Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harshdeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 30 March, 2026
1
CWP-8596 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-8596 of 2026
Date of decision: 30.03.2026
Harshdeep Singh
....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Shubham Bhardwaj, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Anu Chatrath, Sr. Addl. A.G., Punjab,
with Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for claiming the following reliefs:-
"A. Writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in short-listing the candidates combinly for the posts of DSP and DSP (Jail) along with other posts notified in the advertisement dated 03.09.2025 (Annexure P-2) being illegal and unreasonable and consequently to direct respondent No.3 to take the step to shortlist the candidates for the aforesaid vacancies of DSP and DSP (Jail) separately from other posts notified.
B. Writ of certiorari by quashing the result dated 12.02.2026 (Annexure P-4) of preliminary examination vide which the candidates were shortlisted provisionally for appearing in main examination.
C. To stay the main examination for the aforesaid posts during the pendency of the writ petition.
D. Writ of Certiorari against the Revised Answer Key dated 06.01.2026 (Annexure P-6) to the extent it pertains RAVINDER SINGH 2026.04.01 17:31 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 CWP-8596 of 2026 to Question Nos.14, 21, 61, 93 and 99 of Question Booklet Set-D (General Studies) of the Punjab State Civil Services Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination-2025. E. Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to correct the answers to Question Nos.14, 21, 61, 93 and 99 in accordance with authoritative academic and institutional sources and to re-evaluate the petitioner's OMR response sheet accordingly.
F. To direct the respondents to revise the petitioner's marks, and if found eligible on such re-evaluation, declare the petitioner qualified in the Preliminary Examination and permit him to participate in the subsequent stages of the selection process pursuant to Advertisement No.20251 dated 03.09.2025 (Annexure P-2).
G. To give opportunity to the petitioner to appear in the main examination after shortlisting candidates only who are below the age of 28 years for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police or in the alternative permit the petitioner to appear in the PSCSCCE Main Examination 2025 provisionally subject to the final outcome of this writ petition.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx"
2. The brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the present petition, are that respondent No.3-Punjab Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'Commission') advertised 322 posts of Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) and other allied posts (later on increased to 337 posts, vide addendum dated 03.09.2025) to be filled on the basis of Punjab State Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2025, vide advertisement No.20251 dated 02.01.2025 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner applied pursuant to the said advertisement under the general category and appeared in the preliminary examination conducted on 07.12.2025. The result of the preliminary examination has been declared by respondent No.3 on RAVINDER SINGH 2026.04.01 17:31 10.01.2026 with cut off marks for each category i.e. 100 marks. The I agree to specified portions of this document 3 CWP-8596 of 2026 main examination has been scheduled from 01.04.2026 to 10.04.2026.
Candidates equal to 12 to 13 times of the total vacancies advertised in each category were declared eligible for appearing in the main examination. Respondent No.3 has combined the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent (Jails)/District Probation Officer (Grade-II) with other posts despite the fact that maximum age limit for these two posts is 28 years whereas maximum age limit for other posts is 37 years as on 01.01.2025. Petitioner has secured 94 marks in the preliminary examination. Petitioner has moved a representation dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-8) to respondent No.3 to reconsider the cut-off or shortlisting criteria for the post of DSP separately, keeping in view the prescribed upper age limit of 28 years.
It is further pleaded that there is a serious dispute regarding correctness of answers in five questions of Set D of the preliminary examination.
3. On receipt of advance notice, short reply by way of affidavit of Charanjit Singh, PCS, Secretary, Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala, Punjab, on behalf of respondent No.3 has been filed, wherein the following stand has been taken:-
"3. That it is submitted that the said examination is a combined competitive examination for all branches of Punjab Civil Services. It is pertinent to mention here that for the Preliminary Examination, candidates do not apply for any particular service. It is a common exam and it is further submitted that as per the Punjab State Civil Services (Appointment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules 2009 amended on 03.01.2014 candidates equal to 13 times vacancies, advertised in each category i.e. General, Scheduled Caste, Backward Class etc are shortlisted from amongst those appearing in the RAVINDER SINGH 2026.04.01 17:31 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 CWP-8596 of 2026 Preliminary Examination for the Main Examination. That the marks of the last candidate in the 13 times candidates list for a specific category are the cut-off marks for that category. That it is further submitted as per the Punjab Civil Services(Executive) Rules there is no separate cut-off or minimum marks prescribed for any post/department/Service. It is pertinent to mention here that the candidates who secure equal and or more than the cut-off marks are declared eligible to appear in the Main Examination. It is further submitted that various cut-offs of various categories as described above were declared vide notice dated 12.02.2026 of the Commission (Annexure P-
4).
4. That it is submitted that candidates only fill the order of preference for service/post in the application form at the stage of filling the Online Application Form for the Main Competitive Examination. It is further submitted that shortlisting of candidates for Main Examination is also category wise i.e. General, Scheduled Caste, Backward Class etc and not Department/Service wise.
