Haryana Civil Services: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Interfere With Preliminary Exam Result, Upholds Final Answer Key

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the preliminary examination result for the Haryana Civil Services (HCS) (Executive Branch) and allied services, reiterating that courts should exercise restraint in interfering with answer keys finalized by subject experts. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 208]Jagmohan Bansal said, "the respondent-Commission in the present case has acted in a bona fide and transparent manner. The Commission has tried to resolve all the issues raised by candidates. If contention of petitioners is accepted, there would be never ending process of raising objections and it would be impossible for the Commission to finalize selection process. The Court cannot ignore the fact that exam in question was preliminary and final exam is going to take place in the end of this month." Any interference on the part of this Court, at the behest of very few unsuccessful candidates, would stall the entire selection process which would be precarious for the public at large as well as candidates who have been selected for the final exam, it added.The Court was was dealing with multiple petitions, wherein candidates sought setting aside of the result declared on May 4, 2026, pursuant to Advertisement issued 2026.Challenge To Answer Key And ResultThe petitioners, who appeared in the preliminary examination conducted on April 26, 2026, contended that several answers in both the provisional and final answer keys were incorrect. They argued that errors in questions relating to general studies and aptitude test vitiated the entire selection process.It was also argued that the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) revised the answer key without granting candidates an opportunity to respond to objections raised by others, relying on a previous High Court ruling to claim violation of principles of fairness.Commission Acted On Expert OpinionThe HPSC, however, submitted that objections received from candidates were duly referred to subject experts. Based on expert opinion, the answer key was revised and later reaffirmed after a second review. It emphasized that there is no rule requiring cross-objections or hearing of candidates before finalizing the answer key.Court Emphasizes Limited Scope Of Judicial ReviewRelying on precedents including Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and UPPSC v. Rahul Singh, the Court reiterated that the onus lies on candidates to demonstrate that an answer key is “glaringly wrong” and that courts should not substitute their views for that of experts in academic matters.The Court observed that it cannot re-evaluate answer sheets or re-examine answer keys unless a clear and indisputable error is established.No Manifest Error Found In Answer KeyUpon examining the disputed questions, the Court held that it could not be conclusively established that the answers suggested by experts were manifestly incorrect. Even in cases of doubt—such as a question relating to the Haryana Parivar Pehchan Act, 2021—the benefit must go to the examining authority.The Court also rejected contentions regarding minor numerical discrepancies and interpretation of budget-related questions, holding that such issues do not warrant judicial interference.No Right To Cross-ObjectOn the issue of lack of opportunity to file cross-objections, the Court held that there is no statutory rule or condition in the advertisement mandating such a process. Accepting such a plea would lead to an endless cycle of objections and delay the selection process.Public Interest In Timely Completion Of RecruitmentThe Court also noted that interference at the instance of a few unsuccessful candidates could derail the entire recruitment process, especially when the final examination was imminent, thereby adversely affecting a large number of candidates and public administration.Finding no arbitrariness or illegality in the process adopted by the Commission, the Court dismissed the petitions and upheld the preliminary examination result.Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-15972-2026 (Through V.C.).Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-15907-2026 (Through V.C.).Mr. Birender Singh Rana, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vijender Singh Ahlawat, Advocate and Mr. Viresh Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-16543-2026.Mr. Ajit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-16674-2026.Mr. Vishesh Dhaka, Advocate for Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocatefor the petitioner in CWP-16000-2026, CWP-16073-2026, CWP-17646-2026 and CWP-17625-2026.Mr. Vineet Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-17304-2026.Mr. Deepak Vashishth, DAG, Haryana.Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for the respondent-HPSC.Title: Vardhman Ranjan v. State of Haryana and AnotherClick here to read order Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 208

Haryana Civil Services: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Interfere With Preliminary Exam Result, Upholds Final Answer Key

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

Haryana Civil Services: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Interfere With Preliminary Exam Result, Upholds Final Answer Key

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers