The issue was argued at length today by both parties. At the start of the proceedings, an objection was raised by a selected candidate Kuldhir Singh. He alleged that the officers of the HPSC, in connivance with the Secretary, had removed a map from the answer script, as a result of which there were only four attempted questions in his History paper.

However, counsel for the petitioner advocate Mohan Jain contested the objection and brought to the notice of the Bench that it was out of context.

He produced the copy of the relevant question paper and read out the corresponding question, which read: “Draw an outline of map of India indicating the following. Also add a note of one page to it..”.

It was made clear that as per the question, the map was to be “drawn” and not “attached” to the answer script and the one-page note was a must. Despite this, the said candidate was awarded 11 marks.

Apart from this, Kuldhir Singh had crossed out page numbers 18 to 21 in his English paper but later, he wrote on pages 20 and 21. Even then, he was awarded marks for the same.

Moreover, a CBI inquiry was demanded alleging that the petitioner, Karan Singh Dalal, MLA, had tampered with the records and that some of it had gone missing. Dismissing the argument, the Court observed “In that condition, we will get a theft case registered if you want. Let the true picture come out”.

The counsel for the opposite parties also raised the question of maintainability of the petition as a PIL. However, the same was turned down by the Bench which observed that no other issue could be of more significance and public interest than this one.

The HPSC also sought permission to inspect the record. Dismissing the request, the Chief observed that the Commission itself was the custodian of the record and there was no need for them to inspect it.

Not only this, the Bench was astonished to observe that even though the matter was of great importance for the public, it had been pending since 2002.

Further, from the inspection of answer sheets, more than two dozen cases have come to light in which manipulations have been reported either by way of increasing marks or in many cases even decreasing them to facilitate merit of the favoured candidates.

Mohan Jain also brought to the notice of the Court that the reply to the inspection report was filed by the HPSC through the Officer of Special Duty, when it was clearly the job of the Secretary or the chairman.