/2022 INSC 0758/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.  5874     OF 2022
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.5079 OF 2020)
HARKIRAT SINGH GHUMAN … Appellant(s)
VERSUS
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT & ORS. … Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Ajay Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The   instant   appeal   is   directed   against   the   judgment   and
order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab
and   Haryana   dated   23 rd
  January,   2020,   dismissing   the   writ
petition at the motion stage. 
3. The appellant is one of the applicants who had participated
in   the   selection   process   initiated   by   the   respondents   holding
selections   for   direct   recruitment   to   Punjab   Superior   Judicial
Service/Haryana Superior Judicial Service. 
1  |  P a g e

4. That two separate advertisements came to be published for
holding   competitive   examination   for   direct   recruitment   for   8
vacancies   in   the   Punjab   Superior   Judicial   Service   and   11
vacancies   in   the   Haryana   Superior   Judicial   Service,   2019   by
notifications   dated   30 th
  May,   2019   and   7 th
  August,   2019
respectively   and   the   recruitment   was   made   in   terms   of   the
procedure   prescribed   under   the   Punjab   Superior   Judicial
Services Rules, 2007/ Haryana Superior Judicial Services Rules,
2007.
5. It   may   be   relevant   to   note   that   the   posts   came   to   be
separately   advertised   under   the   Punjab/Haryana   Superior
Judicial   Service     Rules,   2007   but   the   process   of   selection   is   on
the   same   standards   except   that   language   paper   is   separate   and
the  applicants  have to first  qualify  the  written  test  followed with
viva­voce with a  restriction  that candidate  has  to  secure 40% or
more   marks   in   each   paper   and   such   of   the   qualified   candidates
who fall within three times of the number of vacancies are called
for viva­voce but only such of the candidates will be considered to
have   successfully   qualified   the   Punjab/Haryana   Superior
Judicial   Service   Examination   unless   in   open   category   candidate
obtains   50%   marks   and   in   reserved   category   candidate   obtains
2  |  P a g e

45%   marks   in   the   aggregate   out   of   the   total   marks   fixed   for   the
written test and viva­voce.   The format/pattern of examination is
the   same   for   both   the   recruitments   held   under   the   Punjab
Superior   Judicial   Service   Rules,   2007   and   Haryana   Superior
Judicial Service Rules, 2007.  
6. The appellant also applied pursuant to advertisement dated
30 th
  May,   2019   and   7 th
  August,   2019   with   regard   to
Punjab/Haryana   Superior   Judicial   Service   Examination,   2019
and a common written examination was held for both the States
of   Punjab   and   Haryana,   except   Language   Paper   separately
conducted from  29 th
  November, 2019 to 1 st
  December, 2019 and
it   reveals   from   the   record   that   118   candidates   appeared   in   the
State of Punjab and 230 in the State of Haryana.   
7. Thus,   in   total   348   candidates   participated   in   the   selection
process  and   appeared in   the  common  written  examination.    The
result of the written examination was declared on 18 th
 December,
2019.     In   Punjab   Superior   Judicial   Service,   3   candidates   from
open   category   and   1   candidate   from   backward   category   cleared
the   examination   and   qualified   for   viva­voce.       At   the   same   time,
under the Haryana Superior Judicial Service, 11 candidates from
3  |  P a g e

open   category   out   of   which   3   candidates   were   common   who
qualified in both the States for viva voce.   
8. The   appellant,   being   disappointed   of   not   being   qualified   in
the written examination declared on 18 th
  December 2019, filed a
writ   petition   before   the   High   Court   of   Punjab   and   Haryana   at
Chandigarh under Article 226 of the Constitution with his three­
fold grievance :
(i) That   in   Punjab/Haryana   Superior   Judicial   Services
Rules, there is no condition regarding securing minimum
marks in the main written examination and the condition
in   the   advertisement   of   securing   minimum   40%   or   more
marks   in   each   paper   for   qualifying   for   viva­voce   is
contrary to the Scheme of Rules;
(ii) Paper   V   (Criminal   Law)   was   of   200   marks   but   at   the
commencement   of   the   examination,   the   question   paper
handed   over   to   the   candidates   was   incomplete   and   it
contained only  4 questions whose aggregate came out  to
be   160   marks   instead   of   200   marks   as   shown   on   the
overleaf   of   the   question   paper,   but   when   the   candidates
made   complaint   of   the   alleged   discrepancy   to   the   notice
4  |  P a g e

