M M MEHTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners M.M. Mehta, Mohinder Nath and Mukhtiar Singh, were candidates at the State Subordinate Accounts Services Examinations held in February, 1992. The examination consisted of four papers of which Paper III was in Advanced Accountancy and was held on 26.2.1992. After undertaking examination along with other candidates the petitioners and some other candidates made representation Annexure P-6 to the Director, Treasury and Accounts, Chandigarh pointing out that question Nos. 7, 6 and 3 in Paper III and question Nos. 3, 4 and 6 in Paper IV were out of syllabus and for this reason they could not attempt/fairly attempt these questions and this has prejudicially affected their performance in the said examination. They requested that re-examination be held in IIIrd and IVth papers. Similar representation was made to the Financial Commissioner of Haryana and Joint Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Department of Finance. Having not received any favourable answer from the respondents and having not succeeded at the examination, the petitioners filed this petition after serving demand notice on the respondents.

(2.) Along with the Writ Petition, the petitioners have enclosed opinions given by Shri Ram Babu Aggarwal, Chartered Accountant and Shri S.C. Sharma, of the Department of Commerce, C.R.M. Jat College, Hisar indicating the difference in the Cash Flow Statement and Fund Flow Statement and further that these are separate methods for controlling Cash and Funds utilized. Petitioners' plea is that on account of questions having been asked beyond scope of the syllabus prescribed for the examination they were prevented from effectively answering the questions of which reference has been made herein above and precisely for this reason they have been declared as failed of the said examination. Another plea of the petitioners is that they were not given reasonable opportunity to answer the questions inasmuch as out of seven questions in Paper III they were called upon to answer five questions of which question No. 1 was compulsory. Likewise in Paper IV they were called upon to attempt five out of six questions of which 1 to 6 were compulsory and in this manner the standards set up for judging their performance at the examination were much more rigorous than the one which were set in the examination held in the previous years. Petitioners have placed on record question papers of previous years to point out that the option given to the candidates who had appeared in the examination in the previous year was more wider than the one afforded to the petitioners. Yet another plea which has been raised by one of the petitioners namely M.M. Mehta is that his result of the examination held in 1992 has not been declared whereas result of all other candidates has been announced.

(3.) I may also make reference to statement made in the replication filed by the petitioners that one Ranbir Singh had been allowed 8 chances to pass the examination even though under Rules only six chances are permissible but similar facility has not been provided to the petitioners and in this manner they have been subjected to discrimination.