions under Part III.
LIST OF DATES
Dates Particulars
20.03.17 Notification advisement no. 6 of 2016 published
on 20.03.17 for recruitment to 109 vacancies
Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Haryana
Civil Service (Judicial Branch), 2017. The exam
was to be held in three parts, the preliminary
examination, the main examination and the viva
voice.
16.07.2017 Preliminary examination held on 16.07.2017
14.09. 2017 Preliminary examination scrapped on
14.09. 2017 due to writ filed before Punjab and
Haryana High Court due to leakage of
preliminary examination paper of Civil Judge
(Junior Division) in the Haryana Civil Service
(Judicial Branch), 2017.
27.08.2018 Re-notified advertisement in continuation of
No. 6 of 2016 published on 20.03.2017. This
time the total vacant posts were 107 candidates
of which 75 were that of general category.
22.12.2018 Second preliminary examination held on
22.12.2018
23.12.2018 Answer Key published on 23.12.2018

11.01.2019 Objections taken on the key. 14 Questions
changed (6 scrapped, 8 answers changed).
Answer key released on 11.01.2019
16.01.2019 Objections filed again (1 Answer changed).
Result declared on 16.01.2019
21.01.2019 Result of the preliminary examination held
on 22.12.2018
26.01.2019 Civil Writ Petition No.2943 of 2019 (Mahipal
Singh and others vs State of Haryana and others)
filed regarding 7 questions in Punjab and
Haryana High Court on 26.01.2019
29.01.2019. Vide Announcement dated 29.01.2019, dates of
Mains examination to be held from 15.03.2019
to 17.03.2019 were published
29.01.2019 The high court did not accept all the objections
on answers for which evidence had to be given
and changed answer to only 1 question where
the mistake was apparent on face of the record.
Hence, all the writ petitions were disposed of
with a direction to the respondents to award
marks to the remaining candidates who have
attempted question No.117 (question number
may be different in other three booklets) rightly
by choosing Option `C’ and revise the result of
all the remaining candidates accordingly within

a period of one week from today and in case the
candidates secure more than the cut off marks in
their respective category(ies) after revision of
result, such candidates shall be allowed to file
their examination paper for their appearance in
the main written examination de hors the fact
that the respondents have invited only 10 times
candidates against the available vacancies.
26.02.2019 Revised result declared. 150 more students were
accepted as the cut off was lowered by 9 marks
15.03.2019- Mains examination held. 1282 candidates
17.03.2019 appeared for the exam.
11.04.2019 Result of the Mains Examination declared on
11.04.2019 with 9 students (inclusive of all
categories) made through for interviews.
23.04.2019 Hence this Writ Petition

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ______OF 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Pranav Verma S/O Vikash Verma
Age: 24 Residing At: Plot-66,
Meenakshi Garden, New Delhi-110018. Petitioner No.1
2. Garima YadavD/O Lal Singh Yadav

Age: 32 Residing At: HNo 228
First Floor, Sec 15, Part 1,
Gurugram-122001, Haryana. Petitioner No.2
3. Pranav Awasthi S/O Prabhat Awasthi

Age: 24 Residing At: Flat No 6C MIG
Sec 100,Noida. Petitioner No.3
4. Sneha Hooda D/O Kuldeep Singh

Age: 30 Residing At: HNo 1222,
Sec 3, Rohtak-124001. Petitioner No.4
5. Pankaj Rai S/O Anil Rai

Age: 32Residing At: HNo 83-84,
third floor, Pocket- H1, Sec 16,
Rohini, Delhi-110089. Petitioner No.5
6. Sachin S/O Suraj Mal

S.G.M. Nagar, Faridabad, Haryana. Petitioner No.6
7. Tanuj Jaglan S/O Umed Singh

Age: 29 Residing At: Flat 1-303,
Palam Apartments,
Bijwasan, New Delhi-110061. Petitioner No.7
8. Raghav Sharma S/O Satish Sharma

Age: 24 Residing At: HNo 3567 Uttam
Nagar Hansi, Haryana. Petitioner No.8
9. Pragati Dhankhar D/O Sant Dhankhar

Age: 31 Residing At: Flat No 1-303,
Palam Apartments, Bijwasan,
New Delhi-110061. Petitioner No.9
10. Aishwarya Sharma

D/O Ramkishor Sharma
Age: 28 Residing At: Civil Judges
Residence, Court No 2,
Ghumarwin, Distt Bilaspur, HP. Petitioner No.10
11. Rishabh Kapoor S/O Sanjay Kapoor

Age: 28 Residing At: Civil Judges
Residence, Court No 3,
Ghumarwin, Distt Bilaspur, HP. Petitioner No.11
12. Himanshu Tanwar

