Tough Questions Not Grounds For Quashing Competitive Exams | No Fixed Criteria Breached | Courts Cannot Replace Expert Judgment : Punjab And Haryana High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel has dismissed a writ petition seeking the quashing of the entrance examination conducted by Panjab University for its 5-year Integrated B.A/B.Com LL.B (Hons.) Course. The Court held that it is not within the writ court’s purview to evaluate the question paper content or distribution where the examination is competitively structured and uniformly administered. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and all associated applications were disposed of.
The petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity of the entrance examination conducted by Panjab University on 27 April 2025 for admission to its 5-year Integrated Course in B.A/B.Com LL.B (Hons.). The petitioners sought quashing of the said examination and a direction for its re-conduct.
Panjab University had issued a prospectus outlining the entrance test scheme under Clause 6.3 and Clause 6.4. As per the scheme, the paper was to contain 100 questions, each carrying one mark, with a deduction of ¼ mark for each wrong answer. Clause 6.4 stipulated the distribution of the questions—60 on General Knowledge and Current Affairs, 20 on Aptitude for Law, 10 on Mental Ability, and 10 on English Language. Clause 14 detailed the objection mechanism for candidates wishing to contest any answer key.
The petitioners participated in the examination and subsequently approached the Court, alleging that the paper content was disproportionately difficult and did not adhere to the prescribed distribution. They contended that several questions were of LL.M. or postgraduate standard, making them unsuitable for candidates eligible on the basis of a 10+2 qualification. It was further argued that the actual question distribution breached the structure mandated in Clause 6.4 of the prospectus.
On behalf of the University, it was submitted that the question paper was formulated by domain experts in adherence to the guidelines and competitive standards of the exam. The University stressed that all candidates were subjected to the same paper, and hence no prejudice had occurred. Furthermore, the results had already been declared on 15 May 2025, and thousands of candidates had participated, rendering any relief at this stage unjust and impractical.
The Division Bench examined the clauses in the prospectus and the structure of the question paper. Addressing the alleged breach of Clause 6.4, the Court recorded:
“There is neither any fixed requirement indicated in the brochure/prospectus nor it is apparent from the question paper of entrance examination in question that there was to be a mandatory classification of the question paper into different parts pertaining to the topics/fields.”
On the contention that certain questions were not aligned with the expected difficulty level, the Court stated: “The Writ Court cannot, ordinarily, sift through the minutiae of every question to critically determine its scope, domain and productiveness in assessing a candidate’s potential and capabilities.”
The Court referred to precedent from the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, observing: “It will be wholly wrong for the court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system…”
Further reinforcing this, the Bench cited Sanchit Bansal v. Joint Admission Board, stating: “When an action or procedure seeks to achieve a specific objective in furtherance of education in a bona fide manner… it cannot be described as arbitrary or capricious or mala fide.”
The Bench also noted that the petitioners had not availed of the mechanism under Clause 14 to raise objections to the answer key. It was observed: “The writ petition in hand does not lay challenge to the veracity of the answers, as put up by the respondent-University in its answer-key.”
With regard to the argument that the questions were unduly difficult, the Court stated: “There can be no lucid and objective criteria fathomable to determine as to whether a particular question is hard or tough… a particular question may be tough for a particular candidate, but concurrently it may be an easy one for another candidate.”
Emphasising the nature of competitive examinations, the Court recorded: “Any exacting or complicated question or even the entire pattern of examination, bears an equal advantage or disadvantage for one and all, unless, it can be proven that a singular person or a determinable group of persons only were subjected to a gross disadvantage, deliberately and intently.”
Lastly, the Court addressed the broader equity concerns raised by the petition, noting: “Thousands of students have appeared in the entrance examination in question and result thereof stands declared.”
The Court considered that a competitive examination is intended to assess skill, knowledge, preparedness, and perspective among candidates within a uniform framework.
It noted that competitive examinations serve as a pragmatic and equitable mechanism where all examinees face the same number of questions within the same time limit.
The Court recorded that even if there appeared to be a certain inclination towards specific topics in the examination, such a tendency may only reflect the subjectivity of the domain experts.
It was observed that no absolute or comprehensive method could evaluate the diverse capacities of a large candidate pool with precision, and that every candidate has unique strengths.
The Court noted that any complexity in the question paper affects all examinees equally unless it can be shown that a specific individual or identifiable group faced deliberate disadvantage.
The Court thus held that assuming arguendo that some questions were difficult, the examination’s competitive nature and uniformity in application negated any claim of unfairness.
It further recorded those thousands of candidates had already appeared in the entrance examination and the results had been declared.
The Court found that, even on the basis of equity, the petitioners’ claims could not be sustained. It concluded that the petition, seeking to quash the entrance examination and re-conduct it, essentially invoked sympathy and commiseration, which the Court stated it could not entertain.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. The Court directed that any pending applications would also stand disposed of. No order as to costs was made.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate
Case Title: Shifali Verma and others v. Panjab University, Chandigarh and another
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:069802-DB
Case Number: CWP-14104-2025 (O&M)
Bench: Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice Sumeet Goel
[Read/Download order]
