HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Decided on 28.01.2026 ****

Rajesh ... Petitioner VS.

State of Haryana & Anr. ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL ****

Present: Mr. Bhavesh Ola, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. AG Haryana ****

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

(1). The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, for issuing a writ of certiorari for quashing the result status ‘not qualified’ and the erroneous category/sub- category “Gen/No” as reflected in the petitioner’s CET Group D score card declared on 12.01.2024. He further seeks a direction to the respondent- Commission to correct the petitioner’s category and treat him qualified having scored 41.9212903 normalised marks against the declared UR ESM cut off of 39.13120 and recommend the petitioner for appointment on a Group D post under ESM category.

(2). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Haryana Staff Selection Commission issued an advertisement No.1/2023 dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure P1) for filling up 13536 posts of Group D. The petitioner applied as such under UR-ESM category pursuant to which he appeared in the CET-2023 on 21^st and 22^nd October, 2023. He submits that the petitioner being an eligible Ex-serviceman submitted his application by selection “yes” in the column prescribed, however, due to technical issues, he could not upload the supporting document although he possessed the same before the cut-off date.

(3). He further argued that as per the admit card for CET exam, petitioner’s sub-category was showing as “ESM”, however, in the result, his category was shown as “Gen” only and he was shown to have secured 41.9212903 normalised marks whereas the cut-off marks declared in respect of UR ESM category was 39.13120. It is urged that rejection for non-uploading of the ESM certificate is hyper-technical and unsustainable, as the petitioner held valid ESM status before the cut-off, rendering the non-uploading of the documents, a curable defect which was made good subsequently.

(4). Written statement dated 27.01.2026 has been filed by Mr. Rajiv Sindhu, Under Secretary, HSSC which is taken on record. It has been averred that the respondent-Commission published notices on 26.02.2024 and 06.07.2024 and afforded opportunities to the candidates to correct their particulars and thereafter, as per the final result the candidature of the petitioner has been considered under UR category only as he did not upload any supporting documents which is clear from application form (Annexure P2) and admitted in para 7 of the writ petition.

(5). It is evident that it was a mandatory pre-condition prescribed in the advertisement that the eligibility of each candidate shall be considered on the closing date of the advertisement and if any candidate do not edit/amend his/her registration form, then the same shall be deemed accepted for CET Group D. Undoubtedly, there were representations from various candidates pointing out technical snag in matter of uploading of documents which led to issuance of notices dated 26.02.2024 and 06.07.2024 calling upon the candidates to make good their deficiencies in the application form. Notwithstanding that, the petitioner failed to be vigilant and did not come forward to grab the opportunity of curing the defect, by uploading the supporting documents to be considered in the UR-ESM category.

(6). That apart, since the candidature of the petitioner was considered under General category and was not selected as such, inasmuch as in terms of Clause 11 of the advertisement, a general category candidate was required to secure a minimum of 50% marks out of 95% marks in the CET for being considered eligible. The petitioner, however, secured only 41.92 marks which is below the prescribed minimum cut off marks of 47.5 marks and as such, he did not fulfill the eligibility condition.

(7). Therefore, petitioner’s plea that non-uploading of the ESM certificat