S/O Udai Chand
Age: 27 Residing At: C-67,
Type 4 Quarters, Nanakpura,
South Motibagh,
13. Kuldeep S/O Ram Chander

Age: 30 Residing At: HNo 906/27
Gali No-2, Prem Nagar, Kakroi Road,
Opp Fauji Canteen
Distt Sonipat-131001, Haryana. Petitioner No.13
14. Preeti D/O Azad Singh

Nehru Enclave,
Alipur-110036, Delhi. Petitioner No.14
15. Gaurav Katariya S/O Baldev Singh

Age: 31 Residing At: Plot No B-7/119-120,
Sec 17, Rohini Delhi-110089. Petitioner No.15
16. Anshuman D/O Shashi Paul

Age: 33 Residing At: 1672/8, Kothi
Mahashay Banarsidass,
Vishnu Colony,
Kurukshetra-136118, Haryana. Petitioner No.16
17. Prateek Mathela S/O Liladhar Mathela

Age: 27 Residing At: Street No 2,
Adarsh Nagar, Haldwani,
Distt Nainital-263139, Uttarakhand. Petitioner No.17
18. Monika D/O Surendra Kumar

Age: 32 Residing At: 108P, Huda
Mandi Township,
behind New Anaj Mandi,
Bhiwani-127021, Haryana. Petitioner No.18
19. Sangeeta D/O Rattan Singh

Age: 42 Residing At: 1652 Urban Estate
Jind Haryana. Petitioner No.19
20. Sarveksh Narang S/O Om Parkash Narang

Age: 25 Residing At: 198 Kidwai Nagar
near Shiv Mandir, Ludhiana. Petitioner No.20
21. Pooja Garg D/O Faquir Chand Garg

3rd Floor Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018. Petitioner No.21
22. Shivli Talwar D/O Vikas Talwar

Age: 26 Residing At: F-48
Mansarover Garden,
23. Vishal S/O Sadhu Ram

Age: 28 Residing At: Civil Judge
cum Judicial Magistrate
Court No 2,Paonta Sahib. Petitioner No.23
24. Mohit Yadav S/O Subhkaran Yadav

Age: 25 Residing At: 344, Sec 2,
IMT Bawal, Rewari-123501. Petitioner
No.24
25. Ebbani Aggarwal D/O Anil Aggarwal

National Apartment,
Plot 4 Sec 3, Dwarka, New Delhi. Petitioner No.25
26. Milan Goel S/O Narender Goel

Age: 26 Residing At: 235-L Model Town,
Panipat-132103, Haryana. Petitioner No.26
27. Ramandeep S/O Rajpal Singh

Age: 30 Residing At: H.No. 1242,
Sec-17, HUDA, Yamunnagar, Haryana Petitioner No.27
28. Nitesh Goel S/O Virender Goel

Age: 26 Residing At: 29E/3 Ward No 1,
Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030. Petitioner No.28
29. Aayushi Saxena D/O Padam Kant Saxena

Age: 29 Residing At: 261, Royal Residency,
Plot No5, Sec 9, Dwarka, New Delhi. Petitioner No.29
30. Nikita D/O Sateesh Kumar

Age: 26 Residing At: D-309,
Rail Vihar, Sec 45,
NHPC Colony, Faridabad,
Haryana – 121010 Petitioner No.30
31. Aishwarya Srivastava D/O Pardeep Kumar

Age: 30 Residing At: 30 Room No 63,
Working Women Hostel,
Banaras Hindu University,
Varanasi-221005. Petitioner No.31
32. Honey S/O Surendra

Age: 30 Residing At: Main Bazar,
VPO Dighal Distt Jhajjar-124107, Haryana. Petitioner No.32
33. Divyam Lila S/O Surendra Kumar Lila

Age: 25 Residing At: 47-48, Gulab Nagar,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Petitioner No.33
34. Shubham Bansal S/O Anand Kumar Bansal

Age: 24 Residing At: Nishant
Sales Corporation, Jaurasi Road,
Samalkha, Distt Panipat, Haryana. Petitioner No.34
35. Fariha Jamal D/O Jamaluddin

Age: 25Residing At: HNo 65, Okhla,
Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-110025. Petitioner No.35
36. Divya Arora D/O Chander Shekhar Arora

Age: 26 Residing At: 48 R
Model Town Rewari. Petitioner No.36
37. Yogesh Jain S/O Rakesh Jain

Age: 26 Residing At: HNo 45 Gali No 4,
Pech Colony, hodal Distt Palwal. Petitioner No.37
38. Pallavi Gupta D/O Anil Gupta

Age: 27 Residing At: HNo 1108, Sec 7,
Panchkula, Haryana. Petitioner No.38
39. Himanshu Arya S/O Sahdev Arya

