IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 03.11.2025 LPA-3117-2025 (O&M)

SANJEEV YADAV ... APPELLANT VS.

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS LPA-3121-2025 (O&M)

ANJEET KUMAR ... APPELLANT VS.

HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ORS ... RESPONDENTS LPA-3138-2025 (O&M)

KAPIL ... APPELLANT VS.

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS LPA-3142-2025 (O&M)

AJAY KUMAR ... APPELLANT VS.

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS LPA-3146-2025 (O&M)

SOURABH KUMAR ... APPELLANT VS.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .. RESPONDENTS LPA-3152-2025 (O&M)

VASEEM AND ANOTHER ... APPELLANTS VS.

HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ORS ... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Mr. Prashant Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Pankaj Middha, Addl. A.G.Haryana.

****

ROHIT KAPOOR , J.

1. The present batch of Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 19.08.2025, whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed, by way of a common judgment and order.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts involved are that the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (in short ‘Commission’) issued advertisement No.03 of 2021 for filling up the posts of 465 Sub-Inspectors in the State of Haryana, under various categories and the appellants applied for the said posts in pursuance thereto.

3. Subsequently a written test was conducted on 26.09.2021 and a provisional answer key was published on 13.10.2021. Objections were invited against the said provisional answer key, from the aggrieved candidates. Several candidates, including the appellants submitted their objections, which were considered and a revised answer key was published thereafter. The case of the appellants before the Writ Court was that there is a manifest error in the revised answer key and there are two possible answers for several questions or the wrong answer has been declared as the correct option for some of the questions, which has caused serious prejudice to them. If they are granted marks for the correct answers, they would come in the zone of consideration. Reliance was placed upon the material placed on record, to show that the options in the revised answer key, were infact incorrect.

4. The learned Single Judge has noticed the contentions of the respondent-Commission, that the Commission is not an expert body and is dependent upon the opinion of experts. The objections received were forwarded to the Chief Examiner who sought opinion of experts, and it was in pursuance to such opinion that the revised answer key was published. The contention of the Commission, that all the selected candidates have already joined service and the Court ought not to interfere at this stage, was also noticed.

5. After referring to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of ‘U.P.P.S.C. and another Vs. Rahul Singh and another’, (2018) 7 SCC 254, ‘Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others’, (2018) 2 SCC 357 and ‘High Court of Tripura Vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and others’, (2019) 16 SCC 663, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petitions by observing as under:-

“10. From the reading of above cited judgments, it is evident that High Court cannot turn a blind eye if selection board has selected an answer which cannot be accepted at all. If there is doubt, the benefit of doubt must go to selection agency, however, in the absence of doubt, if opinion of selection agency is accepted, it would entail casualty of merit, mis- carriage of justice and violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Constitutional Courts are custodian of fundamental rights and assigned role of sentinel on the qui vive. One cannot be heard to claim that government job is his fundamental right, however, the moment he cuts the ice and crosses the cut off barrier, cannot be ignored on account of lapse on the part of government