A High Court clarifies that compliance with mandamus for reconsideration of disputed exam answers is satisfied when the administrative body constitutes a subject expert committee and passes a detailed speaking order, even if the ultimate claim is rejected. Precedent is affirmed; such compliance procedures are binding in similar cases involving public examinations and administrative review.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | COCP/1327/2023 of WILLIAMJEET SINGH vs AMANDEEP BANSAL |
| CNR | PHHC010574792023 |
| Date of Registration | 02-05-2023 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value |
|
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether compliance with a mandamus order for reconsideration is fulfilled by forming an expert committee and issuing a speaking order, even if the decision is adverse to the petitioner. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
Compliance with a judicial order requiring reconsideration of an issue is achieved when the concerned authority constitutes an appropriately qualified committee to consider the disputed matter, issues a speaking order recording the rationale, and places the same on record before the court. Whether the administrative outcome aligns with the petitioner’s demand is immaterial to compliance, provided the process mandated by the court is followed. Once such compliance is demonstrated and acknowledged by the petitioner, contempt proceedings stand discharged. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner sought contempt for alleged disobedience of an order directing administrative reconsideration of three disputed exam questions. The respondent board constituted a committee of subject experts, reconsidered the validity of the answers, and issued a speaking order rejecting the applicant’s claim. The court recorded compliance and dismissed the contempt petition. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and administrative authorities under Punjab & Haryana jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and public authorities in similar administrative/educational contexts |
| Follows | Procedural requirements for compliance as previously articulated by the High Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that administrative authorities comply with mandamus for reconsideration by (a) constituting relevant expert committees and (b) passing speaking orders, regardless of whether the ultimate relief sought is granted.
- Petitioner acknowledgment of compliance is a relevant factor for purging contempt.
- Lawyers dealing with public exam challenges and administrative review should ensure strict adherence to the process mandated in the judicial order to avoid contempt.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court had previously directed the respondent authority to “reconsider” the correctness of specific exam questions through a “conscious decision.”
- The respondent board formed a subject expert committee as per the judicial mandate, which reviewed and upheld the original answers, issuing a detailed speaking order.
- The court noted the authority’s compliance affidavit and annexed speaking order, finding that the directive for reconsideration and a reasoned administrative outcome had been followed.
- Upon counsel for the petitioner acknowledging such compliance, the court determined that the requirements of the previous order had been fully met and concluded the contempt proceedings.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought initiation of contempt proceedings on grounds of alleged non-compliance with the court’s direction for awarding grace marks through proper reconsideration.
Respondent
- Demonstrated compliance by submitting affidavit showing that an expert committee was formed, objections considered, and a reasoned speaking order was passed rejecting the petitioner’s claim.
Factual Background
- The petitioner had earlier obtained a court order directing reconsideration of three disputed questions from a public examination, seeking grace marks for ambiguous/multiple correct answers.
- The Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab set up a committee of subject experts to review the three questions.
- The committee concluded that the final published answer key was correct and declined to amend it.
- Compliance affidavit and speaking order were filed before the court, leading to disposal of the contempt petition.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment addresses the implementation of mandamus orders under Contempt of Courts Act vis-à-vis administrative functions.
- Emphasized requirements for a “conscious decision” and “speaking order” to demonstrate compliance with judicial directives.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing procedural law for compliance with mandamus orders is reaffirmed; no breaking of precedent.