The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) to revise the result of the Haryana Civil Services (HCS) preliminary examination, holding that it wrongly applied the priority mechanism meant for Ex-servicemen (ESM), Disabled Ex-servicemen (DESM) and their dependents at the shortlisting stage.
The court held that the recruitment advertisement restricted the operation of the priority mechanism to the final selection stage and not to the preliminary examination. However, it rejected a challenge to the final answer key, holding that objections raised by candidates had been examined by subject experts and did not call for interference.
Background of the Case
The directions were issued by Justice Sandeep Moudgil on a petition filed by an HCS aspirant who had appeared in the preliminary examination conducted on April 26 under Advertisement Number 22 of 2026. The petitioner challenged the result declared on May 4. Among other things, he submitted that the Commission had not adhered to the advertised shortlisting criteria and had not properly considered objections to certain questions in the provisional answer key.
The HPSC opposed the plea, contending that the result had been declared in accordance with the recruitment advertisement and the government instructions governing reservation for Ex-servicemen and their dependents. It argued that the priority criteria had been applied to ensure adequate representation of reserved-category candidates at the final stage of selection.
Court's Observations
After hearing the parties, Justice Moudgil observed that the principal issue requiring consideration was whether the Commission was justified in applying the reservation and priority criteria prescribed for Ex-servicemen, Disabled Ex-servicemen and their dependents at the stage of declaration of the preliminary examination result and shortlisting candidates for the Main Examination.
Examining the recruitment conditions, the court noted that Clause 17(xv)(E) of the advertisement prescribed the order of preference among different classes of Ex-servicemen candidates and specifically opened with the words “for preparation of final list of selection/appointment”.
The court noted that the Commission had itself admitted that while declaring the preliminary examination result it had applied the priority list contemplated under Clause 17(xv)(E).
Justice Moudgil observed: “The Commission has admitted that while declaring the result dated May 4 it shortlisted candidates by applying the priority list contemplated under Clause 17(xv)(E) granting the benefit of reservation to the ESM/DESM category candidates at the preliminary stage only.”
Referring to the material placed before the court, Justice Moudgil added: “The tabulation furnished by the Commission itself shows that candidates were shortlisted by giving preference to Disabled Ex-servicemen and their family members even at the preliminary stage in a clear violation of its own advertisement especially what the Clause 17(xv)(H) expressly prohibited in unambiguous terms.”
Legal Principles and Violation
Rejecting the Commission’s justification that such deviation was necessary to achieve the object underlying the reservation policy, the court observed: “The object of a policy cannot be invoked by defeating the express language present in it and interpreting it against its literal meaning.”
The court held that a recruiting agency was bound by the recruitment conditions notified in the advertisement and could not substitute them with a procedure of its own devising. Justice Moudgil observed: “The respondent-Commission, being a constitutional recruiting body, was under an obligation to faithfully implement the advertisement. It could neither dilute Clause 17(xv)(H) nor render it otiose by applying Clause 17(xv)(E) at a stage specifically prohibited by the advertisement itself.”
The court further held that making the priority list operational at the stage of declaration of the preliminary examination result was contrary to the language of the advertisement, contrary to the law laid down by a Division Bench, and contrary to the settled principle that a recruiting authority could not alter or supplement recruitment conditions after the process had commenced.
Verdict and Directions
Holding the Commission’s action unsustainable, Justice Moudgil ruled: “The action of the respondent-Commission in making the priority list operational at the stage of declaration of the preliminary examination result cannot be sustained.”
On the challenge to the answer key, the court found no merit in the petitioner’s contentions. It noted that objections received from candidates had been referred to subject experts and that even the disputed questions were again subjected to expert review during the pendency of the proceedings, but no further changes were recommended.
Allowing the petition in part, the court directed the Commission to revise the preliminary examination result by applying the reservation and preference provisions relating to Ex-servicemen strictly in accordance with Clause 17(xv)(H) of Advertisement No. 22 of 2026. The challenge to the final answer key was dismissed.
