LPA-1695-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (137) CM-4125-LPA-2026 CM-4126-LPA-2026 CM-4127-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1695-2026 Date of Decision : July 01, 2026 Shalini .. Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Suryaveer Singh Surjewala, Advocate, for the appellant. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL) CM-4125-LPA-2026 Present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 18 days in filing the appeal. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. Delay of 18 days in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA-1695-2026 (O&M) 1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 08.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.28456 of 2025 by which, the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the validity of the written test while competing for the post of Assistant Professor (Physics), has been rejected. HARSHA RANI 2026.07.06 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1695-2026 (O&M) 2 2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that a written test was conducted and in which, the candidates were provided with a question paper, which question paper had certain typing/printing errors, which has caused prejudice to the appellant and therefore, the said written test was liable to be re-conducted. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that some of the questions were factually incorrect also and the candidates should be compensated for the incorrect questions. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has not adverted to any of the argument raised by him in the writ petition but has simply gone with the report of the Expert Committee which was constituted upon the objections raised by the appellant to hold that there was no prejudice caused to the appellant while rejecting the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the prejudice was apparent on record, which has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge and therefore, for the questions, which were incorrect/misprinted, the benefit should be given to the appellant and other similarly situated candidates. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record with his able assistance. 7. The prime question for consideration before this Court is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is any prejudice caused to the appellant so as to seek interference of the Court. HARSHA RANI 2026.07.06 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1695-2026 (O&M) 3 8. Upon an objection raised by the appellant that there was a discrepancy in the question paper which was given to her, a finding has been given by the learned Single Judge that the original record was called and all the questions in the question paper, were also part of the answer sheet supplied to the candidates, who were to appear in the written examination. Further finding has been recorded that the questions which were mentioned in the answer sheet contained no discrepancy so as to allege prejudice. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to dispute the said fact even during the hearing today. 10. Once, the question paper which was given was also made part of the answer sheet and the same questions which were depicted in the answer sheet contained no mis-spelling or factual inaccuracy, the claim of the appellant that she suffered prejudice, has rightly been declined by the learned Single Judge. 11. Further, the said objection raised by the appellant was given to the Expert Committee for their opinion. A finding has been recorded by the learned Single Judge that as per the opinion of the Expert Committee, there was no discrepancy either in the question paper given as compared to the questions which were mentioned in the answer sheet. 12. Once, the expert report held the selection process as legitimate, this Court will not sit in appeal over the decision of the Expert Committee to decide otherwise. The issue whether, the Court can go into the report of the Expert Committee is no longer res integra. HARSHA RANI 2026.07.06 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1695-2026 (O&M) 4 13. The jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with the report of the select committee has been finalized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.367 of 2017 titled as Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P., decided on 11.12.2017. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the Expert Committee report and once, the objections raised by the candidates have been put before the Expert Committee and their report has been accepted by the recruiting agency, the Court will not interfere even if there is any grey area left after the report of the Expert Committee, which benefit can only be given to the recruiting agency and not the candidate. The relevant paragraphs 32 and 24 of the said judgment are as under: “32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the Courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the HARSHA RANI 2026.07.06 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1695-2026 (O&M) 5 examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination – whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the Court; whether they will get admission in a college or University or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody’s advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers. 34. Having come to the conclusion that the High Court (the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench) ought to have been far more circumspect in interfering and deciding on the correctness of the key answers, the situation today is that there is a third evaluation of the answer sheets and a third set of results is now ready for declaration. Given this scenario, the options before us are to nullify the entire re-evaluation process and depend on the result declared on 14th September, 2010 or to go by the third set of results. Cancelling the examination is not an option. Whichever option is chosen, there will be some candidates who are likely to suffer and lose their jobs while some might be entitled to consideration for employment”. 14. Further, in one of the case after the report of the Committee, this Court interfered with the report of the Committee, which matter was taken to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and while passing order in Civil Appeal No.7727 of 2019 titled as HPSC vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 30.09.2019, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed the following order:- “By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench has appointed the second Expert Committee for appraisal of the question papers. HARSHA RANI 2026.07.06 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1695-2026 (O&M) 6 Record reveals that the Appellant, Haryana Public Service Commission (for short, ‘the Commission’) undertook selection process to appoint 133 Assistant Professors of Geography (College) Cadre HES-II for which an objective type question paper was set up wherein the candidates were required to answer 100 questions. Grievance before the learned single Judge was that out of 100 questions, most of them were either ambiguous or not having correct answer keys. Such questions were brought to the notice of the Commission by raising objections. The candidates identified 46 questions as defective. The Commission based on the objections of candidates, appointed a Committee of Experts in the field for appraisal of the question papers. The Expert Committee, on going through the question paper in detail, concluded that seven questions were either ambiguous or not having correct answer keys. Consequently, the Commission accepting the Expert Committee’s report deleted those seven questions and marks and thereafter the results were declared. Thereafter, the candidates approached the learned Single Judge with a writ petition. Learned Single Judge curiously acted himself as an expert and on going through the question paper concluded that four more questions were ambiguous and, therefore, they should also be deleted from consideration. Then, some of the candidates approached the Division Bench and the Division Bench passed the impugned orders appointing another Expert Committee which is challenged in this petition. If the judgment of the Division Bench is allowed to stand, there will be no finality to the selection process. There was no allegation as such against the Expert Committee which was appointed by the Commission. The Expert Committee, in its wisdom has concluded that seven questions were either ambiguous or the answer keys were not correct. Accepting the said report, the Commission has proceeded with the selection HARSHA RANI 2026.07.06 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1695-2026 (O&M) 7 process and results were announced. Thereafter, the candidates approached the High Court. Though learned Single Judge was right in agreeing for deletion of seven questions, was not justified in acting as an expert in the field and, therefore, the learned Single Judge’s order relating to deletion of four questions also cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as that of the Division Bench stand set aside. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The selection process made by the Commission based on the First Expert Committee Report deleting seven questions from consideration stands confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs”. 15. Keeping in view the above, this Court will not go into the findings recorded by the Expert Committee though it has been argued before this Court that the findings given by the Expert Committee were only to oust the appellant from the zone of consideration. This mere argument without any corroborating fact, cannot be accepted so as to discard the report of the Expert Committee. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has also got an opinion from the outside agency which was put before this Court in LPA to counter the report given by the Expert Committee. 17. It may be noticed that this Court does not have any jurisdiction to accept the same as the expert report given by the Committee constituted by the respondents has to be taken into account for deciding the issue which has been done by the learned Single Judge. 18. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 19. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. HARSHA RANI 2026.07.06 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1695-2026 (O&M) 8 20. Civil miscellaneous application pending if any, also stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE July 01, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) harsha JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : Yes HARSHA RANI 2026.07.06 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document