CWP-27925-2018 (O&M) 1 of 10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 210 CWP-27925-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.07.2026 Hans Raj ...Petitioner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and another ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. G.S.Gopera, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suneel Ranga, D.A.G., Haryana. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of an appropriate Writ, Order or direction especially in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent No. 2 to correct the result by awarding him 8 marks against the Q. Nos. 4, 24, 45 and 49 of Q. Set 'D', Annexure P-9 and for taking further necessary action, in the spirit of law for selection and appointment of the petitioner as Tracer against the advertisement No. 07/2015, dated 10.7.2015, Annexure P-1. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/Haryana Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as “HSSC”) had issued an Advertisement No.7/2015 dated 10.07.2015 (Annexure P-1) for various categories of posts, including 165 posts of Tracer. Petitioner had applied for the said selection under the BCA category. Petitioner was allotted DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27925-2018 (O&M) 2 of 10 Roll No. In the written test held on 21.05.2017, the petitioner had secured 144 marks. On 20.06.2017 the Commission had uploaded the original key and revised key (Annexure P-2 Colly) on the Website and invited objections vide Notice dated 20.06.2017 (Annexure P-3). Vide email dated 22.06.2017, petitioner had submitted his objections. It is the contention of the petitioner that without deciding the said objections, respondent No.2 uploaded the revised answer keys of all the 4 sets (Annexure P-4 colly). Vide public notice dated 31.03.2018 (Annexure P- 5), eligible candidates, including petitioner were invited for interview. Thereafter, final result (Annexure P-6) of the petitioner was declared, as per which, petitioner had secured total 155 marks i.e. 144 marks in written test and 11 marks in interview. On 26.04.2018, final result (Annexure P-7) was uploaded on the website of the Commission, as per which, last candidate under the BCA category was shown to have secured 157 marks. Based on the final result dated 26.04.2018 (Annexure P-7), respondent No.2 published the roll No. wise list (Annexure P-8) of the candidates recommended for the post of Tracer. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner is that without deciding the objections dated 22.06.2017 submitted by the petitioner, the Commission has recommended names of the candidates under the BCA category. It is contended that the wrong setting of answer key of questions Nos. 4, 24, 45 and 49 of paper Set 'D' of Category No. 2 for the post of Tracer against Adv. No. 07/2015 has materially affected the result of the DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27925-2018 (O&M) 3 of 10 petitioner and thus the petitioner is being denied his legitimate right to seek employment under the State in flagrant violation of his fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel takes this Court through the extract copy of the paper set ‘D’ in respect of question Nos. 4, 24, 45 and 49 to submit that petitioner had rightly opted the answer keys for the said questions No. 4, 24, 45 and 49. However, due to the wrong setting of answer keys in respect of question Nos. 4, 24, 45 and 49, result of the petitioner has been adversely affected. By way of example, petitioner points out that under Q. No. 4, the Respondent no. 2 as per the revised answer key has set a wrong answering key (C) i.e. Pound; whereas the correct answer to the question the currency of United Nation is (D) i.e. Dollar. A bare perusal of Q. No. 4 would show that in English the wording of Q. No. 4 is "Currency of United Kingdom" whereas the wording in Hindi is "Currency of United Nations". Accordingly, petitioner had opted for option D. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to be awarded the grace marks for the printing error in English and Hindi i.e. 'United Kingdom' and 'United Nation' as the petitioner has rightly opted option (D) i.e. Dollar appearing under the vernacular-Hindi portion. Consequentially, name of the petitioner is not appearing in the list of recommended candidates for the post of Tracer against Advt. No. 07/2015. 4. It is pointed out that petitioner has also submitted a representation-cum-objections dated 25.06.2018 (Annexure P-14) to the DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27925-2018 (O&M) 4 of 10 respondents; as also legal notice dated 28.07.2018 (Annexure P-15). However, no response has been received from the respondents. 5. It is accordingly prayed that present Writ Petition be allowed; and a direction be issued to the Commission to correct the result of the petitioner by awarding him 8 marks against Q. Nos. 4, 24, 45 and 49 of Q. Set ‘D’ (Annexure P-9) and for taking further necessary action for selection and appointment to the post of Tracer against Advt. No.07/2015. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that after notifying answer keys of 4 sets A to D of the Question Papers, objections were invited vide notice dated 20.06.2017 (Annexure P-3). Pursuant thereto large number of objections were received from various candidates including the petitioner, who had submitted objections with regard to 4 questions, the same being question Nos. 4, 24, 45 and 49 in Series ‘D’. It is submitted that all the objections were forwarded to Chief Examiner who had then finalized the answer key, on the basis of which evaluation was done. 7. It is further submitted that in any event, objections of the petitioner were not valid as primarily the objections pertained to alleged confusion as to whether the Hindi or the English version of the questions is to be considered. It is contended that the said issue stands settled by way of judgment passed by this Court in CWP-21121-2020 titled as Yadvinder Singh vs State of Haryana & others (decided on 30.08.2022); DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27925-2018 (O&M) 5 of 10 wherein it has been held that in case of discrepancy between Hindi and English version of any question, the English version will be treated as final/authentic. It is contended that therefore, the objections raised by the petitioner, were rightly rejected. He accordingly prays that the present Writ Petition be dismissed with costs. 8. No other argument is raised by ld. counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 9. In the present case, the written examination for the post of Tracer was held on 21.05.2017; result of the written examination was declared on 19.08.2017. Yet, petitioner has filed present Writ Petition only on 20.10.2018 i.e. almost one year and 4 months from the date of declaration of result. Needless to say, if the petitioner was aggrieved of the result of the written examination which was declared on 19.08.2017, petitioner had sufficient time to file the present Writ Petition for redressal of his grievance. However, petitioner has failed to do so. Thus, claim of the petitioner is barred by delay and laches. 