Age: 26
Residing At: 1184 Sec 3,
Rewari-123401, Haryana. Petitioner No.39
40. Neeraj S/O Om Parkash

Age: 39 Residing At: Mcf 44 Prem
Nagar Yadav Colony
Ballabgarh, Faridabad. Petitioner No.40
41. Pankisha D/O Krishan Lal

Age: 27 Residing At: Ram Rai Gate Jind,
Haryana. Petitioner No.41
42. Anteema D/O Ramesh Kumar

Age: 26 Residing At: HNo 717/1
Kotala Mohala
Sukhdev Nagar Panipat. Petitioner No.42
43. Kushal Bhardwaz S/O Mukesh Kumar Sharma

Age: 26 Residing At:H.No. 66, W.No. 5,
Shiv Colony Sohna,
Gurgaon, Haryana Petitioner No.43
.
44. Gauri Narang D/O Gulshan Rai Narang
Age: 30 Residing At: 11 Amrit
Nagar Model Town
near inco factory,
Ambala City-134003. Petitioner No.44
45. Anju D/O Raj Kapoor

Age: 29Residing At: 80-R Model
Town Rohtak,Haryana. Petitioner No.45
46. Anjali D/O Anil Kumar

Age: 25 Residing At: VPO Sardaheri,
Distt Ambala-133206, Haryana. Petitioner No.46
47. Anima Mishra D/O Ashok Mishra

Age: 32 Residing At: C-80, First Floor,
Lajpat Nagar 1, Delhi-110024. Petitioner No.47
48. Amandeep Kaur Rathore D/O Baldev Singh

Age: 32 Residing At: Plot No 15, Greenland
Near Stalwarts World School,
Batala Road, Amritsar-143001, Punjab. Petitioner No.48
49. Neha Saini D/O O.P. Saini

Age: 31 Residing At: 498 Sec 23,
Gurgaon-122017, Haryana. Petitioner No.49
50. Ashish Kamboj S/O Ramesh Chander

Age: 29 Residing At: 13/1040 Ward No 8,
Khairpur Colony, Sirsa. Petitioner No.50
51. Shikha Setia D/O Rajinder Setia

Age: 27 Residing At: BG-5A, Flat No 8B,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110067. Petitioner No.51
52. Ashwini S/O Shiva Kumar Lal

Age: 34 Residing At: 355A/274A,
Mumfordganj, Prayagraj
Uttar Pradesh 21002 Petitioner No.52
53. Neeraj Yadav S/O Lala Ram Yadav

Age: 29 Residing At: VPO Bawwa
Distt Rewari-123303, Haryana. Petitioner No.53
54. Kanika Rana D/O Avtar Singh Rana

Age: 27Residing At: Judicial
Complex Kangra Tehsil,
District Kangra 176001 Petitioner No.54
55. Mallika D/O Ashok Kumar

Age: 28 Residing At: 2/7 J, Medical Campus,
Rohtak, Haryana. Petitioner No.55
56. Nisha D/O Suraj

Age: 24 Residing At: Ganga
Puri Road Near Gas Agency Panipat. Petitioner No.56
57. Aditya Vats S/O Adesh Vats

Age: 27 Residing At: 83/Third Floor,
Tuscan Floors, Tdi City, Kundli,
Sonipat, Haryana. Petitioner No.57
58. Meenakshi Bilochi D/O Prakash Kumar

Age: 31 Residing At: 1-KA-15, Hiran Magri Sec 4,
Udaipur-313002, Rajasthan. Petitioner No.58
59. Vaibhav Jasuja S/O Ashok Jasuja

Age: 26 Residing At: Flat 602, Hitwala
Apartments, RK Circle,
Udaipur, Rajasthan. Petitioner No.59
60. Shipra Dhankar D/O R.C. Dhankar

Age: 26 Residing At: B-30,
Vasant Kunj Enclave New Delhi. Petitioner No.60
61. Nanditta Batra D/O Adarsh Kumar Batra

Age: 28 Residing At: 97, Rampur Sani,
Near MP Kothi, Nangal,
District Ropar, Punjab, 140125 Petitioner No.61
62. Shantanu Sindhu S/O Iqbal Sindhu

Age: 24 Residing At: HNo 8, Officers
Colony, Sec 15 A,
Faridabad, Haryana. Petitioner No.62
63. Bharti Beniwal D/O Nagendra Kumar

Age: 27 Residing At: B-105, Shakti
Apartments, Sec 9,
Rohini, Delhi-110089. Petitioner No.63
64. Anurag Chhabra S/O Dev Raj Chhabra