of   the   invigilator,   after   approx.   one   hour   of   the
commencement   of   examination,   question   no.4   was
handed   over   as   supplementary   question   paper   to   all   the
candidates and apart from this being a procedural defect,
it   created   a   panic   among   the   candidates   and   no   extra
time was given for answering the additional question and
this was one of the manifest procedural defect in Paper V
(Criminal   Law)   and   has   caused   grave   prejudice   to   the
appellant. 
(iii) Despite repeated demands, the respondents have failed to
provide   the   marks   obtained   by   the   appellant   in   the
written   examination.       Even   the   application   filed   by   the
appellant  under  the  Right  to  Information  Act  came to  be
rejected.
9.               All   the   three   objections   raised   by   the   appellant   were
repelled by the High Court at the motion stage, without calling for
the   written   response   from   the   respondents   under   the   judgment
and   order   impugned   dated   23 rd
  January,   2020,   which   is   the
subject matter of challenge in appeal before us.
5  |  P a g e

10. It will be relevant to note that while entertaining the present
appeal   and   calling   upon   the   respondents   for   their   written
response,   this   Court   permitted   the   respondents   by   an   Order
dated   26 th
  February,   2020   to   continue   with   the   process   of
interview   with   a   further   direction   that   the   result   would   not   be
declared   in   the   meantime.   It   is   informed   to   this   Court   that   in
terms   of  the   liberty   granted  by   this   Court,   respondents   held   the
interview, but result has not been declared because of the interim
order of this Court. 
11. The   appellant,   who   appeared   in­person   before   us,   has
primarily   raised   four   objections   in   reference   to   the   procedure
adopted   by   the   respondents   in   holding   written   examination   by
the   respondents   pursuant   to   the   advertisements   for   Punjab/
Haryana Superior Judicial Service Examination, 2019, as follows:
(i) Criminal   Law   Paper   (Paper   V),   which   was   of   200   marks
contained only four questions(1,2, 3 and 5) and question
no.4   was   missing   and   it   was   of   160   marks   which   was
made   available   to   the   candidates   and   after   the
discrepancy   was   brought   to   notice   of   the   Invigilator,   a
supplementary   question   paper   was   supplied   indicating
6  |  P a g e

question   no.4   in   the   midst   of   examination   calling   upon
the candidates to attempt question no.4 and objection of
the   appellant   is   that   the   procedure   which   has   been
adopted   by   the   respondents   itself   creates   a   doubt   in   the
process   of   selection   that   from   where   this   question   no.4
was   generated   and   how   it   was   made   available   to   the
candidates   in   the   midst   of   the   examination   is   a   mystery
and   no   justification   has   been   tendered   by   the
respondents even in the counter affidavit filed before this
Court and   this fact has not been disputed that question
no.4 of Paper V (Criminal Law)  was made available to the
candidates   during   course   of   the   examination.   Thus,
according   to   him,   the   procedure   followed   by   the
respondents   is   neither   transparent   nor   fair   and   the
written   examination   may   be   cancelled   or   at   least   this
question   paper   deserves   to   be   cancelled   and   the
respondents   be   directed   to   hold   Paper   V   (Criminal   Law)
afresh and only thereafter the merit list be declared of the
candidates who qualified the main examination.
(ii) The   second   objection   of   the   appellant   is   that   in   the
question   paper   of   General   Knowledge   (Paper   VI),   which
7  |  P a g e

was   of   multiple   choice/objective   type   paper,   there   were
no  instructions   on  the   overleaf  of  the  examination   paper
as   to   how   and   in   what   manner   the   paper   has   to   be
attempted by the candidates and the OMR sheet was not
supplied and the candidates were called upon to make a
circle out of the four multiple choices, which according to
them   is   correct   option   and   the   question   paper   supplied
has to be returned back to the Invigilators.   
12. The   submission   of   the   appellant­in­person   is   that   in
absence   of   the   multiple­choice   question   paper   being   made
available   to   the   candidates   to   retain,   it   may   not   be   possible   to
respond as to which option out of the four options, is the correct
option.  According to him, the question paper, for the first time, is
made   available   to   the   appellant   along   with   the   counter   affidavit
filed   before   this   Court   and   it   reveals   to   him   that   there   are
discrepancies in eight questions and in some questions either  of
the four options are not correct. 
13. His   submission   is   that   even   till   today,   the   provisional
answer key has not been uploaded to make the candidates aware
of   the   right   option   out   of   the   four   options   available   and   the
8  |  P a g e

