CWP-17245-2025 along with connected petition 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 106 Decided on:12.08.2025 1) CWP-17245-2025 Dr. Poonam . . . Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others . . . Respondents AND 2) CWP-17295-2025 Harish Kumar . . . Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Sardavinder Goyal, Advocate, and Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Ms. Harpriya Khaneka, Advocate, for the respondent/Commission. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.(ORAL) These petitions are being decided together as common questions of law on similar facts arise for consideration. For brevity, the facts are being noticed from CWP No.17245 of 2025. The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari quashing clause/condition no.1(f) of the MEHAK HURIA 2025.08.19 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-17245-2025 along with connected petition 2 Scheme/Pattern of Examination prescribed in advertisement 60 of 2024 for the post of Assistant Professor (College Cadre) in various subjects. The impugned condition requires, if any candidate fails to darken any of the five circles in more than ten per cent questions of the OMR sheet, he/she shall be disqualified. The petitioner has also impugned clause/condition 2(d) of the Scheme which relates to the next stage of selection/Subject Knowledge Test; however, it is not being examined as the petitioner(s) have not cleared the Screening Test to reach that stage. 2. The petitioner is an applicant for the post of Assistant Professor (College Cadre) Physical Education under Scheduled Caste (SC) category. She appeared for the Screening Test held on 22.04.2025, but could not be shortlisted for the Subject Knowledge Test as per announcement of result dated 27.05.2025. She has, in fact, been disqualified on failing to darken any of the circles in more than ten per cent of questions in the test. Thereafter, the instant petition has been filed impugning condition 1(f) of the Scheme of Examination. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no justification in incorporating clause1(f) in the Scheme to disqualify candidates on failure to darken any of the circles as it has already been provided under clause 1(e), if a candidate does not darken any of the five circles in answer to a question, one fourth (0.25) mark will be deducted. Accordingly, clause 1(f) is contradictory to 1(e). Once one fourth mark is to be deducted on failure to darken any of the five circles, there is no justification to disqualify the candidate on the ground of not darkening any circle in more than ten per cent questions because, in any case, the candidate will be losing marks on failure to MEHAK HURIA 2025.08.19 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-17245-2025 along with connected petition 3 darken the circles. Besides, the condition is unreasonable also, as in case a candidate fails to darken any of the five circles in less than ten percent of the questions, he does not get disqualified. Therefore, the condition needs to be declared arbitrary and illegal. 4. To contradict, learned counsel for the Commission has referred to an affidavit dated 14.07.2025 filed on behalf of the Commission, which provides the following justification for incorporating the condition in the Scheme of Examination: 13. That it is pertinent to mention here that Clause 1(f) has been incorporated in the examination process after much consideration by the Respondent Commission. In earlier selections, each question was provided with four possible answers i.e. A, B, C or D. The provision of negative marking was also there. Hence if the candidate did not know the correct answer to a question he/she had the option not to fill any of the four options to avoid negative marking for a wrong answer. Resultantly many candidates would leave a major portion of the OMR sheet unanswered i.e. without darkening any circles and at later stage false allegations of tampering of OMR sheets were levelled on the basis of these unfilled portions of OMR sheets. Therefore, in order to overcome any such situation the respondent Commission made it mandatory for the candidate to either fill one of the options A, B, C or D and in case the candidate was not knowing the correct answer, he/she was directed to fill option ‘E’ to reflect that the candidate has not attempted this question. Thus Clause/Condition 1(f) has been inserted so as to bring greater transparency and accountability in the selection process and to avoid any allegations of tampering after submission of OMR sheets by the candidates. MEHAK HURIA 2025.08.19 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-17245-2025 along with connected petition 4 4.1. Learned counsel also contends that the petitioner has already participated in the selection process and after remaining unsuccessful in the Screening Test, has filed the instant petition. She was aware about this condition at the time of submitting the application form also, but never objected to it. Accordingly, she is estopped from filing the instant petition. 