IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 226 CWP-6410-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 07.08.2026 Archita … PeƟƟoner Versus Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC), through its Secretary ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Parveen Moudgil, Advocate for the peƟƟoner. Ms. Gurnoor Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the respondent-HPSC. ***** NIDHI GUPTA, J . Present civil writ peƟƟon under arƟcles 226/227 of the consƟtuƟon of India has been filed by the peƟƟoner for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus direcƟng respondent not to cancel the candidature of the peƟƟoner only on the ground that the peƟƟoner has not uploaded the signed applicaƟon form at this last stage of selecƟon when the peƟƟoner has already qualified the preliminary as well as main examinaƟon and further direct the respondent to consider the peƟƟoner's candidature for all further stages of the recruitment process as the error is trivial omission, unintenƟonal, bonafide and inadvertent. 2. It is inter alia submiƩed by ld. counsel for the peƟƟoner that the respondent-HPSC had published an AdverƟsement No.23/2023 dated 08.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) for recruitment of Treasury Officer (05 posts) and NEELAM KUMARI 2026.08.12 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-6410-2026 (O&M) - 2 - Assistant Treasury Officer (30 posts) (Group B). Opening date of submission of form was 11.08.2025; and closing date was 01.09.2025 (upto 5:00 pm). PeƟƟoner had submiƩed her applicaƟon bearing No. TR2507094 (Annexure P-2) online on 15.08.2025 with all the relevant documents and informaƟon along with requisite fees. Accordingly, respondent had issued Admit Card to the peƟƟoner and alloƩed Roll No.73378, permiƫng the peƟƟoner to appear in the Screening Test. PeƟƟoner had appeared for the Screening Test and has duly qualified the same. The result of Screening Test was declared on 29.01.2026 (Annexure P-3). ThereaŌer Admit Card (Annexure P-4) was issued to the peƟƟoner for the main exam to be held on 01.02.2026. She appeared for the main exam and has duly qualified as is evident from result dated 14.02.2026 (Annexure P-5). It is further submiƩed that marriage of the peƟƟoner was fixed for 19.02.2026 (Annexure P-6). The respondent-Commission vide email dated 20.02.2026 (Annexure P-8) forwarded a noƟce dated 20.02.2026 alleging therein that peƟƟoner has not uploaded the self-signed copy of applicaƟon form and her candidature was liable to be canceled and granted Ɵme Ɵll 22.02.2026. It is submiƩed that the PeƟƟoner was busy in her marriage and therefore, could not file the response to noƟce dated 20.02.2026 in Ɵme. On 25.02.2026 (Annexure P-9), peƟƟoner sent the signed copy of her applicaƟon form through email and filed representaƟon dated 25.02.2026 (Annexure P-10) requesƟng the Commission to permit her to appear in TO/ATO interview scheduled for 2/3.3.2026. Ld. Counsel submits that from the above fact, it is clear that the NEELAM KUMARI 2026.08.12 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-6410-2026 (O&M) - 3 - mistake on part of the peƟƟoner was inadvertent and typographical and clerical error. It is accordingly prayed that the peƟƟoner be granted one opportunity to upload the correct pdf form of her applicaƟon form as the error was purely clerical and inadvertent, unintenƟonal. 3. Per contra, ld. State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the peƟƟoner and submits that peƟƟoner cannot be allowed to appear for the interview due to her own admiƩed mistake. It is submiƩed that therefore, the present writ peƟƟon deserves to be dismissed. 4. No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the parƟes. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the peƟƟoner. 5. It is to be noted that at the Ɵme of the issuance of the AdverƟsement no. 23/2023, dated 13.4.2023, the governing Rules i.e. The Haryana Finance Department (Group-B) Service Rules 1980 were in the process of being amended. As a result, the selecƟon process was kept in abeyance. Subsequently, aŌer the amendment of the said Service Rules, the Commission had issued a Corrigendum dated 8.8.2025 (P-1), in parƟal modificaƟon of the above adverƟsement. The peƟƟoner has applied in response to the said Corrigendum dated 8.8.2025 (P-1). 6. In paragraph 4 of reply dated 23.3.2026, the respondent- Commission have enumerated the other various clauses of the AdverƟsement no.23/2023 dated 13.4.2023, and the Corrigendum dated 8.8.2025, which are NEELAM KUMARI 2026.08.12 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-6410-2026 (O&M) - 4 - germane to the issue at hand. It is perƟnent to note that in Point 2 (f) of the said Corrigendum, it is specifically menƟoned as follows: – “All the candidates will have to MANDATORILY take the Print of the submiƩed details and upload a SELF SIGNED copy of the same, failing which their candidature will not be considered for further process.” It is admiƩed case of the peƟƟoner that albeit inadvertently, she has not uploaded the signed applicaƟon form as sƟpulated above. Even aŌer being given an opportunity by the Commission vide leƩer dated 20.2.2026 (P-8), to correct the said error, peƟƟoner did not do so. As such, peƟƟoner has failed to comply with mandatory requirement of Point 2 (f) of the Corrigendum dated 8.8.2025. Consequently, vide the leƩer dated 26.2.2026 (Annexure R-7), candidature of the peƟƟoner was rightly cancelled. 