candidate has no liberty to raise any objection and if the answer
key   is  uploaded  after  the   final   result   is  declared,  obviously  after
the viva­voce is over, no one is going to entertain the objection, if
any, to be raised at the later stage and that became  fait accompli .
(iii) Further objection of the appellant is that Bare Acts were
made   available   to   the   candidates   but   this   fact   was   not
indicated  in  the  advertisement,  which,  according  to  him,
is contrary to the Scheme of Rules. 
(iv) Further apprehension of the appellant is that the answer
scripts were examined by the examiners in haste and the
reason  to  support  is that, the  last examination was  held
on   1 st
  December,   2019   and   within   a   short   period   of   17
days,  the   result   was  declared  of   the   written   examination
on 18 th
 December, 2019 which was not humanly possible
and   to   support   his   submission,   the   appellant   submits
that   when   he   applied   for   obtaining   the   marks   which   he
had   secured   in   the   written   examination,   under   the   right
to   information,   that   was   declined   and   his   application
came to be rejected by the competent authority under the
right to information by an order dated 6 th
 January, 2020.
9  |  P a g e

14. Noticing   the   four   objections   indicated   above   to   its   logical
conclusion, the appellant submits that the procedure followed by
the   respondents   is   neither   fair   nor   transparent   and   so   many
infirmities   have   been   committed   in   the   process   of   selection   and
the   only   inevitable   solution   is   to   cancel   the   written   examination
held   by   the   respondents   pursuant   to   the   advertisements   issued
by   the   States   of   Punjab   and   Haryana   holding   common   selection
for Punjab/Haryana Superior Judicial Service Examination, 2019
and   to   hold   the   written   examination   afresh   in   accordance   with
the Scheme of Rules 2007.  
15. To sum up further, the appellant states that the High Court
has   even   noticed   his   submission   so   far   as   the   manifest
discrepancy pointed out in Paper V (Criminal Law) is concerned,
but still non­suit the claim of the appellant for the reason that he
has not raised any objection during the interregnum period after
the written examination was held and the result was declared on
18 th
 December, 2019.  
16. The   appellant   further   submits   that   the   advertisement   is
completely silent of the mechanism to be adopted if the candidate
who   had   participated   in   the   selection   process   is   having   any
10  |  P a g e

grievance,   no   in­house   remedy   is   provided   in   the   advertisement
which is available to the candidates.  In the given circumstances,
the   reason   assigned   by   the   High   Court   to   non­suit   the   claim   of
the   appellant   is   not   sustainable   and   needs   to   be   interfered   with
by this Court.
17. Various   applications   were   filed   by   such   other   candidates
who had qualified the written examination and appeared for viva­
voce   under   the   interim   order   of   this   Court,   but   since   the   result
has   not   been   declared,   they   are   also   under   dilemma   as   to   what
will   be   their   fate,   this   Court   by   various   orders   permitted   all   of
them to intervene in the proceedings.
18. Per   contra,   counsel   for   the   respondents   while   supporting
the   finding   recorded   by   the   High   Court   under   the   impugned
judgment   submits   that   Paper   V   (Criminal   Law)   was   held   on   1 st
December,   2019   from   9.00   a.m.   to   12   noon   and   the   paper   was
distributed   to   the   candidates   5   minutes   before   time   and
immediately   thereafter,   it   was   noticed   that   question   no.4   was
missing   from   the   question   paper.       Within   one   hour   and   before
10.00   a.m.,   question   no.4   was   made   available   to   all   the
candidates by way of supplementary question paper and as such,
11  |  P a g e

no   prejudice   was   caused   to   any   of   the   candidates   due   to
inadvertent   human   error   committed   by   the   respondents.
Counsel   further   submits   that   such   a   discrepancy   certainly
cannot   be   countenanced,   but   as   the   level   playing   field   was   the
same   for   all,   no   prejudice   has   been   caused   to   either   of   the
candidates who had participated in the process of selection.  
19. Learned counsel further submits that so far as the grievance
in   reference   to   Paper   VI   of   General   Knowledge   is   concerned,   no
such objection was raised by the appellant before the High Court,
but   the   fact   is   that   it   is   a   multiple­choice   question   paper   and
instructions   are   made   available   to   all   the   candidates   on   the
overleaf indicating the manner in which the questions have to be
attempted.   It was specifically mentioned that the correct answer
has   to   be   encircled   with   a   pen   and   encircling   more   than   one
option or any over­writing/cuttings etc. would entail cancellation
of the said question with no negative marking and to be answered
in two hours duration and there is no reason for the appellant of
making complaint to this Court for the first time and in support
thereof,   counsel   further   submitted   that   the   result   was   declared
after   almost   17   days   on   18 th
  December,   2019,   but   neither   he
made   any   representation   nor   filed   any   complaint   either   to   the
12  |  P a g e

