IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.10.2025 GOME BAM ... APPELLANT VS.

HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.. RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Ms. Shrinkhla Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Gurnoor Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the respondent.

****

ROHIT KAPOOR , J. (ORAL)

CM-7421-LPA-2025 Notice.

Mr. Gurnoor Singh Sandhu, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and waives service.

For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported with an affidavit, delay of 45 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

LPA-2958-2025 (O&M)

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 18.07.2025, passed in CWP- 17287-2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the Appellant-petitioner, for setting aside the final answer key dated 27.05.2025 and result of the screening test dated 27.05.2025, for the post of Assistant Professor (College Cadre) Physical Education, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts are that the Respondent-Commission published advertisement Nos. 42 to 67 of 2024 on 02.08.2024, for the post of Assistant Professor (College Cadre) in various subjects in the department of Higher Education, Haryana. The appellant applied under advertisement No. 60 for the post of Assistant Professor (College Cadre) in the subject of physical education. A provisional answer key of the screening test was declared on 30.04.2025 and according to the appellant, she would have scored 83.56 marks, in accordance thereof. The final answer key was declared on 27.05.2025, in which the appellant scored 81.1856 marks. The last qualifying candidate eligible to appear for the subject knowledge test scored 82.21 marks. Resultantly, the appellant could not qualify for the screening test. The appellant submitted two separate representations dated 28.05.2025, raising objections against deletion of question No. 29 and the alleged wrong revised answer qua question No. 7, in the final answer key. Undisputedly, the subject knowledge test for the post had already been conducted in pursuance to the declaration of the screening test result, before the petitioner approached the writ Court.

3. The learned Single Judge has recorded the respective submissions of the parties, which are extracted as under:- “4. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petition was filed prior on 09.06.2025. The mentioning for early listing of the matter made on 10.06.2025, was not allowed by this Court. Therefore, the petition could not be taken up for hearing at an early date when the Subject Knowledge Test had not been conducted. And the petitioner should not be non-suited on this account. She further contended that the petitioner raised objection to question nos.7, 29 and 77 of the Screening Test. The answer to these three questions were correct in the provisional answer key uploaded by the Commission, Annexure P-3. However, in the impugned final answer key, Annexure P-4, answer to question nos.7 and 77 were changed, whereas question no.29 was deleted. This could not have been done as the answers given in the provisional answer key were correct which stands established on the basis of documents/extracts of books placed on record as Annexures P-8 to P-10. She also placed reliance upon the Supreme Court judgment in Sidhi Sandeep Ladda v. Consortium of National Law Universities and another, 2025 INSC 714. 5. Learned counsel for the Commission, on the contrary, contends that the petition has been rendered infructuous as the Subject Knowledge Test has already been held, for which the petitioner was not shortlisted, and cannot be allowed to participate in the process of selection any further. He also contends that after uploading the provisional answer key, objections were invited from the candidates which were placed before subject experts. There had been objections to aforesaid three q