IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CH ANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.10.2025 Pronounced on: 14.10.2025 Tejpal and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate, for respondent no.2/Commission.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.

The petition has been filed by six candidates for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) Computer Science advertised by the second respondent/Commission vide advertisements 26 and 36 of 2023, dated 24.06.2023, Annexures P-1 and P-2 respectively. They have inter alia sought a writ of certiorari quashing the question paper of Subject Knowledge Test conducted by the Commission on 15.06.2025 for the post in question, as also the actions taken as a consequence thereto.

2. As per facts apparent on record, Subject Knowledge Test for total 1633 posts of PGT Computer Science in Rest of Haryana cadre and 78 posts in Mewat cadre was conduct ed on 15.06.2025; total 5184 candidates, including the petitioners, appeare d in the test. On remaining unsuccessful, the petitioners approached this Cour t on the ground that questions bearing no.4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 of the test were out of syllabus, which caused them serious prejudice. The second objection taken by them is that on appearing for the test, they were handed over a question paper, Annexure P-5, containing fifteen questions and were required to answer all of those; whereas, candidates appearing in Subject Knowledge Test for all other subjects were asked to answer fifteen out of eighteen questions. To substantiate the fact, question papers of Sociology, Psychology, Political Science, Physics, Physical Education, Music, Mathematics, Home Science, History, Geography, Fine Arts, English, Economics, Commerce, Chemistry and Biology have been placed on record as Annexures P-6 to P-21, respectively. Accordingly, the petitioners have been discriminated against by not providing the same choice to answer the questions as given to other candidates.

2.1. The following scheme/pattern of examination for the Subject Knowledge Test has been mentioned in both the advertisements:

2. Subject Knowledge Test a) Time duration of exam: 03 hours b) Total Marks: 150 c) The syllabus is enclosed at Annexure-I.

d) The examination paper will only be in English language. e) The numbers of the candidates to be called for interview will be two times, including bracketed candidates if any, of the number of category-wise advertised posts provided that they have secured the minimum cut-off marks of 35%. f) The weightage of the subject knowledge test will be

87.5%.

3. In this factual ba ckground, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has contended that t here is no justification to adopt a different pattern of examination only for the posts of PGT Computer Science, to the petitioners’ disadvantage. There is no application of mind in adopting the aforementioned different pattern of examination. That’s why the Commission has not been able to come up with any valid reason to give a different and distinct question paper only for the posts petitioners have applied against. In the absence of any justification for prescribing this pattern, the decision can only be termed illogical and arbitrary. Secondly, he has contended though the experts have concluded that the questions objected to by the candidates, except one, were not out of syllabus, no reasons have been given for the conclusions arrived at. In the absence of justification as to how the questions are within the syllabus, it would not be appropriate to reject the objections. Lastly, it has been contended that one of the questions has been accepted to be out of syllabus and after deleting the same, answer scripts have been evaluated for the remaining fourteen questions carrying total 140 marks, in