IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 28.11.2025 Rahul …Petitioner Versus Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. R. K. Arora, Advocate and Mr. Jugam Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ajaivir Singh, Advocate and Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL)

1. Mr. Ajaivir Singh, Advocate, has caused appearance on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3, through validly executed vakalatnama in his favour today in the Court. The same is taken on the record.

2. By referring to the checked answer sheet of shorthand transcription test, which was conducted on 27.08.2022, the petitioner has made the representation dated 27.12.2022 (Annexure P-6), for re-checking of the same, wherethrough, one examiner has marked/counted 21 mistakes, and the other examiner has marked/counted 22 mistakes of the petitioner.

3. The Departmental Promotion and Recruitment Committee (High Court), in its meeting held on 17.01.2023, has taken a decision that since the transcription sheets of all candidates including the present petitioner, was evaluated as per transcription prepared by the evaluators, on the basis of audio of dictated passage, by applying the same criteria and principle of counting mistakes applied ‘uniformly across the board’, and the representation of the petitioner was rejected, wherethrough, the petitioner has made a prayer for re-checking of his answer sheet of shorthand transcription test, from the third examiner.

4. The matter was heard by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, and vide order dated 07.07.2025, a direction was passed upon the respondents/High Court, to apprise this Court, that as to whether, any other candidate, who has typed the word ‘Govind’ has also been declared having committed a mistake, or not. The relevant is extracted hereinafter :-

“Learned counsel for the respondents is directed to find out whether any other candidate, who has typed the word ‘Govind’ has also been declared having committed a mistake or not.”

5. In response to the specific query, as raised by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, an affidavit dated 19.08.2025, was filed. In paragraph No.2 of the affidavit (supra), it reflects that any candidate, who had typed the word ‘Govind’, has been marked as a mistake. The relevant is extracted hereinafter :-

“2. That during the proceedings, a query arose regarding the word 'Gobind, which was dictated in the type test for the post of Senior Scale Stenographer, in which the Petitioner participated. The Petitioner had typed it as "Govind", which was marked as a mistake. In course of the proceedings, this Hon'ble Court directed the Respondents to ascertain whether any other candidate who typed 'Govind instead of Gobind was also treated as having committed a mistake, and adjourned the matter to

22.08.2025.

3. That pursuant to the aforesaid directions, information was sought from the concerned department On scrutiny of the records, it has been found that several other candidates also typed "Govind" instead of "Gobind". The evaluators uniformly treated the same as a mistake and applied the same criteria to all candidates appearing in the test. All instances where candidates wrote the word 'Govind instead of 'Gobind have been uniformly marked as incorrect, without any exception.”

6. From the above, it transpires that transcription sheets of all the candidates, including the present petitioner was evaluated as per the transcription prepared by the evaluator, on the basis of the audio of dictated passage, by applying uniform criteria and principle for counting the mistakes. Therefore, no reasons arises for this Court, to interfere in the decision of the Committee, declining the representation of the petitioner.

7. In view of the above position, this Court does not find any further issue, which arises for consideration in the instant matter, thereby, directing the responden