5. Submissions made by the counsel for the parties have been considered. 6. The Scheme/Pattern of Examination mentioned in the advertisement is as under: Scheme/Pattern of Exam:- 1. Screening Test (wherever applicable) a) Total number of MCQs: 100 b) Time duration of the exam: 02 hours c) Total Marks: 100 d) All questions carry equal marks. e) Each question will have five options (A, B, C, D and E). If a candidate is attempting a question, she/he shall have to darken the appropriate circle A, B, C or D and if not attempting a question then, she/he shall have to darken E circle. If none of the five circles is darkened, one fourth (0.25) mark shall be deducted. f) Any candidate not darkening any of the five circles in more than 10% questions shall be disqualified. g) One-fourth mark will be deducted for each wrong answer. h) The medium of examination will be as under:- xxx xxx xxx i) Candidates four times the numbers of advertised posts, including bracketed candidates if any, will be called for the MEHAK HURIA 2025.08.19 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-17245-2025 along with connected petition 5 next stage of selection process, provided that they have secured the minimum cut-off marks of 25%in the screening test. 7. Apparently, the candidates are required to appear for the Screening Test of hundred marks, and answer the questions by darkening the circles on the OMR sheets. Each question has four options (A, B, C and D); the fifth option (E) is to be darkened in case the candidate is not attempting a question. If none of the five circles is darkened, one fourth (0.25) mark shall be deducted. The impugned clause 1(f) prescribes maximum limit of ten per cent questions which can be left without darkening any of the five circles, and still the candidate will not be disqualified. In case in more than ten per cent of the questions all circles are left undarkened, the candidate attracts disqualification. The justification given by the Commission to provide this outer limit is, to obviate the allegations of tampering with the OMR sheets by darkening the circles left unfilled by the candidates. There may be a possibility that by mistake or oversight or lack of time, etc., a candidate is not able to darken any of the five circles for some of the questions before handing over the OMR sheet at the end of the examination. But in case a sizeable number of questions are left undarkened in entirety, it may give rise to suspicion regarding the candidate’s intention in doing so, and will also have repercussions for the Commission. It has already faced allegations in the past of tampering with such OMR sheets, as detailed in the affidavit filed on its behalf. Keeping all these factors in mind it has been decided to incorporate clause 1(f) in the advertisement, laying down the threshold of more than ten percent completely undarkened questions to invite disqualification. This appears to be reasonable and fair, as for a few/ less than ten per cent completely undarkened questions MEHAK HURIA 2025.08.19 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-17245-2025 along with connected petition 6 the disqualification will not be incurred and the candidate stands protected. However, leaving a sizeable number of questions completely undarkened defies logic, and certainly has the potential of giving rise to accusations of manipulation, etc. In this context, to balance the equities, the limit of ten per cent appears to be justified; it takes care of the candidates’ inadvertent mistake and maintains sanctity and credibility of the examination also. Therefore, no exception can be taken to it, nor can it be termed contradictory to clause 1(e). 8. Further, the candidates are supposed to answer all the questions, and in case it is not to be done, they are required to indicate thus by darkening one of the circles provided for the purpose. There can be no justification, nor has any been offered by learned counsel for the petitioner, about the petitioners’ conduct in leaving a large number circles undarkened. Still further, it is also a fact that the petitioners never raised any grievance against the impugned condition prior to having been declared unsuccessful in the Screening Test, despite being aware of the condition right from the beginning. Therefore, they cannot be allowed to turn around and challenge that very condition after remaining unsuccessful, as per the doctrine of acquiescence. 9. In view of the discussion, there is no merit in the petitions and the same stand dismissed. 10. A photocopy of this order be placed on the case file of connected petition. (TRIBHUVAN DADHIYA) 12.08.2025 JUDGE Mehak/Maninder Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No MEHAK HURIA 2025.08.19 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment