202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DECIDED ON: 04.12.2025 SAHIL JAGLAN .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

.....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Ms. Himani Makkad, Advocate, Mr. Raj Kumar Makkad, Advocate, Mr. Himalya Makkad, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Mayuri Lakhanpal Kalia, DAG Haryana Mr. DS Rawat, Advocate for the respondent no. 3.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. Prayer:

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the corrigendum (revised result) dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure P-14) pertaining to SAS Part-I (OB) Examination, 2024, and for directing the respondents to award one mark against unmarked correct portion of the answer dated 02.04.2025 (Annexure P-7) submitted by the petitioner against Question No. II (a) of the paper Local Rules and Public Works Accounts Code (with Books) paper 2024 as per the correct answer given in Chapter 9 of the Haryana PWD Code and consequently permit the petitioner to participate in SAS Part-II Examination.

2. The conspectus of Facts:

The petitioner is serving as a regular Junior Auditor in the Rural Development Department, Haryana and is presently posted in the office of the Directorate at Chandigarh. Being eligible in terms of the applicable service rules and instructions, the petitioner submitted his application to appear in the Haryana Subordinate Accounts Service (HSAS) Part-I (Ordinary Branch) Examination, 2024, conducted in pursuance of the instructions issued by the respondent authorities. An admit card was issued to him and he was allotted Roll No. 24080478 for the said examination. The petitioner appeared in the HSAS Part-I (OB) examination held from 11.01.2025 to 15.01.2025, which included the paper titled Local Rules and Public Works Accounts Code (with Books) (hereinafter referred to as “Paper-V”).

In the said paper, Question No. II(a) required candidates to distinguish between “Scope of Sanction” and “Lapse of Sanction”. According to the petitioner, he attempted this question after leaving certain sheets blank and, while initially writing a wrong answer, struck out the earlier attempt and re-wrote what he claims to be the correct answer immediately below.

The result of HSAS Part-I (OB) Examination, 2024 was declared on

27.03.2025 (Annexure P-6), wherein the petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 461 with a total of 416 marks out of 600 but was declared “Fail” on account of having secured only 38 marks in Paper-V, i.e. below the required minimum of 45 marks in that subject.

The petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act, whereupon a copy of his evaluated answer script of Paper-V was supplied to him on

02.04.2025 (Annexure P-7).

On perusal of his answer script, the petitioner claims to have noticed that though the Examiner had awarded certain marks, including 6 marks for Question No. VII, the same had not been included in the total, and further that no marks whatsoever had been awarded to him for Question No. II(a), despite his answer being, according to him, correct at least on one side. The petitioner thereafter submitted a detailed representation dated 04.04.2025 (Annexure P-8) to respondent No. 2 (also emailed to respondent No. 3), pointing out the alleged errors in totaling and non-award of marks, and simultaneously applied for re-

checking of his answer sheet.

During this period, the petitioner also obtained, under RTI, the answer sheets of two other candidates, namely, Shri Krishan (Roll No. 24081108) (Annexure P-10) and Shri Deepak Rawat (Roll No. 24081346) (Annexure P-11), and further relied upon the answer of another candidate, Ms. Suman Devi (Roll No. 24080254) (Annexure P-12). On comparison, he claims that his answer to the left portion of Question II(a) was verbatim identical to that of Shri Krishan and Shri Deepak Rawat and, at least to that extent, deserved parity in marking.

A subsequent representation dated 09.05.2025 (Annexure P-13) was th