Registry   of   the   High   Court   or   being   a   lawyer   was   aware   of   this
fact   that   the   remedy   is   available   to   him   to   approach   the   High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, but no grievance was
raised   and   he   was   awaiting   for   outcome   of   the   written
examination,   and   when   he   could   not   succeed,   all   sorts   of
complaints are filed by him of filing a writ petition which cannot
be   permitted   to   be   raised   at   a   belated   stage   and   this   what   the
High Court has observed in the judgment impugned.
20. So   far   as   the   objection   with   regard   to   his   application
submitted under the Right to Information Act, 2005 is concerned,
learned   counsel   submits   that   the   marks   of   the   written
examination   could   not   be   made   available   until   the   process   of
selection   is   finalised   and   that   was   the   reason   which   was
communicated to him by the Public Information Officer (PIO) by a
communication dated 6 th
  January, 2020 taking  recourse to  Rule
4(2)   of   the   High   Court   of   Punjab   and   Haryana   (Right   to
Information)   Rules,   2007   and,   if   at   all,   he   is   aggrieved   by   the
communication   made   dated   6 th
  January,   2020,   inbuilt
mechanism   has   been   provided   under   the   Right   to   Information
Act, 2005 and even if the marks are not made available, it would,
13  |  P a g e

in   no   manner,   defeat   the   process   of   selection   held   by   the
respondents.  
21. Counsel further submits that so far as the apprehension of
undue   haste   in   declaring   the   result   of   written   examination   is
concerned, the alleged apprehension has no legs to stand and the
answer sheets have been examined by the examiners authorised
by   the   High   Court   and   evaluated   within   a   reasonable   time,   no
adverse inference can be drawn and such like objections deserve
to be outrightly rejected.
22. Ms.   Malvika   Kapila,   counsel   for   one   of   the   intervenors,
Aashish Saldi s/o Hans Raj Saldi, brought to our notice that the
applicant   is   in­service   officer   who   is   presently   serving   as
Additional   Civil   Judge   (Senior   Division)   and   had   participated   in
the   limited   competitive   examination   against   10%   of   quota
reserved   for   in­service   officers   and   he   had   participated   in   the
selection   process   initiated   by   the   State   of   Punjab   under   the
limited   competitive   examination   for   the   eligible   judicial   officers
held   by   the   respondents   in   terms   of   Rule   7(3)(b)   of   the   Punjab
Superior   Judicial   Service   Rules,   2007   and   he   was   the   only
candidate   who   qualified   in   the   written   examination   and   was
14  |  P a g e

called for viva­voce but the final fate is not known to him and the
fact   is   that   he   is   not   even   remotely   concerned   with   the   present
grievance   which   has   been   raised   by   the  appellant   in   the   instant
proceedings   and   despite   been   appeared   in   the   interview,   his
result has been withheld under the interim orders of this Court.
23. Learned counsel submitted that at least the respondents be
directed   to   declare   the   result   of   the   applicant   who   is   not   even
remotely concerned with the complaint in reference to which the
present   appellant   has   approached   this   Court   and   this   fact   has
not been disputed by either of the parties.
24. We   have   heard   counsel   for   the   parties   and   with   their
assistance perused the records of the case. 
25. We   deal   with   the   first   objection   later   and   would   like   to
observe that so far as Paper VI (General Knowledge) is concerned,
it   is   a   multiple­choice   question   paper   having   100   questions   and
all instructions were made available to the candidates specifically
indicated   on   the   overleaf   of   the   question   paper   and   all   the
candidates   have   attempted   the   paper   including   the   present
appellant.   
15  |  P a g e

