CWP-24685-2018 (O&M) 1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 207 CWP-24685-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.07.2026 Anil Kumar ...Petitioner(s) Vs. Haryana Staff Selection Commission ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Karamveer Singh Banyana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, D.A.G., Haryana. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a Writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned notice/list dated 15.09.2018 (Annexure P-5) wherein the name/roll number 7154109698 of the petitioner has not been figured in the list of candidates called for interview for the post of Draftsman for Irrigation and Water Resources Department, Haryana against Advertisement No.7/2015, Category No.5 whereas the petitioner is fully eligible and cleared the screening test and the document verification but for the reasons best known to the respondent, the name/roll number 7154109698 of the petitioner has not been included in the list of candidates called for interview. The aforesaid action of the respondent is illegal, arbitrary and deserves to be quashed. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.10 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24685-2018 (O&M) 2 of 6 2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance to Advertisement No.7/2015 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner had applied for the post of Draftsman under the BC-B Category vide application (Annexure P-2). Petitioner was allotted Roll No. vide Admit Card dated 26.10.2017 (Annexure P-3). As per the result dated 10.08.2018 (Annexure P-4), petitioner has qualified written examination. After scrutiny of documents held on 25.08.2018, vide Notice dated 15.09.2018 (Annexure P-5), eligible candidates were called for interview to be held on 28.09.2018. However, the petitioner was not called for interview. It is submitted that the last candidate called for interview under the BC-B Category was having 136 marks. 3. Thereafter, the respondent-Commission had circulated the Answer Key (Annexure P-6). Ld. counsel submits that as per the said Answer Key, the answers submitted by the petitioner vide Answer Sheet (Annexure P-7), to the questions No. 30 and 39 were found to be incorrect. Ld. counsel for the petitioner refers to Q. No.30 which reads as under: - “Question No. 30. Complete the series ZA5, Y4B, XC6, W3D,_____________ A. E7V B. V2E C. VE5 D. VE7 Answer as per Answer Key: C (this question is at Sr. No.65 of the Answer Key) Correct Answer: D” DIVYANSHI 2026.07.10 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24685-2018 (O&M) 3 of 6 4. Ld. Counsel submits that the petitioner had submitted Answer Key ‘B’ to question No. 30; whereas as per the respondent- Commission, the correct answer is Answer Key ‘C’. Learned counsel contends that the said question has come up in the SSC Examination in the year 2013 (Annexure P-8), as per which, the Answer Key ‘B’ submitted by the petitioner was correct. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to question No.39 which reads as under: - “Question No. 39 At present,_________ elements are known to us A. 112 B. 141 C. 114 D. 140 Answer as per Answer Key: C (this question is at Sr. No.81 of the Answer Key) Correct Answer is 118 which is not the option.” 6. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in answer to question No. 39, the petitioner had submitted Answer Key ‘B’ as the correct answer; whereas as per the respondent- Commission, the correct answer is Answer Key ‘D’. Learned counsel contends that as per the Periodic Table of elements downloaded from Ptable.com (Annexure P-10), as of now there are 118 known elements. Therefore, the Answer Key as per the respondent-Commission is incorrect. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner had submitted objections dated 13.12.2017 (Annexure P-11) however, no action was taken thereupon by DIVYANSHI 2026.07.10 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24685-2018 (O&M) 4 of 6 the respondents. It is submitted that every question has 2 marks. As per the Answer Key uploaded by the respondent, the petitioner has obtained 134 marks and the last candidate under the BC-B Category is having 136 marks, who has been called for the interview. Learned counsel submits that in case above said answers submitted by the petitioner to the said Answer Keys are corrected as pointed out above, then the petitioner would also be eligible for interview. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that from the perusal of the aforesaid question/answers it is clear that the aforesaid answers of the questions are wrong and the answer key circulated by the respondent is wrong. In these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to appear before the Interview Committee. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the State representing respondent-Commission vehemently opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner are untenable as it is the clear position in law that the Expert answers as submitted by or as approved by the Commission, are to be accepted and upheld. 10. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon judgment passed by this Court in LPA No. 771 of 2020 titled as Karam Pal Singh vs. State of Haryana and another (decided on 08.12.2022); and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7727 of 2019 titled as Haryana Public Service Commission vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 30.09.2019. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.10 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24685-2018 (O&M) 5 of 6 11. Learned State counsel further submits that even otherwise, the petitioner has not secured the cut off marks to be called for interview. It is pointed out that in his written examination, the petitioner has obtained only 132 marks; whereas the cut off marks for interview in the category of the petitioner, which is BC-B were 136 marks. It is submitted that for this reason as well, the petitioner was not shortlisted for interview. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ Petition. 12. 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 merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent. 13. In respect of question No.30, the petitioner has relied upon SSC Examination Answer Key (Annexure P-8) to submit that the option ‘B’ selected by the petitioner as answer to the said question is correct. However, a perusal of Annexure P-8 relied upon by the petitioner, shows that the correct option as selected by SSC for the said question No. 30 is option ‘D’. Therefore, reliance of the petitioner on the SSC Answer Key is of no help to the petitioner. 14. Even otherwise, as pointed by learned State counsel, while relying upon the judgments in Karam Pal Singh’s case (supra); and Haryana Public Service Commission’s case (supra), the opinion of the Expert Committee is final and the same cannot be substituted by the opinion of the petitioner. The same would apply even in respect of question No. 39. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.10 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24685-2018 (O&M) 6 of 6 15. Lastly, petitioner is unable to dispute that he did not obtain cut off marks to be called for interview and, therefore, he is not eligible for further process of recruitment. 16. In view of the above, present Civil Writ Petition stands dismissed. 17. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 10.07.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.07.10 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document