CWP-23601-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 115 NISHA RANI HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION CORAM: HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. Ritesh Tomar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for the respondent. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA The petition has been filed, for setting aside the Screening Test the post of Assistant Professor (College cadre) Computer Science to advertisement 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner objected to correctness of four questions of the Test but without considering the objections the final answer key was uploaded whereby questions 12, 13, and 51 has been altered. The relevant material regarding correctness of these questions has been of answers of these questions is not proper. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/Commission affidavit of Mr. 2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Decided On: NISHA RANI Versus HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Ritesh Tomar, Advocate with Mr. Pritam Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for the respondent. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J.(Oral) The petition has been filed, inter alia for setting aside the Screening Test result dated the post of Assistant Professor (College cadre) Computer Science to advertisement 45/2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner to correctness of four questions of the Test but without considering the objections the final answer key was uploaded whereby questions 12, 13, and 65 have been deleted has been altered. The relevant material regarding correctness of these questions has been placed on record which establishes the deletion of answers of these questions is not proper. Learned counsel for the respondent/Commission Mr. Mukesh Kumar Ahuja, Secretary, Haryana Public Service IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-23601-2025 Decided On: 21.08.2025 ....PETITIONER(s) HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ....RESPONDENT(s) . JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA with Mr. Pritam Punia, Advocate inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari result dated 11.07.2025, Annexure P-3, for the post of Assistant Professor (College cadre) Computer Science, in response Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has to correctness of four questions of the Test, i.e., 12, 13, 51 and 65, but without considering the objections the final answer key was uploaded have been deleted and answer to question has been altered. The relevant material regarding correctness of these placed on record which establishes the deletion or change Learned counsel for the respondent/Commission has filed an Mukesh Kumar Ahuja, Secretary, Haryana Public Service certiorari for , in response has , but without considering the objections the final answer key was uploaded and answer to question has been altered. The relevant material regarding correctness of these or change n Mukesh Kumar Ahuja, Secretary, Haryana Public Service Aman Dua 2025.08.26 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-23601-2025 Commission, dated effect: 4. That in terms of clause 6 of the adv the scheme/pattern for conducting the examination, the Screening test was held on 15.06.2025. After the conduct of screening test, the Commission uploaded the Master Answer Key and called for objections from the candidates vide 16.06.2025. Copy of the announcement inviting objections is attached as Annexure R 5. That the petitioner no. 12, 13, objections in response to announcement dated 16.06.2025. All the objections received from the candidates (including petitioner) were sent to a committee of subject experts. The final answer key was prep 6. final answer key vide its announcement dated 27.06.2025. of the Final Answer Key uploaded by the Commission vide its Announcement dated 27. Perusal of the same would reveal that Q. No. 12, 13 and 65 have been deleted and answer of Q. No. 51 has been changed from 'C' to 'B' in the final answer key. Thus it is clear that the objections submitted by the petiti considered. Thereafter, the Commission declared the result for Screening Test based upon the final answer key for the post in question on 11.07.2025. 7. That it is thus evident that the Commission has acted upon the advice of an expert committee, who are neutral persons having vast experience in the field. All the objections which were received by the Commission within the time frame prescribed vide its announcement dated consideration by the the expert committee gave its opinion. It is therefore submitted that the allegations levelled in the petition vis 2025 -2- n, dated 20.08.2025, which is taken on record. It is to the following 4. That in terms of clause 6 of the adv the scheme/pattern for conducting the examination, the Screening test was held on 15.06.2025. After the conduct of screening test, the Commission uploaded the Master Answer Key and called for objections from the candidates vide 16.06.2025. Copy of the announcement inviting objections is attached as Annexure R-1. 5. That the petitioner submitted her objectio no. 12, 13, 51 and 65. Other candidates had also submitted their objections in response to announcement dated 16.06.2025. All the objections received from the candidates (including petitioner) were sent to a committee of subject experts. The final answer key was prepared as per opinion given by the subject experts. 6. That based on the said report, the Commission uploaded the final answer key vide its announcement dated 27.06.2025. of the Final Answer Key uploaded by the Commission vide its Announcement dated 27.06.2025 is attached as Annexure R Perusal of the same would reveal that Q. No. 12, 13 and 65 have been deleted and answer of Q. No. 51 has been changed from 'C' to 'B' in the final answer key. Thus it is clear that the objections submitted by the petitioner and other candidates were duly considered. Thereafter, the Commission declared the result for Screening Test based upon the final answer key for the post in question on 11.07.2025. 