IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

276 Date of Decision: 27.03.2026

1. CWP-17986-2025 KHUSHBU …Petitioner(s)

Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER …Respondent(s)

2. CWP-34803-2024 REENA DEVI …Petitioner(s)

Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …Respondent(s)

3. CWP-34668-2024 SUNITA …Petitioner(s)

Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …Respondent(s)

4. CWP-17294-2025 CICELIA MOHAN THOMAS …Petitioner(s)

Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …Respondent(s)

5. CWP-19665-2025 SHOBHA RANI …Petitioner(s)

Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …Respondent(s)

6. CWP-20644-2025 ANJU BALA …Petitioner(s)

Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER …Respondent(s)

PARVEEN KUMAR …Petitioner(s)

Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …Respondent(s)

8. CWP-17315-2025 ABHINAV …Petitioner(s)

Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …Respondent(s)

9. CWP-18408-2025 (O&M)

SAMIKSHA …Petitioner(s)

Versus HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION …Respondent(s)

10. CWP-19637-2025 NIKKU NEHRA …Petitioner(s)

Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …Respondent(s)

11. CWP-21589-2025 DINESH KUMAR …Petitioner(s)

Versus HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANOTHER …Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present:- Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Abhijeet Singh, Advocate; Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate;

Mr. Vikas Singh Chawra, Advocate;

Mr. Varun Veer Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Anshul Khurana, Advocate;

Mr. Harsh Jain, Advocate and Mr. Abhishek Singla, Advocate;

Mr. Sunil Kumar Dhanda, Advocate;

Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate; and Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

Ms. Harpriya Khaneka, Advocate (Through Video Conferencing)

for the respondents/HPSC.

(in CWP nos. 17986, 17294, 20664, 17298, 17315, 18408, 19637 and 21589 of 2025)

Mr. Gurnoor S. Sandhu, Advocate; Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate with Ms. Sheena Dahiya, Advocate; and Mr. Balvinder Sangwan, Advocate;

for the respondents/HPSC. (in remaining cases)

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral)

The aforementioned petitions are based upon similar facts involving common issues; accordingly, the same are being decided together.

2. For brevity, the facts have been noticed from CWP-17986-2025, which has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent/HPSC to evaluate the Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) answer sheet of the petitioner and allow her to participate in the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology) against advertisement

67/2024, dated 02.08.2024, Annexure P-1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) contended that while filling up OMR answer sheet, the petitioner wrongly darkened circles against her roll number, and on that account it was not evaluated by the Commission. This is a trivial mistake and by ignoring the same the OMR sheet should have been evaluated. Not doing so has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner as she has been ousted from the selection process. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed upon Vashist Narayan Kumar v. State of Bihar and others, (2024) 11 SCC 785. It has also been contended that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-30581-2024 titled Renu Sharma and others v. Haryana Public Service Commission, vide judgment dated 20.01.2025, has held that such a trivial mistake while filling up the OMR sheet needs to be ignored, and cancellation of candidature on such a ground would not be justified. Although operation and effect of the aforesaid judgment has been stayed by the Division Bench in LPA-677-2025, vide order dated 06.03.2025, the issue has not been finally decided. Therefore, the instant petition may be adjourned to await final outcome of the LPA.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents/HPSC, however, contended that all the candidates, including the petitioner, were duly issued instructions how to fill up the OMR sheets. It was specifically mentioned that any omission or discrepancy in filling up the roll number, questions booklet series and question booklet number will render the OMR answ