7. The law in relaƟon to the issue raised in the present Writ PeƟƟon is no more res integra and it is seƩled to the effect that if the candidate fails to upload the duly signed copy of ApplicaƟon form prior to the Closing Date in terms with the mandatory clauses contained in the AdverƟsement, then the rejecƟon of his/her candidature on that ground would be valid and just. 8. In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohit Kumar v. State of UƩar Pradesh, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2730841, decided on 15.05.2025; has succinctly and sagely advised as under: - “A. Recruitment Process - Requirement of submiƫng caste cerƟficate in prescribed format - Adherence to recruitment noƟficaƟon mandatory - Held, terms of adverƟsement/noƟficaƟon regulaƟng recruitment process must be scrupulously followed - Non-compliance would result NEELAM KUMARI 2026.08.12 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-6410-2026 (O&M) - 5 - in adverse consequences for aspirants Aspirants failing to submit requisite cerƟficate in prescribed format treated as candidates of unreserved category.” The relevant para of the said judgment reads as under:- “19. It is no longer res integra that terms of an adverƟsement issued in connecƟon with a selecƟon process are normally not open to challenge unless the challenge is founded on the ground of breach of ArƟcle 16 of the ConsƟtuƟon or, for that maƩer, ArƟcle 14. Once an adverƟsement is issued inviƟng applicaƟons for public employment, it is the responsibility, nay duty, of an aspirant to read and note the terms and understand what its requirements are. If any aspirant finds any of the terms ambiguous and there is scope for an inquiry inbuilt in the adverƟsement or is provided by any rule/regulaƟon, an effort ought to be first made to obtain clarity for understanding the requirements accurately. If no such scope is available, nothing prevents the aspirant from seeking clarity by making a representaƟon. Should such clarity be not provided, the aspirant may parƟcipate in the process without prejudice to his rights and may quesƟon the term even aŌer he is not selected. However, if the aspirant does not make any such effort and takes a calculated chance of selecƟon based on his own understanding of the disputed term in the adverƟsement and later, he emerges unsuccessful, ordinarily, it would not be open to him to challenge the selecƟon on the ground that the disputed term is capable of being understood differently. In such cases, the courts should be loath to entertain such plea of ambiguity while preferring to accept the recruiƟng authority's understanding of the said term. This is for the simple reason that the recruiƟng authority is the best judge of what its requirements are and it is such understanding of the NEELAM KUMARI 2026.08.12 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-6410-2026 (O&M) - 6 - recruiƟng authority that would maƩer most in cases brought up before the courts; hence, aŌer commencement of the process wherein aspirants have parƟcipated without raising any demur as to what a parƟcular terms means, even if any of the terms be ambiguous, the courts should lean in favour of the recruiƟng authority.” 9. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment dated 03.03.2022 passed by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in LPA No.1516 of 2017 Ɵtled as Saket Sheoran vs. Haryana Public Service Commission wherein it was held as follows: “In view of the decisions cited above, we are of the opinion that the appellant cannot be granted any relief in the LPA since the appellant had not submiƩed hard copy of his applicaƟon to the respondents before the cut-off date as prescribed in the adverƟsement, and since such cut-off date has to be scrupulously adhered to. Also no power of relaxaƟon is shown to be vested with the respondents to relax the same and such power of relaxaƟon has not even been indicated in the adverƟsement concerned.” 10. It is perƟnent to menƟon that the Judgment dated 03.03.2022 was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.7298 of 2000 Ɵtled as Saket Sheoran Vs. Haryana Public Service Commission however the said SLP was dismissed vide Final Order dated 06.05.2022. Copies of the judgment dated 03.03.2022 and final order dated 06.05.2022 are being annexed herewith as Annexure R-9 and Annexure R-10, respecƟvely. 