10. Moreover, petitioner has challenged selection process only after having participated in the same. And after having remained unsuccessful, petitioner has sought to challenge the selection process. The same is not permissible as per law. Clearly, challenge to the selection process after having remained successful is nothing but an afterthought. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal v. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486, has held that: - DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27925-2018 (O&M) 6 of 10 "9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 Supp SCC 285: AIR 1986 SC 1043 it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.” 11. The above said view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madras Institute of Development Studies and another vs Dr. K. Sivasubramaniyan and others, 2015 AIR (Supreme Court) 3643 where it DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27925-2018 (O&M) 7 of 10 has been categorically held that when a candidate has voluntarily participated in the selection proceedings, he cannot turn around later on to question the selection process. 12. The above said judgments have been followed by this Court in Surender Puri v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana): Law Finder Doc Id # 2933063; wherein it is held as under: - “Recruitment - Candidates who participate in a selection process with full knowledge of eligibility criteria cannot challenge the process after being unsuccessful, unless specific mala fide, statutory violation, or arbitrariness is demonstrated. A. Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 14, 16, 226/227 Recruitment process Petitioners challenged the selection process for the post of Assistant on the ground that expressions "Relevant Experience" and "Corporate Environment" were not clearly defined in the recruitment advertisement - Held, petitioners. having participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the eligibility criteria, cannot challenge the process after being unsuccessful Challenge to the process in such cases is barred by principles of estoppel and acquiescence - No mala fide, statutory violation, or arbitrariness demonstrated by the petitioners.” 13. Furthermore, petitioner has raised objections to the discrepancy in the translation of the questions formulated in English to the corresponding question in Hindi. As pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent-State, the said issue has been considered and settled by Coordinate Bench in case CWP-21121-2020 titled as Yadvinder Singh DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27925-2018 (O&M) 8 of 10 vs State of Haryana & others (decided on 30.08.2022); wherein undisputedly, it has been categorically held that in case of any discrepancy between Hindi and English version of any question, the English version will be treated as final/authentic. 14. In this regard, the respondent No.2-Commission in para 3 of its reply dated 15.12.2023 has further explained as follows: - “3. That as per abovementioned order dated 09.03.2022 the Hon'ble Court has specific query, as to how question No.4 wherein in English it is mentioned as "United Kingdom" but for the corresponding question in Hindi it is "Sanyukt Rashtra Sangh". In this regard, it is submitted here that in order to maintain secrecy and sanctity of the examination process, preparation and printing of question papers is exclusively done by an "Agency" engaged at the level of Chairman. In accordance with the best practices being followed by the Agency, information as to the “question booklet" is not revealed to any other officer/official of the Commission and as a result no officer/official of the Commission is permitted for a proof reading of the question booklet. Further, agencies might be using softwares for translating the language. Therefore, the words are converted by the software and the respondent-Commission has no role with regard to the preparation or translation of the question booklet. Further, it is significant to mention here that the Chief-Examiner has provided clarification with regard to above mentioned question that English version will be considered as final/authentic. So, the word DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27925-2018 (O&M) 9 of 10 mentioned in English language "United Kingdom" is final. Moreover, the petitioner has answered this question with option 'D' (i.e. Dollar). Even if this answer is considered in context of the Hindi version of Question No.4, then also his answer is not correct as 'Sanyukt Rashtra Sangh' has no currency thereof being an organization of various nations. Further, it is submitted here that if the respondent-Commission consider both the version then the answer of the petitioner is also wrong.” 15. The respondent No.2-Commission in paras 5 and 6 of its short reply dated 13.07.2021 has also submitted as under: - “5. …… A large number of objections were received from the candidates. The petitioner also filed objections vide his email dated 20.06.2017 against 04 numbers of questions (Q. No.4,24,45&49 Series-"D") as mentioned in present CWP were also received and referred to Chief-Examiner. After the receipt of objections, all objections were forwarded to the Chief-Examiner. The Chief-Examiner after examine the objection finalised answer key on which basis the evaluation of OMR Sheets was done. 6. That in respect of the questions/ answers objected to by the petitioner in present writ the details of disputed questions alongwith clarification is as under:- Sr. No. Question No. Answer Key Petitioner’s Answer Revised key 1. 4 C D C 2. 24 D C D 3. 45 D A D 4. 49 C A C DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27925-2018 (O&M) 10 of 10 It is submitted here that, the petitioner has scored 155 marks (written- 144 marks + Interview = 11 marks) and last selected candidate under his respective category i.e. BC-A category had scored total marks 156 marks (written- 144 marks + Interview- 12 marks) under waiting list. Hence, due to lesser marks in the written examination and interview the petitioner was not selected for said post. As per the final result dated 26.04.2018 the last selected candidate scored 157 marks and waiting candidate scored 156 marks. Whereas, the petitioner scored 155 marks for said post in question. Hence, due to lesser marks the petitioner has not been considered for the post in question.” 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to dispute the above said factual and legal position. 17. Keeping in view the above, present Civil Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed. 18. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 06.07.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document