Age: 25 Residing At: f 10/127,
Sec 15 Rohini Delhi-110089. Petitioner No.64
65. Anamika D/O Rajender Singh

Age: 26 Residing At: VPO Bawal,
Mohalla Hasanpura, Bawal,
Distt Rewari, Haryana. Petitioner No.65
66. Azad Sehrawat S/O Rohtas Singh Sehrawat

Age: 26 Residing At: HNo C-6, Sec 15 Part 1,
Gurugram, Haryana. Petitioner No.66
67. Abhimanyu Panghal S/O Ranjeet Singh

Age: 25 Residing At: 1034 Sec 12
Part b Sonipat, Haryana. Petitioner No.67
68. Jagvir S/O Ram Chander

Age: 34 Residing At: VPO Saiman
Tehsil Meham Distt Rohtak,
Haryana. Petitioner No.68
69. Yogesh Bhardwaj S/O Suresh Kumar

Chirag Delhi,
New Delhi – 110017 Petitioner No.69
70. Amir Khan S/O Mohd. Anees

Age: 26 Residing At: 86 Mohalla Mirdhan
Ward No. 13 Town Dasna,
Ghaziabad UP Petitioner No.70
71. Naveen Kumar S/O Mukesh Kumar

Ward no. 3, Sohna,
Gurgaon, Haryana Petitioner No.71
72. Abhimanyu Singh S/O Ajay Raj Singh

Age: 26Residing At: M8, Madhuban
Colony, Tonk Phatak,
Jaipur, Rajasthan. Petitioner No.72
73. Balwinder Kaur D/O Delp Singh

Age: 36 Residing At: Hno 548-a,
New Model Town, St No 3,
Near Shukla Provision Store,
Hoshiarpur-146001, Punjab. Petitioner No.73
74. Satyam Beniwal S/O Jai Prakash Narain

Age: 28 Residing At: Flat No. 9174,
Sector-C, Pocket–9,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070 Petitioner No.74
.
75. Dev Saroha S/O Dharam Singh
Sector 14, Sonepat, Haryana Petitioner No.75
.
76. Vrinda Khanna D/O Sandeep Khanna
Urban Estate Batala
Distt Gurdaspur, Punjab. Petitioner No.76
77. Deepak Yadav S/O Jaiveer Singh

Rajeev Nagar Rewari-123401, Haryana. Petitioner No.77
78. Ashish Sheoran S/O Surinder Kumar

Age: 30 Residing At: Flat No 202,
GH-7A, Sec 24,
Panchkla-134116, Haryana. Petitioner No.78
79. Karan Dahiya S/O Sanjeev Dahiya

Age: 25 Residing At: HNo 24/111,
Rattangarh House Near CRZ Sr. Sec. School,
Sonepat, Haryana. Petitioner No.79
80. Tapan Garg S/O Anand Prakash Garg

Age: 35 Residing At: 40-A, Pocket-A,
Sukhdev Vihar, SFS DDA Flats,
New Delhi -110025 Petitioner No.80
81. Kumar Rahul S/O Bipin Kumar Singh

Age: 29 Residing At: Shastrinagar,
Banderjori Road, Dumka-814101,
Jharkhand Petitioner No.81
82. Bhawna Rattan D/O Virander Rattan

Age: 28 Residing At: C/O G.K. and Sons
Saw Mill, Railway Road,
Sirhind-140406, Punjab. Petitioner No.82
83. Armaan Singh Grewal S/O Vinod Grewal

C Block AWHO,
Sec 27 Panchkula, Haryana. Petitioner No.83
84. Sunit Singh S/O Sube Singh

Age: 24 Residing At: Vill Meghot
Binja, Tehsil Narnaul,
Distt Mahndergarh-123023, Haryana. Petitioner No.84
85. Deepak Sharma S/O Chandgi Ram

Sec 15 Panchkula. Petitioner No.85
86. Rajneesh Sareen S/O Narinder Kumar

Age: 41 Residing At: 249, Sec 37,
Chandigarh Petitioner No.86
87. Harvinder S/O Jagmohan Singh

Age: 33 Residing At: HNo 195, Sec 44a,
Chandigarh. Petitioner No.87
88. Abhishek Verma S/O Rajeev Kumar Verma

Age: 24 Residing At: 231 Kalyan Nagar,
Jagadhri Yamunanagar,
Haryana – 135003 Petitioner No.88
89. Sahil Goyal S/O Hans Raj Goyal

Age: 25 Residing At: Dhobi Ghat
Street near M.C. Park,
Mansa-151505, Punjab. Petitioner No.89
90. Monika D/O Mahabir Singh

Age: 33 Residing At: VPO Barota,
Tehsil Gohana,
Distt Sonipat, Haryana. Petitioner No.90
91. Smriti Kanwar D/O Mahi Pal Singh