7. That it is thus evident that the Commission has acted upon the advice of an expert committee, who are neutral persons having vast experience in the field. All the objections which were received by the Commission within the time frame prescribed vide its announcement dated consideration by the expert Committee and acting upon the same, the expert committee gave its opinion. It is therefore submitted that the allegations levelled in the petition vis , which is taken on record. It is to the following 4. That in terms of clause 6 of the advertisement, which reflected the scheme/pattern for conducting the examination, the Screening test was held on 15.06.2025. After the conduct of screening test, the Commission uploaded the Master Answer Key and called for objections from the candidates vide its announcement dated 16.06.2025. Copy of the announcement inviting objections is submitted her objections to four questions 51 and 65. Other candidates had also submitted their objections in response to announcement dated 16.06.2025. All the objections received from the candidates (including petitioner) were sent to a committee of subject experts. The final answer key ared as per opinion given by the subject experts. That based on the said report, the Commission uploaded the final answer key vide its announcement dated 27.06.2025. Copy of the Final Answer Key uploaded by the Commission vide its 06.2025 is attached as Annexure R-2. Perusal of the same would reveal that Q. No. 12, 13 and 65 have been deleted and answer of Q. No. 51 has been changed from 'C' to 'B' in the final answer key. Thus it is clear that the objections oner and other candidates were duly considered. Thereafter, the Commission declared the result for Screening Test based upon the final answer key for the post in 7. That it is thus evident that the Commission has acted upon the advice of an expert committee, who are neutral persons having vast experience in the field. All the objections which were received by the Commission within the time frame prescribed vide its announcement dated 16.06.2025 were sent for expert Committee and acting upon the same, the expert committee gave its opinion. It is therefore submitted that the allegations levelled in the petition vis-à-vis the factum of , which is taken on record. It is to the following ertisement, which reflected the scheme/pattern for conducting the examination, the Screening test was held on 15.06.2025. After the conduct of screening test, the Commission uploaded the Master Answer Key and called for its announcement dated 16.06.2025. Copy of the announcement inviting objections is ns to four questions 51 and 65. Other candidates had also submitted their objections in response to announcement dated 16.06.2025. All the objections received from the candidates (including petitioner) were sent to a committee of subject experts. The final answer key That based on the said report, the Commission uploaded the Copy of the Final Answer Key uploaded by the Commission vide its 2. Perusal of the same would reveal that Q. No. 12, 13 and 65 have been deleted and answer of Q. No. 51 has been changed from 'C' to 'B' in the final answer key. Thus it is clear that the objections oner and other candidates were duly considered. Thereafter, the Commission declared the result for Screening Test based upon the final answer key for the post in 7. That it is thus evident that the Commission has acted upon the advice of an expert committee, who are neutral persons having vast experience in the field. All the objections which were received by the Commission within the time frame prescribed were sent for expert Committee and acting upon the same, the expert committee gave its opinion. It is therefore submitted vis the factum of Aman Dua 2025.08.26 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-23601-2025 non therefore liable t He has also shown the report of subject experts objections to the aforementioned questions and opined deletion of questions 12, 13 and 65, and change of answer to question 51 sealed and returned 4. Heard. 5. In view of the facts aforementioned, it is apparent that final answer key of the Test has been made as per advice of the experts tendered including the academic positions in differ with the been alleged. This is in 2024, Amit and 6. A dismissed. 21.08.2025 Ad Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? 2025 -3- non-consideration of objections is absolutely incorrect and therefore liable to be rejected. He has also shown the report of subject experts to the aforementioned questions and opined deletion of questions , and change of answer to question 51 sealed and returned to the learned counsel. Heard. In view of the facts aforementioned, it is apparent that final answer key of the Test has been made as per advice of the tendered after considering the objection the ones submitted by the petitioner. The experts hold academic positions in a University, and this the view taken by them against whom no been alleged. This is in line with law laid down by this Court in Amit and others v. State of Haryana and others Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and it stands (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? consideration of objections is absolutely incorrect and He has also shown the report of subject experts, who have considered to the aforementioned questions and opined deletion of questions , and change of answer to question 51. The report has been re- In view of the facts aforementioned, it is apparent that final answer key of the Test has been made as per advice of the independent subject after considering the objections received from the candidates, ones submitted by the petitioner. The experts hold senior University, and this Court finds no valid ground to against whom no mala fide or bias has with law laid down by this Court in CWP-30309- State of Haryana and others. there is no merit in the petition and it stands TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No consideration of objections is absolutely incorrect and , who have considered to the aforementioned questions and opined deletion of questions - In view of the facts aforementioned, it is apparent that final subject , senior no valid ground to has - there is no merit in the petition and it stands Aman Dua 2025.08.26 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document