EKANSH KAPIL Vs. H.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, through the medium of this writ petition, has called in question the key answers published by the respondent and according to the writ petitioner, key answers of question Nos. 3, 45, 50 of Civil Law -I, question Nos. 5, 9, 12 and 29 of Civil Law -II and question Nos. 31, 33 and 37 of the Criminal Law are incorrect.

(2.) IT appears that the petitioner has appeared in the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Preliminary Examination and could not make a grade. The key answers were displayed on official website of the respondent. After noticing the key answers, the petitioner responded in terms of instruction No. 23 of the instructions/guidelines issued by the respondent, which has also been filed in the Court today by Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate, across the Board, made part of the file. The respondent sent the key answers, questioned by the petitioner to the expert and expert examined the same and found that there was some mistake.

(3.) MR . D.K. Khanna, Advocate, argued that they have examined the case of the petitioner in terms of instruction No. 23 and expert determined the issue and this Court cannot sit over the expert opinion. He replied on a judgment of the apex court in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission versus Mukesh Thakur and another : (2010) 6 SCC 759