Supreme Court Draws Line on Exam Re-evaluation, Opens Door for SC Marks Relief in Haryana Judge Hiring

In a nuanced ruling, the Supreme Court of India has backed the Punjab and Haryana High Court's refusal to allow re-evaluation of answer sheets in the Haryana Civil Judge (Junior Division) recruitment exam, citing a clear advertisement clause. However, spotlighting 30 unfilled Scheduled Caste (SC) vacancies out of 39, the bench urged the High Court to sympathetically consider relaxing the 45% minimum marks threshold for reserved candidates.

The decision came in the Special Leave Petition filed by Diksha Kalson, represented by senior advocate Sanjay R. Hegde, against the State of Haryana and others. A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, disposed of the SLP on March 20, 2026, while granting key liberty to the petitioner and similarly placed SC candidates.

Narrow Miss Ignites Fight Over Zero Marks and Quotas

Diksha Kalson, an SC category aspirant, scored 493.10 out of 1100 in the mains exam advertised by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) on November 7, 2023. She fell short of the 495-mark cutoff (45% minimum) by a razor-thin 1.9 marks, largely due to a zero awarded in one English paper answer—deemed correct by language experts she consulted.

Kalson fired off representations to the Punjab & Haryana High Court Chief Justice, HPSC Secretary, and Registrar (Recruitment), arguing for re-evaluation or relaxation given the unfilled SC slots. Only 9 SC candidates made the final list against 39 reserved posts. Undeterred by initial rebuffs, she filed a writ petition (CWP No. 4917/2025), which the High Court dismissed on February 28, 2025, and later in review on January 9, 2026.

The High Court held that participating in the exam bound her to Clause 33 of the advertisement, explicitly barring re-evaluation.

Petitioner's Cry: 'Correct Answer, Zero Marks—And Empty SC Seats'

Hegde argued vehemently for re-evaluation, highlighting the disputed English answer and the gross under-filling of SC vacancies—30 slots vacant despite qualified candidates like Kalson lurking just below the bar. He pressed for administrative relaxation of the 45% rule to honor reservation policy, emphasizing equity for reserved categories.

The State of Haryana countered by standing firm on the advertisement's terms: no re-evaluation, strict cutoffs, and finality post-participation. They defended the High Court's view that exam rules are ironclad, with no room for post facto challenges.

Bench Balances Rules and Reality—No Precedents Needed

The Supreme Court found no infirmity in the High Court's stance on Clause 33, underscoring the sanctity of recruitment notifications. No prior precedents were invoked, as the ruling hinged on the advertisement's plain language and participation estoppel.

Yet, the bench pivoted to pragmatism upon Hegde's revelation of the 30 unfilled SC posts. It distinguished judicial rigidity from administrative flexibility, carving space for representation without upending the no-re-evaluation principle. This reflects a recurring judicial nod to substantive reservation goals when form meets glaring shortfalls, without rewriting rules.

Key Observations from the Bench

The order distilled pivotal reasoning in crisp terms:

"In view of clause 33 incorporated in the advertisement dated 07.11.2023, whereunder 're-evaluation of answer sheets is not allowed', we find no fault with the view taken by the High Court on the judicial side."

"Against 39 vacancies reserved for Scheduled Caste category candidates, only 9 such candidates were included in the final selection list."

"We grant liberty to the petitioner, as well as to other reserved category candidates, who may be placed higher than her in the merit list, to make a representation before the High Court on the administrative side , seeking relaxation of the condition of 45% minimum total marks prescribed for reserved category candidates."

"We request the High Court to consider the representation sympathetically , regardless of the view taken on the judicial side in the impugned judgments."

Liberty Granted: A Sympathetic Nod to Unfilled Quotas

The SLP stands dismissed with pending applications, delay condoned, but with game-changing liberty. Kalson and higher-merit SC candidates can now approach the Punjab & Haryana High Court's administrative side for 45% relaxation.

Practically, this could unlock those 30 posts, prioritizing merit within reserved pools and easing judicial shortages in Haryana. For future recruitments, it signals that ironclad clauses hold on re-evaluation, but vacancy backlogs may prompt administrative tweaks—potentially influencing HPSC and similar bodies nationwide to monitor quotas proactively.

Aspiring judges in reserved categories take note: rules bind, but empty seats beckon sympathy.