CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.

Present: Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Abhishek Masih, Advocate

for the petitionser.

Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate with

Ms. Sheena Dahiya, Advocate

for respondent-HPSC.

****

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J

1. This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that this to issue an appropriate writ order or direction including a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the result dated 04.05.2026 (P-7) to the extent that the respondents have failed to declare category wise result and have not called candidates up to 12 times to the number of posts as advertised in the General category as specifically provided in the Advertisement No.22/2026 dated 30.01.2026 (P-1).

2. The petitioner is an aspirant for recruitment to the posts of HCS (Executive Branch) and Allied Services pursuant to Advertisement No. 22 of 2026 dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission and appeared in the preliminary examination conducted on 26.04.2026. After the provisional answer key was published on 28.04.2026, the petitioner submitted objections to certain questions within the prescribed period, relying upon standard textbooks and other authoritative sources. However, according to the petitioner, the objections were not properly considered while finalising the answer key, which adversely affected his score and chances of qualifying for the Main Examination.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is twofold. Firstly, it is alleged that while the advertisement expressly stipulated that candidates twelve times the number of advertised vacancies would be shortlisted and admitted for the Main Examination, the Commission failed to adhere to the said criterion and did not shortlist the requisite number of candidates in the general category. Secondly, it is contended that the result of the preliminary examination was declared without furnishing a category-wise breakup of shortlisted candidates, contrary to the practice followed in previous recruitment processes. The petitioner asserts that had the prescribed shortlisting ratio been correctly applied and his objections to the answer key been duly accepted, he would have qualified for the Main Examination.

4. Aggrieved by the declaration of the final answer key and the result dated 04.05.2026, the present petition has been filed.

Contentions:

On behalf of the petitioner:

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent-Commission has acted in clear violation of the terms and conditions of Advertisement No. 22 of 2026, which specifically provided that candidates twelve times the number of advertised vacancies were to be admitted to the Main Examination. It is submitted that against 46 vacancies in the General Category, the Commission was required to shortlist 552 candidates, but failed to do so, thereby arbitrarily restricting the zone of consideration and depriving eligible candidates, including the petitioner, of an opportunity to compete further.

6. It is further argued that the result of the preliminary examination has been declared in a wholly non-transparent manner as the Commission did not publish a category-wise breakup of shortlisted candidates and instead issued only a consolidated result. According to the petitioner, such action is contrary to the consistent practice followed by the Commission in previous recruitment processes and has made it impossible for candidates to verify whether the prescribed shortlisting criteria has been correctly applied.

7. Learned Counsel additionally submits that