Age: 33 Residing At: 240 A,
Sec 2, Panchkula-134109. Petitioner No.91
92. Kajal Garg D/O Ramesh Chand Garg

DC Colony, Barnala Road,
Sirsa, Haryana -125055 Petitioner No.92
Versus
1. The Registrar General of the

High Court of Punjab and Haryana
At Chandigarh
Chandigarh-160001 ….RESPONDENT NO.1
2. Haryana Public Service Commission,

Through its Chairman
Bays No. 1-10, Block-B,
Sector-4, Panchkula ….RESPONDENT NO.2
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
TO:
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India
And His Lordships Companion Judges
of the Supreme Court of India
The humble petition of the
Petitioner above named.
Most respectfully showeth:
1. That the present writ petition is being filed by the 92 petitioners
under Article 32 of the constitution. The Petitioner herein is
challenging the entire selection process and evaluation method
adopted in the Main (Written) Examination of Civil Judge
(Junior Division) in the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch)
Examination - 2017 on the grounds of being unreasonable,
arbitrary, malafide and hence, in violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution. The result of this Main Examination, for
recruitment to Subordinate Judicial Services conducted through
Haryana Public Service Commission, was declared on
11.04.2019. In an examination written by 1282 candidates only
9 students have been selected for the interview for total of 107
vacancies. At least 20-30 candidates, who appeared for the Mains

Exam but not selected for the interview, are those who have
already cleared judicial examinations of other States and most of
them are sitting judges in their respective states. Further, many
of them are toppers in the judicial exams of their respective states
or toppers and gold medalists in their respective law colleges.
Several candidates are LL.M. holders from reputed institutions.
Moreover, the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana has
already scrapped the entire Preliminary Examination held earlier
on 16.07.2017 on account of examination paper leak vide order
dated 13.09.2017 in CRM No. 28947 of 2017 after an initial
enquiry. It was also directed for having a Regular Enquiry and a
further probe in the entire issue and an FIR was also directed to
be lodged against Ms. Sunita, Ms. Sushila and Dr. Balwinder
Sharma, Registrar (Recruitment) in the act of leakage of question
paper of HCS (JB) Preliminary Examination 2017.
The Petitioner is, therefore, also praying for constitution of an
independent Judicial Service Commission for conducting
examinations for selection of lower judicial officers.
1A. That the petitioners are the 92 candidates who are remarkable
students or professionals or even sitting judges who have not
been passed for the viva voice after sitting for the main
examination evaluated in an arbitrary and hasty manner.
2. That most of the documents annexed with the present writ petition
are in public domain and some of them have been obtained by the
petitioners themselves during the process of the examination.

Brief facts of the case:
3. On 20.03.2017, an advertisement was issued for recruitment to
109 vacancies of Examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in
the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Examination - 2017.
Out of 109 vacancies, 49 were for the General Category
candidates. The exam was to be held in three parts, the preliminary
examination, the main examination and the interview. True Copy
of the advertisement dated 20.03.2017 is being annexed hereto as
Annexure P-1 (from page nos. _____to _____).
4. The preliminary examination was conducted on 16.07.2017.
However, this preliminary exam was scrapped due to the paper
leak of the same. Writ Petition No. 28947 of 2017 was filed
wherein a Committee was constituted to look into the allegations
of the paper leak and the Committee gave certain
recommendations such as
The recommendations made by the Committee read as under:

“(a) In view of the prima facie finding that atleast two
candidates namely Ms. Sunita and Sushila had the question
papers and therefore the possibility that other candidates
may have also had access to the question paper cannot be
ruled out; in such circumstances, purity of the examination
having been lost, the Committee recommends that the HCS
(JB) Preliminary Examination 2017 held on 16.7.2017 be
scrapped.
(b) Keeping in view the finding that Dr. Balwinder Sharma,

Registrar (Recruitment) unequivocally stated that he had no
prior acquaintance with Ms. Sunita (the topper in general
category), while the call details given by the service

provider reveal that there were a total of 760 calls and SMSs
exchanged between Dr. Balwinder Sharma and Ms. Sunita
during the last one year, indicate that the matter requires a
deeper probe. Therefore, the Committee recommends that
regular enquiry be initiated against Dr. Balwinder Sharma,
Registrar (Recruitment) on the basis of preliminary enquiry.
(c) Dr. Balwinder Sharma, Registrar (Recruitment) be

transferred forthwith from this post pending further action.
(d) An FIR be lodged against Ms. Sunita, Ms. Sushila and