26. That   all   the   candidates   who   had   appeared   in   Paper   VI
(General Knowledge) had a common level playing field and in the
absence of any material on record in rebuttal, the submission is
not sustainable and deserves rejection.  But to keep transparency
in the process of holding examination, particularly in such cases
where   there   is   a   multiple­choice   question   paper,   it   is   always
advisable that for such question papers, there shall always be an
OMR sheet which may be provided to the candidates so that the
question   paper   can   be   retained   by   each   of   the   participants   and
after   the   examination   is   held,   a   provisional   answer   key   is   to   be
uploaded   inviting   objections   from   the   candidates   who   had
participated   in   the   selection   process,   to   be   furnished   within   a
reasonable time and after collating such objections, the same be
placed before a subject expert committee to be constituted by the
recruiting/competent authority and after the report is submitted
by   the   subject   expert   committee,   the   same   be   examined   by   the
recruiting   authority   and   thereafter   the   final   answer   key   is   to   be
uploaded.   We make it clear that no presumption is to be drawn
that   the   result   has   to   be   declared,   but   at   least   the   candidates
may   be   provided   the   final   answer   keys   to   enable   them   to   make
their  own assessment.   This is one of the mechanisms by which
16  |  P a g e

fairness and transparency  which  is a   sine  qua non   in the public
employment can be resorted to.
27. So far as the other two objections in reference to Bare Acts
made  available to   the  candidates  and  the  apprehension  of  haste
in   declaration   of   result   are   concerned,   both   the   objections   are
completely baseless and deserve rejection.   
28. So   far   as   the   marks   of   the   written   examination   not   being
supplied   to   the   appellant   under   the   Right   to   Information   Act,
2005 by communication dated 6 th
 January, 2020, are concerned,
this   position   has   been   settled   by   a   catena   of   judgments   of   this
Court   that   as   long   as   the   process   is   not   complete,   the   marks   of
the written examination are not to be uploaded or made available
to the candidates and if it is being  permitted, that will not be in
the interest of the applicants.   The disclosure of the marks in the
main   examination   before   it   is   finalised   and   the   viva­voce   is
conducted,   would   be   against   the   principles   of   transparency,
rather it will invite criticism of bias or favouritism.  
29. To   clarify   further,   in   such   cases,   where   the   written
examination is followed with viva­voce, declaration of result of the
written examination before conducting viva­voce may not be valid
17  |  P a g e

and  justified but in cases where determination  of merit is based
on   written   examination,  it  must   be  declared   and  made   available
to candidates without any loss of time and this Court can take a
judicial   notice   of   the   fact   that   in   such   cases   where   the   written
examination   is   followed   with   interview/viva­voce   and   the
members   in   the   interview   board   are   made   aware   of   the   marks
secured   by   the   candidates   in   the   written   examination   that   may
likely   to   form   bias   affecting   the   impartial   evaluation   of   the
candidates in viva­voce and in our considered view, it may always
be avoided. 
30. So   far   as   the   objection   in   reference   to   Paper   V   (Criminal
Law)   is   concerned,   we   find   substance   in   the   submission   made
and  after  this  fact has  not  been disputed by  the  respondents  as
well   that   initially   when   the   question   paper   was   supplied,   it
contained   only   four   questions   (i.e.   question   nos.1,   2,   3   and   5),
held   on   1 st
  December,   2019   from   9.00   a.m.   to   12   noon   and   the
question   paper   was   distributed   to   all   the   candidates   containing
four   questions     and   question   no.4   was   found   to   be   missing   and
this   act   cannot   be   said   to   be   an   inadvertent   human   error   as
being projected by the respondents and after the objection being
raised by the candidates of question no.4 not made available, the
18  |  P a g e

Invigilators   informed   to   the   concerned   authorities   and   a
supplementary  sheet  was  made  available  to  the   candidates  after
one hour of the main examination commenced i.e. by 9.00 a.m.  
31. The   respondents   may   substantiate   in   their   defence   that   no
prejudice was caused to any of the candidates on account of the
inadvertent   human   error   being   committed,   but   in   our   view,   this
is   a   serious   lapse   on   the   part   of   the   recruiting   authority   and
somebody must be held responsible for it and such kind of lapses
certainly cannot be countenanced by this Court but, at the same
time,   there   is   no   objection   even   of   the   present   appellant   in
reference   to   the   four   questions   (nos.1,   2,   3   and   5)   of   Paper   V
(Criminal Law) which was made available to the candidates even
5 minutes before the scheduled time of the examination and even
if we take a judicial  notice of the lapses being  committed by  the
respondents   with   reference   to   question   no.4,   which   was   indeed
missing  from   the question  paper  and  supplied  to  the candidates
after  one hour  of commencement of the examination,  at  least  so
far   as   the   four   questions   are   concerned,   since   no   objection   has
been raised by the appellant in reference to these questions, this
Court   has   to   consider   as   to   whether   in   such   peculiar
circumstances,   the   written   examination,   as   such,   has   to   be
19  |  P a g e

