Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 65534 (PNJ)

NIDHI v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

CWP/16459/2025 · 2025-07-03

Tribhuvan Dahiya

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CWP-16459-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.119 CWP-16459-2025 Date of Decision: 03.07.2025 Nidhi .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Nikhil Lather, Advocate, for Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Ms. Harpriya Khaneka, Advocate, for respondent no.3/Commission. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL) The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent/Commission to re-evaluate the petitioner’s answer booklet of Subject Knowledge Test for the post of PGT Chemistry in response to advertisement 19/2024. 2. On the last date of hearing, the following order was passed: It is inter alia contended that the petitioner applied for the post of PGT Chemistry in Rest of Haryana cadre pursuant to advertisement 19/2024, dated 23.07.2024, and participated in the selection process as a General category candidate. As per details of the final result she secured 52.54 marks, but was not recommended for selection. Vide announcement dated 19.02.2025, the candidates were allowed to inspect their answer booklets of Subject Knowledge Test. On inspection of her answer booklet, she found that question no.16A was unchecked, and many other discrepancies were also noticed regarding which a representation, Annexure P-11, was submitted to the Commission, which has not been responded to as yet. … MANINDER 2025.07.04 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-16459-2025 2 3. Pursuant to the last order, learned counsel for the Commission has produced the petitioner’s answer booklet which has been perused. It shows answer to question no.16(A) has been evaluated by the examiner by awarding zero marks. The answer booklet has been returned to learned counsel for the Commission. 4. In view of the undisputed facts aforementioned and there being no provision for re-evaluation, there is no ground to entertain the petition and it stands dismissed. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 03.07.2025 Maninder Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MANINDER 2025.07.04 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.