Dr. Balwinder Sharma, Registrar (Recruitment) to further
probe the act of leakage of question paper of HCS (JB)
Preliminary Examination 2017.”
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana on the administrative side
passed an order which scrapped the Pre Examination conducted
for HCS (JB) and was directed to conduct a re-exam of the same.
True copy of the order dated 15.09.2017 mentioning about the
order dated scrapping the Pre Exam is marked hereto and annexed
as Annexure P-2 (from page nos. _____to _____).
5. In pursuant to the abovementioned order passed by the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, a Corrigendum was
published on 27.08.2018 by the Haryana Public Service
Commission in continuation of Advertisement No. 6 of 2016
published on 20.03.2017 the Haryana Public Service Commission
invites online applications from eligible candidates for the posts
of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the cadre of Haryana Civil

Service (Judicial Branch). True copy of the Corrigendum dated
27.08.2018 by the Haryana Public Service Commission is marked
hereto and annexed as Annexure P-3(from page nos. _____to
_____).
6. Thereafter, a second preliminary exam was conducted on
22.12.2018, where 14301 candidates appeared. The answer key
for the preliminary examination was published on 23.12.2018 and
objections were invited. Thereafter, 14 Questions changed (6
scrapped, 8 answers changed). Fresh answer key released was on
11.01.2019. Finally the result was declared on 21.01.2019. True
copy of the final result of the Preliminary Examination 2017 is
marked hereto and annexed as Annexure P-4(from page nos.
_____to _____).
7. After the result, there was an announcement published by the
Haryana Public Service Commission on 29.01.2019 regarding the
dates scheduled for Main Examination of HCS (JB) as 15 th -17th
March 2019. True copy of the announcement dated 29.01.2019 is
marked hereto and annexed as Annexure P-5(from page nos.
_____to _____).
8. Another Writ Petition No. 2943 of 2019 (Mahipal Singh and
others Vs State of Haryana and Others) was filed before the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana High Court regarding 7 questions
being incorrect in the Preliminary Exam. However, the Hon’ble
High Court disposed of the petition vide order dated 13.02.2019
with the following directions:-

“…In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, all

the writ petitions are hereby disposed of accordingly
with a direction to the respondents to awardmarks to
the remaining candidates who have attempted
question No.117(question number may be different in
other three booklets) rightly by choosing Option `C’
and revise the result of all the remaining candidates
accordingly within a period of one week from today
and in case the candidates secure more than the cut
off marks in their respective category(ies) after
revision of result, such candidates shall be allowed
to file their examination paper for their appearance
in the main written examination de hors the fact that
the respondents have invited only 10 times
candidates against the available vacancies…”
True copy of the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
dated 13.02.2019 is marked hereto and annexed as Annexure P-
6(from page nos. _____to _____).
9. In pursuant to the abovementioned order of the High Court,
revised result was declared on 26.02.2019 and 150 more students
were accepted as the cut off was lowered by 9 marks. True copy
of the revised result dated 26.02.2019 is marked hereto and
annexed as Annexure P-7(from page nos. _____to _____).
10. As per the announcement dated 29.01.2019, the Main
Examination for HCS (JB) was conducted on 15th -17th March
2019.
11. The final result was published by the Haryana Public Service
Commission on 11.04.2019 where, out of 1288 candidates who
appeared for Main Examination only 9 were declared qualified for
the viva voice provisionally subject to fulfillment of all conditions
of eligibility. True copy of the result of the Main Examination

conducted for 2017, dated 11.04.2019 is marked hereto and
annexed as Annexure P-8 (from page nos. _____to _____).
12. In the advertisement corrigendum dated 27.08.2018, it, was
clearly mentioned that Candidates thrice the number of advertised
posts including bracketed candidates, if any, in order of merit of
Main Examination will be called for viva-voice and candidate was
required to get 33% in each subject and 50% marks in aggregate
for general category candidates and 45% for various other
categories in the Main Examination to be selected for the
interview.
13. It would be pertinent hereto mention that at least 20-30 candidates,
who appeared for the Main Exam but not selected for the
interview, are those who have already cleared judicial
examinations of other States like, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat,
Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Jharkhand and most of them are sitting
judges in their respective states. True copy of the list of few of
such candidates is marked hereto and annexed as Annexure P-
9(from page nos. _____to _____).
14. Some of the candidates who have not been found fit for being
called for the interview are the toppers and gold medalists in their
respective law colleges. Several candidates are LL.M. holders
from reputed institutions.
15. In the previous recruitment cycle i.e. 2015 Haryana Judicial
Services (Junior Division) Examination, the Punjab and Haryana
High Court admitted in an RTI reply dated 07.12.2015 that there
was “no marking criteria” for the evaluation of answer scripts in