11. By relying upon the aforesaid judgments dated 03.03.2022 and 06.05.2022, the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in LPA No.2753 OF 2024 Ɵtled as AdiƟ vs. State of Haryana and another has dismissed on idenƟcal case NEELAM KUMARI 2026.08.12 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-6410-2026 (O&M) - 7 - where the candidature of the appellant/candidate therein was rejected on the same ground i.e. failure to upload a duly signed copy of the ApplicaƟon Form. Relevant excerpt from the judgment dated 12.11.2021 is being reproduced herein below:- “4. On 16.08.2024 the appellant, aŌer registering herself, applied online for consideraƟon of her candidature for appointment as PGT (Economics). However, she did not take out a print out of her applicaƟon form and aŌer checking her parƟculars as also appending her signatures thereto did not submit the same. On this ground, the Commission rejected her candidature. At that stage, the appellant knocked the doors of this Court through filing of a writ peƟƟon through which she submiƩed that on 16.08.2024 she had tried to upload her duly signed applicaƟon form but failed to do so on account of some technical glitch for which she could not be faulted. Accordingly, she sought issuance of direcƟons to the Commission to consider her candidature for appointment as PGT (Economics). A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the appellant's peƟƟon on the ground that she had failed to comply with the terms of the adverƟsement. Such judgment is challenged through the present intra Court appeal. 5. to 7. Xx xx XX XX 8. AdmiƩedly, the appellant did not upload her applicaƟon form aŌer appending her signatures thereto. According to the appellant, she had tried to do so on 16.08.2024 but due to a technical glitch could not. Since. the last date to apply was 20.08.2024, therefore, even if we accept the afore explanaƟon offered by the appellant, nothing precluded her from uploading her duly signed applicaƟon form on 17.08.2024 or 18.08.2024 or 19.08.2024 or even on 20.08.2024. It is not the case of the appellant that she even tried to upload her duly signed applicaƟon form from 17.08.2024 Ɵll NEELAM KUMARI 2026.08.12 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-6410-2026 (O&M) - 8 - 20.08.2024. Even otherwise, this plea of the appellant seems to be improbable because we are informed by the learned counsel for the Commission that on 16.08.2024 as many as 431 candidates had successfully applied for consideraƟon of their candidature on the given website. In these facts, at this stage, to accept the appellant's plea would also upset the enƟre selecƟon process and result in chaos especially when the afore reproduced clauses 6 and 7 of the adverƟsement have not been challenged by the appellant. 9. to 11. XXX XX XXX XX 12. In the light of the afore facts and the law laid down by this Court in Saket Sheoran's case (supra) and Rajendra Patel's case (supra) by the Allahabad High Court with which we respecƞully concur, we find no merit in the instant appeal. A copy of the Judgment dated 12.11.2024 passed in LPA No. 2753 of 2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure R-11.” 12. The reason cited by the peƟƟoner for failing to submit the correct form in response to the NoƟce dated 20.02.2026 (Annexure P-8), is that she was geƫng married on 19.2.2026. The peƟƟoner has stated in para 8 of the present Writ PeƟƟon that she was busy in her marriage therefore could not check the email as she was out of reach of the mobile phone due to hecƟc schedule and she came to know about the said error on 25.02.2026 aŌer which she immediately sent the correct copy to the respondent Commission. Merely to say “mistake on the part of the peƟƟoner was due to oversight and not intenƟonal” consƟtutes no ground to interfere with the recruitment process; especially in view of the legal posiƟon noted above. 13. Moreover, thereaŌer, interviews of the eligible candidates have even been held on 2/3.3.2026; final result of which has been announced on NEELAM KUMARI 2026.08.12 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-6410-2026 (O&M) - 9 - 16.3.2026 (Annexure R-8). Vide order dated 27.2.2026 passed by Predecessor Bench, peƟƟoner was permiƩed to provisionally appear in the interview; and it was directed that her result be kept in sealed cover. However, no relaxaƟon can be granted to the peƟƟoner, nor can the peƟƟoner claim the same as a maƩer of right in the absence of any such discreƟonary clause in the AdverƟsement/Corrigendum concerned. Even otherwise, in view of the undisputed legal posiƟon noted above, no relief is admissible to the peƟƟoner. 14. It is to be appreciated that it is imperaƟve that simple instrucƟons and Ɵmelines sƟpulated in submiƫng applicaƟon forms, be adhered to. This is necessary not just to maintain the sancƟty of the process but also to prevent possible chaos that would result if rules and condiƟons are permiƩed to be flouted or are not adhered to. This discipline and alertness is especially required if the candidate is aspiring to a public posiƟon. 15. Accordingly, in view of the above noted factual and legal posiƟon, the present Civil Writ PeƟƟon stands dismissed. 16. Pending applicaƟon(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) 07.08.2026 JUDGE Neelam Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No NEELAM KUMARI 2026.08.12 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh