The cut-off dates and procedural requirements for submitting application forms in public competitive examinations are sacrosanct and binding; candidates failing to adhere to stipulated timelines cannot claim a vested right to relaxation, as strict compliance is necessary to ensure fairness, transparency, and equality as per Articles 14 and 16.

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the public notices dated 26.02.2026 (Annexure P-8) and 18.03.2026 (Annexure P-9), vide which the respondents have called the candidates for filling up separate application form for main examination. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to take the main examination of the Punjab State Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination 2025 on the basis of the application form submitted initially or in the alternative the petitioner may be allowed to fill up the said form for the main examination of the Punjab State Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination 2025 by extending the last date.

2. Brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner, a graduate (B.A.) and B.Ed. degree holder, applied for PSCSCC examination pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure P-1). The selection process comprised a preliminary examination followed by main examination and interview. The petitioner applied under sports category and appeared in preliminary examination conducted on 07.12.2025, and was declared qualified for the main examination. However, subsequently, the respondents issued public notices dated 26.02.2026 (Annexure P-8) and 18.03.2026 (Annexure P-9) requiring candidates to submit a separate application form for the main examination. The last date to submit the application form was extended till 20.03.2026 (11:59 PM) and it was mentioned in the public notice that no further chance will be given in this regard.

The petitioner, being unaware of such requirement and having already submitted the initial application form, did not fill the separate form. Consequently, she was declared ineligible for the main examination. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.03.2026 (Annexure P-10), but no action was taken by the respondents. Hence, the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that requiring submission of a separate form for the main examination, after issuance of the original advertisement, is arbitrary and contrary to the prescribed procedure. He further submitted that the petitioner, having qualified the preliminary examination, could not have been declared ineligible on technical ground, especially when no proper or adequate intimation of the changed requirement was given.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that the requirement of filling a separate form for the main examination was duly notified through public notices. He further submitted that adherence to such conditions is mandatory, and since the petitioner failed to comply the same within the stipulated time, she has rightly been held ineligible.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present case is that despite having applied pursuant to the original advertisement and qualifying the preliminary examination, the petitioner has been declared ineligible for the main examination solely on the ground of not submitting a separate application form, which requirement was introduced subsequently through public notices (such condition is contrary to the original advertisement and was not properly communicated, resulting in arbitrary denial of her candidature for the main examination)

7. Similar issue has been dealt with by this Court in CWP-9380 of 2026 – Lt. CDR Navroop Kaur v. State of Punjab a