IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.10.2025 Vinod Kumar and others ….Petitioners Versus Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Bhupinder Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate, for respondent No.1 ****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioners, who were amongst the unsuccessful candidates in the recruitment process initiated by respondent No.1, have approached this Court by way of instant writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the condition of ‘securing 35% marks in each paper/subject and 40% in aggregate to qualify for the next step of examination/appointment’ as specified in the recruitment notice dated 04.12.2024 (Annexure P-2), and also the final result dated 01.09.2025 (Annexure P-7). Further, a writ of Mandamus is also sought for, commanding respondent No.1, to constitute a new Selection Committee to conduct the interviews under videography, and maintain proper record of questions asked in the interview.

2. The dominant ground raised in the present petition is that, no condition of prescribing minimum cut-off marks, either in written examinations or in interview, to qualify the subject/paper exists in the Service Rules. However, through the impugned recruitment notice, such an arbitrary condition was inserted. Further, incorporation of the condition in question is in contravention of, not only the Service Rules, but also the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments.

3. The next issue in line, is that Practical Test (Oral), Oral Examination Shikasta reading, and Viva-voce, were not conducted in sync with the Service Rules and the recruitment notice. Further, the Selection Committee did not stick to the syllabus and criteria prescribed for the said examinations.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while relying upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Durgacharan Misra Vs. State of Orissa and others, 1987 (4) SCC 646, submits that minimum qualifying marks cannot be prescribed by the selecting body, in the absence of any such provision in the Statutory Rules. So much so, no such rule is prescribed under the Services Rules, thereby authorizing the High Court to incorporate the impugned condition. He further submits that the selected candidates (private respondents) were awarded more marks in interview, despite being lower in merit in written examination, whereas, the toppers and exceptionally brilliant ones were granted disproportionately less marks in the interview. Hence, they could not succeed. By referring to some of the questions alleged to be asked during the Viva-voce, an attempt is made to set up a plea that the questions were either irrelevant, or not from the prescribed syllabus. He concludes by submitting that the petitioners performed exceptionally well, still they were awarded disproportionately low marks. Accordingly, the present writ petition deserves to the allowed.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Kunal Dawar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, submits that by virtue of relevant Services Rules, the High Court is empowered to evolve any procedure for conducting a competitive examination. Therefore, the plea, as raised in this regard, is totally misconceived, and is liable to the rejected out- rightly. He further submits that the petitioner, after participating in the recruitment process, cannot lay challenge to the selection criteria, particularly when the process is over. He asserts that even earlier, the petitioners had participated in the selection process for the post in question, with the same conditions, therefore, they cannot raise a plea of ignorance of the conditions impugned herein. Further, for the petitioners failed to secure minimum marks in the Practical Test (Oral), Oral Examination Shikasta reading, and Viva-voce, they were declared ineligible. In such circumstances, the