IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 18.02.2026 Mukul Sharma ....Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ----

Present: Mr. Shobhit Phutela, Advocate and Mr. Vikram Brar, Advocate for the appellant.

****

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 16.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-735-2026, by which, the writ petition filed by the appellant qua re-conduct of the Subject Knowledge Test for the post of Assistant Professor (English) held on 17.08.2025 pursuant to advertisement No.48 of 2024 issued by Haryana Public Service Commission (for short, ‘Commission’), has been dismissed on the ground that even though he was made to take the test with the help of a scribe but it was taken without a computer.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the advertisement issued by the Commission with regard to the specially abled persons (blind) offered the help of a scribe so as to appear in the Subject Knowledge Test only but as the appellant was not well conversant with the scribe, he proposed that he should be tested for the Subject Knowledge Test with the assistance of a computer, which method has been used by him throughout his academic career. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that non-providing of a computer and subjecting the appellant to appear in the Subject Knowledge Test with the help of a scribe, created hindrance in taking the said test due to which the appellant could not clear the same. Hence, it is prayed that the respondent-Commission be directed to conduct the Subject Knowledge Test for the specially abled persons again to test their capabilities for the said post.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the said prayer made has been rejected by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 16.01.2026 only on the ground that the appellant had, by choice, opted to take the help of a scribe to assist him in the examination and, therefore, now he cannot be allowed to turn around and ask to re-conduct the test to be taken by him with the help of a computer on the ground that the provision of a scribe was not good enough to give an effective opportunity to the appellant to compete for the post in question, being a specially abled person. Hence, the view taken by the learned Single Judge, in the facts and circumstances of the present case is incorrect and hence, is liable to be set aside.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant; the appellant also, who appeared in person as well as his father, who was also present in Court and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

5. It may be noticed that the Commission, while issuing the advertisement No.48 of 2024 with regard to the conduction of the Subject Knowledge Test for the specially abled persons, had specifically prescribed the help of a scribe which a specially able candidates competing for the post in question can take while appearing in the said examination. It has gone unrebutted at the hands of the appellants that as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, only a scribe could be provided to a specially abled candidate (blind) for taking the test, which scribe was duly provided even to the appellant herein. The provision of a scribe was well in consonance with the terms and conditions of the said advertisement for the selection process of the post in question and, therefore, the method adopted by the Commission, in the facts and circumstances of the present case cannot be treated as arbitrary or illegal or contrary to the terms and conditions of the advertisement.

6. The appellant further raised an argument that he was not well- conversant with the assistance of the scribe to appear in the Subject Knowledge Test because his entire academic journey has been undertaken by him only through writing