A Corrected Sentence, A Corrected Result: HC Orders Appointment of Candidate Denied Passing Marks

In a significant ruling concerning the transparency and fairness of judicial recruitment processes, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the appointment of an aspirant for the post of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) after concluding that her answer sheet was evaluated unfairly.

The Bench, led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel, intervened after discovering that the petitioner, Heena Shehrawat, had been denied critical marks not because her answer was wrong, but due to a perceived "cutting" in her script—a penalty that was not uniformly applied to other candidates.

The Case of the "Corrected" Answer

Heena Shehrawat, a candidate for the Haryana Civil Judge examination, found herself just short of the required 550 passing marks to secure a position. The crux of her challenge lay in question No. 5(x) of the English Language paper, which asked candidates to correct a grammatical error in the sentence: "He is reading the book since morning."

Shehrawat correctly provided the answer: "He has been reading the book since morning." However, the evaluator denied her the 2.5 marks allotted for the question, citing "cutting" in the script. When compared to the answer sheets of other candidates—who provided the exact same answer and were awarded the full marks—the disparity became clear.

Arguments of the Parties

The High Court, acting as respondent No. 3, initially relied on the principle of non-interference. They cited the recent decision in Mukul Dhankhar v. State of Haryana , arguing that the court should not substitute its discretion for that