cancelled   or   other   option   is   possible.       In   our   view,   in   the   given
circumstances,   the   other   option   which   is   left   to   this   Court   is
either   to   conduct   the   examination   of   Paper   V   (Criminal   Law)
afresh or let the valuation of the four questions (question nos. 1,
2, 3 & 5) of Paper V (Criminal Law) of 160 marks may provide a
common level playing field to all the candidates.   
32. At this stage, the Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that
the   Punjab/Haryana   Superior   Judicial   Service   Examination,
2019   has   been   held   after   4­5   years   and   since   the   fate   of   the
examination 2019 is still sub­judice in this Court, fresh selection
process   could   not   have   been   initiated   and   if   this   irregularity
pointed   out   can   be   possibly   eliminated   from   the   process   of
selection, particularly  in  the written examination, the  endeavour
of the Court should always be to salvage the selection as possible
and taking in totality of the matter, this Court is of the view that
it   will   serve   the   purpose   to   accept   the   latter   option   and   the
respondents may be directed to valuate question nos.1, 2, 3 and
5   of   Paper   V   (Criminal   Law)   of   160   marks   and   we   make   it   clear
that question no.4 which was supplemented at a later stage of 40
marks has  to  be excluded while valuating  the marks secured by
the   candidates   in   Paper   V   (Criminal   Law)   and   this,   in   our   view,
20  |  P a g e

may serve the purpose and also salvage the examination process
which was initiated by the respondents in 2019 but could not be
finalised  for   one  or  other  reason  and   cancellation   or   holding  the
examination   afresh   of   Paper   V   (Criminal   Law)   will   not   be   in   the
interest of either of the parties. 
33. A   request   was   made   to   this   Court   that   since   those
candidates who had qualified in the written examination and had
appeared   in   the   viva­voce   and   whose   result   has   been   withheld
under  the interim  orders  of this  Court, at  least  they  may  not  be
called upon to appear for interview afresh.   We find it difficult to
uphold   the   submission   made   for   the   reason   that   the   interview
board   which   conducted   the   viva­voce   of   the   candidates   who
qualified   in   the   written   examination   was   different,   there   are
hardly   candidates   who   had   qualified   against   the   number   of
vacancies   and   it   would   be   advisable   that   there   should   be   one
common board to evaluate the performance of all the candidates
who   may   now   qualify   in   the   revised   declaration   of   the   result   of
written examination and that, in our view, would do justice to the
candidates. 
21  |  P a g e

34. We would like to note that so far as the intervenor Aashish
Saldi   is   concerned,   he   appeared   in   the   written   examination
against   10%   quota   reserved   for   in­service   officers   and   he   had
participated   in   the   selection   process   initiated   under   Punjab
Superior  Judicial  Services  in  terms  of  Rule  7(3)(b)  of  the  Punjab
Superior   Judicial   Services   Rules,   2007   and   who   has   no   lis   with
the  present process, at least the final fate of participation  of the
officer   be   declared   by   the   respondents   and   may   be   processed
further in accordance with the Rules. 
35. The   appeal   accordingly   succeeds   and   the   impugned
judgment   of   the   High   Court   dated   23 rd
  January,   2020   is   hereby
set   aside   and     we   direct   the   respondents   to   valuate   the   marks
obtained of  question  nos. 1,2,3  and 5 of  Paper   V (Criminal  Law)
(out   of   total   160   marks)   and   after   undertaking   the   process,   a
fresh   result   of   the   written   examination   be   declared   of   the
candidates   in   reference   to   Punjab/Haryana   Superior   Judicial
Service Examination, 2019 and those who qualify and fall in the
zone   of   three   times   the   number   of   vacancies   may   be   called   for
viva­voce and result of the selection process, thereafter be finally
declared in accordance with the scheme of Rules, 2007.
22  |  P a g e

36. We   further   direct  that   the  result  of   the   intervenor   (Aashish
Saldi),   who   had   participated   as   an   in­service   officer   in   the
selection   process   initiated   under   Punjab   Superior   Judicial
Services   shall   be   declared   and   further   action   may   be   taken   in
accordance with Rules, 2007. 
37. The   directions   be   complied   with   within   a   period   of   two
months.
38. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…………..…………J.
                                                           (Ajay Rastogi)
…………..…………
J.
                                                                (C.T. Ravikumar)
New Delhi
August 29, 2022.
23  |  P a g e