Follow Us
Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, February 13
Triple talaq may have been a matter of intense debate inside and outside political and religious circles throughout the nation, but the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) has allegedly parted ways with clarity on the issue. The commission found itself facing legal proceedings following alleged discrepancies in the options it gave to a question on triple talaq during judges’ examination held in December.
The petition against it was disposed of on Wednesday after a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed declaration of revised result of a candidate, who had questioned this and other.
The detailed judgment by the Bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain and Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill on the petition filed by Snehil Sharma against the State of Haryana and other respondents is not yet available.
But Vishal Garg Narwana, petitioner’s counsel, said the court was not satisfied with the options offered to the candidates on triple talaq and another question. Sharma was just .80 marks short of success in the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) preliminary examination.
It was held in December 2018 for filling up the posts of Civil Judge (junior division) after an earlier test conducted in pursuance to an advertisement issued in June 2016 was scrapped by the High Court following allegations of paper leak. Bringing the alleged “incorrect” answers under the judicial scanner, Sharma, through Narwana submitted that the question was about Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriages) Ordinance, 2018. The first option was whether it declared instant triple talaq illegal and criminalised it; the second was whether it made declarations of talaq a non-bailable offence; the third was whether a husband declaring talaq could be imprisoned for up two years along with a fine; and the last was whether it entitled Muslim women against whom triple talaq had been declared to seek subsistence allowance from her husband for herself and for her dependent children.
Narwana averred the first, second and the last options were correct, whereas the first and last options were mentioned as correct in the answer keys. In an attempt to substantiate the contentions, the petitioner also enclosed a copy of ordinance.
In all, Narwana submitted that the final answer keys to seven questions were incorrect. Another five questions were wrongly deleted. Seeking court’s indulgence to protect him, the petitioner has added he was suffering due to Haryana Public Service Commission’s fault. “If the mistakes are not rectified, the same will cause an irreparable loss to the petitioner,” it was added.
.8 mark short of clearing exam
5
8
9