239 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17.02.2026 KARTIK SAINI ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Ms. Preeti Chhikara, Advocate for Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.3-HPSC.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J (Oral):

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the Final Result of Selected Candidates dated 15.12.2025 (Annexure P-8) for the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer (Group-B) in Haryana Pollution Control Board in pursuance to advertisement No. 20/2025 (Annexure P-1). A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to revise and re-declare the final result by including the name of the petitioner in the list of selected candidates.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Haryana Public Service Commission (respondent No.3) issued Advertisement No.20/2025 dated 13.08.2025 for filling up 29 posts of Assistant Environmental Engineer (Group-B) in Haryana State Pollution Control Board. The petitioner being fully qualified, applied for the said vacancy under the BC-B category. The selection process comprised three stages: Screening Test, Subject Knowledge Test and Interview. The petitioner qualified the Screening Test and Subject Knowledge Test and was called for an interview. However, when the final result was declared on 15.12.2025, the name of the petitioner was not included in the list of selected candidates.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that, one Nikhil Yadav (Roll No.29116) belonging to BC-B category secured “58.86” marks in the final merit which is higher than the last selected General category candidate namely Abhimanyu Balyan who secured “53.09” marks. According to the petitioner, Nikhil Yadav ought to have been migrated to the General category and upon such migration, the petitioner who secured “40.61” marks and is next in merit in the BC-B category would have been selected. Learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments in Saurav Yadav vs. State of U.P., AIR 2021 (SC) 233 and the judgment of this Court in Parmila vs. State of Haryana (CWP No.23917 of 2023 decided on 08.01.2024) as affirmed in LPA No.329 of 2024 decided on 09.04.2025. Learned counsel further submits that Annexure P-3, which contains the scheme of examination and the selection and shortlisting criteria, clearly stipulates that the marks obtained in the screening test are not to be counted for the final selection, as the said test is meant only for shortlisting purposes. It is further provided that the final merit list is to be prepared by aggregating the marks obtained in the subject knowledge test and the interview/viva-voce. Since the candidate Nikhil Yadav had opted for relaxation only in the screening test, the result whereof does not impact the final merit list, thus any relaxation granted to the said candidate is wholly inconsequential and immaterial to the final selection process, consequently he should have been migrated to the general category.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that Nikhil Yadav had secured “56.86” marks in the Screening Test whereas the cut-off for General category was “61.8132.” He was selected for the next stage only under the BC-B category by availing the benefit of relaxation. Having availed relaxation at the Screening Test stage, he was not liable to be migrated to General category. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. G. Kiran & Ors. (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.4743 of 2020 decided on 06.01.2026) and the judgment of this Court in Ajit Singh vs.

State of Har