the related mains examination and that the “performance of the
candidate in the Written Examination is depends solely on the
discretion on the examiner”. Further, the Punjab and Haryana
High Court responded that information was not available with the
concerned branch about existence of model answers or their
copies and principles governing grace marks. True Copy of the
RTI reply dated 07.12.2015is being annexed hereto as Annexure
P-10 (from page nos. ______to ______).
16. In the absence of official information on enforcement or
compliance with the guidelines set in CPIL v Registrar General of
High Court, Delhi (2017) 11 SCC 456 in the present Haryana
Judicial Services (Junior Division) Recruitment especially as the
new notification was issued post the above mentioned decision,
the petitioners have a reasonable ground to believe that an
arbitrary, non-uniform and non-cooordinated evaluation scheme
relying on absolute discretion of the examiners/evaluators as in the
previous examination cycle of 2015 may have been adopted in the
present case too.
17. Therefore, the Petitioner is filing the present writ petition seeking
quashing the result of Main Exam of Haryana Civil Service
(Judicial Branch) Examination – 2017 and also asking for re-
evaluation of all the papers of the petitioners.
18. The Petitioner has not filed any other petition raising the issue
raised in the present writ petition in any other court of this country.
It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain
the present writ petition.

19. The present writ petition is being filed on the following grounds
amongst others:
GROUNDS
A. Because the evaluation method appears to be so unreasonable
and irrational that 99.298% candidates which includes
toppers/gold medalist of their respective law schools and other
States’ judicial service exams could not clear the Main
Examination. Those candidates who have already proved their
ability and merit by performing exceptionally well in their
respective colleges and also by getting selected in other judicial
service exams could not be found suitable for even the
interview test. The selection process or evaluation method
adopted for HCS (JB) is totally unreasonable, irrational and
arbitrary, hence, in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
B. Because the results of the Main Exam of HCS (JB), 2017 show
that there is a serious problem with the evaluation method of
the exam, which is being conducted for selecting the judicial
officers in Haryana by the High Court, and unless this
evaluation method or selection process for HCS (JB) is re-
examined to make it more rational and reasonable, without
compromising on merits, one of the most important factors
responsible for huge pendency or delay in justice i.e. lack of
sufficient number of judicial officers will not be tackled.
C. Because this kind of selection process will further demotivate
several other meritorious students of good law schools from

choosing judicial services as their career option. The students
with good academic records would never appear in the exams
having such unreasonable selection method and especially
when they are not taking place at regular intervals.
D. Because the selection process or evaluation method adopted for
HCS (JB) is totally unreasonable, irrational and arbitrary. This
is also apparent from the fact that there is no “set criteria” in
checking or “model answers” provided to the examiners. Since
there is no uniform criteria for checking then the students will
be selected not on the basis of their merit and knowledge but
on the basis of non-standardized and non-uniform knowledge
of each and every examiner.
E. BECAUSE in the advertisement corrigendum dated
27.08.2018, it, was clearly mentioned that Candidates thrice
the number of advertised posts including bracketed candidates,
if any, in order of merit of Main Examination will be called for
viva-voice and candidates were required to get 50% marks in
aggregate and 33% in each subject or 45% in the case of
reserved categories like SC, BC(A), BC(B), ESM and PH in
the Main Examination to be selected for the interview.
F. BECAUSE evaluation methodology affirmed by this Hon'ble
Court and guidelines promulgated by this Hon’ble Court in
Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs. Registrar General of
The High Court of Delhi, (2017) 11 SCC 456, aspirants of

every State Judicial Services expect minimum compliance with
the guidelines issued in the abovementioned case and
adherence to process of evaluation of mains examination
answer-scripts as laid down in:
a) Sanjay Singh and Anr. v. U.P. Public Service

Commission, Allahabad and Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 720,
b) Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar v. U.P.S.C. and
Ors. (2013) 12 SCC 489; and
c) Sujasha Mukherji v. High Court of Calcutta,
(2015) 11 SCC 395
G. BECAUSE any evaluation without some marking criteria,
uniformity, oversight provisions is in contravention of the
spirit and letter of the Supreme Court Judgment. Further,
arbitrary evaluation with no remedial provision is also violative
of Constitutional Provisions under Part III.
PRAYERS
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to pass the following orders:
(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction to quash
the result of the Main (Written) Examination of Civil Judge
(Junior Division) in the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial
Branch) Examination – 2017 declared on 11.04.2019;
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction to get
the re-evaluation done of all the papers of the Main Exam of
all the petitioners who appeared in the said examination by an
independent expert committee and such revaluation of the

mark sheets on lines of standards affirmed in CPIL vs Registrar
General of High Court, Delhi.;
(c) Direct Respondents to frame and issue directions/guidelines
for compliance with evaluation methodology approved by this
Hon'ble Court and procedure of relief in contravention of the
same
(d) Pass any other order as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and
proper.
And for this act of your kindness the Petitioner is duty bound
and shall ever pray.
Petitioners Through
New Delhi
Dated 23.04.2019 (PRASHANT BHUSHAN)
Counsel for the Petitioners
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISIDCTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ________OF 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:

Pranav Verma & Ors. …Petitioners
versus
Registrar General of
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana
At Chandigarh & Anr. …Respondents
AN APPLICATION FOR STAY ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONER
TO:
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India
And His Lordships Companion Judges
of the Supreme Court of India
The humble petition of the
Petitioner above named.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the present writ petition is being filed by the 92 petitioners
under Article 32 of the constitution. The Petitioner herein is
challenging the entire selection process and evaluation method
adopted in the Main (Written) Examination of Civil Judge (Junior
Division) in the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch)
Examination - 2017 on the grounds of being unreasonable,
arbitrary, malafide and hence, in violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution. That the facts of the writ petition are not being
mentioned here for the sake of brevity and the same may be
considered part of the present Application.
2. That immediately after the result of the Main Examination on
11.04.2019, various RTI Applications have been filed by the
petitioners to seeking disclosure of their Subject Wise marks,
Copies of answer scripts, Model Answers, Marking criteria etc.
Till today, there is no reply to any of these RTIs and apparently
the interview test is going to be held on the basis of already
declared results. If the selection process of the Haryana Civil
Service (Judicial Branch) Examination – 2017 is not stayed during
the pendency of the present writ petition, it would cause
irreparable damage to the Petitioners and other un-successful
candidates and the present petition would become infructuous.
PRAYERS
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, during the
pendency of the present writ petition, this Hon’ble may be pleased to:
(a) Stay the selection process /interview process going on for the
Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Examination - 2017; and
(b) Pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper.
Through
New Delhi
Dated 23.04.2019 (PRASHANT BHUSHAN)
Counsel for the Petitioners

Haryana Judicial Service Petition

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Haryana Judicial Service Petition

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF:

Pranav Verma & Ors. …Petitioners

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana

At Chandigarh & Anr. …Respondents

(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

WITH I.A NO._______OF 2019

APPLICATION FOR STAY

PRASHANT BHUSHAN: COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

Sr. No. Particulars of Document Page No. of part to Remarks

(COURT FEE RS. 1550/-)

1. Listing Proforma A-A1 A-A1

2. Cover Page of Paper Book A-2

3. Index of Report proceedings A-3

4. Defect List A-4

5. Note Sheet NS1 to …

6. Synopsis and List of Dates B-I

7. Writ Petition with Affidavit. 1-28

11. ANNEXURE:P4 36-37

True copy of the order of the

14. ANNEXURE: P 7 40-42

15. ANNEXURE : P8 43-44

26. ANNEXURE: P9 45-46

17. ANNEXURE: P10 47-48

18. FILING MEMO

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES

constitution. The Petitioner is challenging the entire selection process

and evaluation method adopted in Main (Written) Examination of Civil

Judge (Junior Division) in the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch),

2017 (hereinafter referred as “HCS (JB) 2017”) on the grounds of being

unreasonable, arbitrary and also malafide and hence, in violation of

reasonable are as follows:

(i) A total 14301 students took the preliminary examination

held on 22.12.2018 for total 107 vacancies, of which 75

were for the General Category candidates;

(ii) 1282 students out of 14301, who were declared successful

in preliminary examination and took the main examination

held on 15th to 17th March, 2019;

(iii) The result of this Main Examination was declared on

11.04.2019. Surprisingly, only 9 students (inclusive of all

categories) have been selected for the interview for total

107 vacancies in the result declared on 11.04.2019. That

means a total of 99.298% of the students have failed and

only 0.702% managed to pass.

(iv) The ostensible explanation for selecting only 9 students,

even though normally three times the number of seats

notified are called for interview test, would be that, no other

candidate could score a minimum of 33% in all five subject

as well as get 50% aggregate for general category and 45%

for reserved categories like SC, BC(A), BC(B), ESM, PH.

The required number of candidates to be called for viva

voice was clearly mentioned as THRICE THE NUMBER

of advertised posts including bracketed candidates, if any,

in order of merit of main examination (subject to the

candidates securing the above-mentioned qualifying

(v) Furthermore what is remarkable is that at least 20-30

selected for the interview are those who have already

cleared judicial examinations of other States or most of

them are sitting judges in their respective states. It means

that they couldn’t secure the minimum qualifying marks

either in aggregate i.e. 50% and 45% for reserved categories

like SC, BC(A), BC(B), ESM, PH or 33% in individual