5. That it is submitted that Preliminary Examination is only a screening test as the marks obtained in this exam are not counted towards the final merit of the candidates. It is pertinent to mention here that for Punjab State Civil Services Combine Competitive Examination-2025, the final merit of the candidates is decided by combined total marks in Main Examination and Interview. That from amongst who appear in Mains Exam, candidates not more than three times the number of vacancies advertised in each category are called for the Interview. It is further submitted that among such shortlisted candidates for Interview those who have filled the preference for Deputy Superintendent of Police / Deputy Superintendent of Police (Jail) shall be called for physical tests. It is important to mention here that after the final result is declared, allocation of Department / Service is done by the Department of Personnel (State of Punjab) through Counselling. That it is thus amply clear that such shortlisting for Mains and Interview is done category wise and it is not feasible to shortlist candidates department wise as within the posts for a particular department category wise reservation is provided. It is pertinent to mention here that similar matter was duly adjudicated on 22.07.2021 by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 6935 of 2021 titled Shubham Bhardwaj versus State of Punjab and Others. This matter has already been decided. Copy of Order is attached for kind perusal of RAVINDER SINGH 2026.04.01 17:31 I agree to specified portions of this document 5 CWP-8596 of 2026 the Court (Annexure R-1). Thus it is submitted that the contention of the petitioner to direct the Respondent No.3 to take the step to shortlist the candidates for the aforesaid vacancy of DSP & DSP (Jail) separately from other posts notified and to stay the exam is devoid of Merits, just seems to be derail the recruitment process.
6. That it is submitted here that Commission conducted the Preliminary examination regarding ibid posts on 07.12.2025, thereafter, answer keys dated 08.12.2025 were uploaded on Commission's official website. That it is submitted that the candidates were allowed to put up objections to answer key if any vide public notice dated 08.12.2025 and were given four days from 08.12.2025 to 12.12.2025 regarding the same. Relevant extract of the notice dated 08.12.2025 is reiterated for perusal of the Hon'ble Court:
"2. Candidates are being given four days to deliberate and submit the objections. The objections will be referred to a body of experts. The issue may need to be referred to the paper setter also, for review. A decision is taken by the Commission based on all the opinions. The Commission may change the answer or allow more than one answer if recommended by the experts or withdraw the question altogether, based on the rationale given by the experts and Commission's decision thereon. In case, a question is withdrawn, all candidates will be given two (02) marks in Paper-1 (General Studies) and two and half (2.5) marks in Paper-2 (CSAT) irrespective of the fact whether the question has been attempted or not attempted by the candidate."
7. That it is submitted that in response to above, various objections raised by the candidates regarding the Answer Key received at Commission office. Afterwards, objections received from the candidates with regard to the Answer Key, were referred to the subject experts for advice/opinion. It is pertinent to mention here that after obtaining advice/opinion from the subject experts, the Revised/ Final Answer Key was prepared and published vide Public Notice dated 10.01.2026 regarding Paper-I i.e. General Studies and Paper-II i.e. CSAT on Commission's website. It is brought to notice of Hon'ble Court that the petitioner had NOT filed any objections to answer key within the stipulated period i.e. from 8.12.2025 to 12.12.2025. It is also brought to notice of Hon'ble Court that the questions RAVINDER SINGH challenged now by the petitioner i.e. questions no. 14, 21, 2026.04.01 17:31 I agree to specified portions of this document 6 CWP-8596 of 2026 61, 93 and 99 of Question Booklet Set-D (General Studies) had already been referred to experts because other candidates had filed objections with regard to these questions. The Revised/Final Answer key has been prepared after considering objections to questions no. 14, 21, 61, 93 and 99 of Question Booklet Set-D (General Studies). It is pertinent to mention here that similar matter where petitioners had not earlier filed objections within the stipulated period of filing objections was duly adjudicated on 28.05.2019 by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 24582 of 2018 titled Vinay Bansal and Others versus State of Punjab and Another. Copy of Order is attached for kind perusal of the Court (Annexure R-2). Thus the contention of the petitioner to quash the answer key is baseless and devoid of merit. "
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent Jails/District Probation Officer (Grade-II) form a different class from other posts covered under the PSCSCCE Examination 2025 and combining these two different categories with other categories is arbitrary. He further contended that exclusion of the petitioner from consideration for mains examination on the basis of erroneous answer key for determination of merit and cut-off is not sustainable in law.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is not eligible to participate in the main examination and he has no cause of action to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. She further submits that the process of selection is being carried out in accordance with the provisions of the advertisement and an Expert Panel was duly constituted by the Commission and objections were considered accordingly.
RAVINDER SINGH 2026.04.01 17:31 I agree to specified portions of this document 7 CWP-8596 of 2026
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner had secured 94 marks in the preliminary examination. Some candidates had filed objections against the answer key released by the Commission and after examining their objections by two members of the Expert Panel along with reference material, the Commission released the revised answer keys and on the basis of said revised answer keys, the cut-offs were announced on 09.01.2026 and the result was announced on 10.01.2026.
8. Similar question has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.11695 of 2023 titled as 'Navdeep Kaur v.
State of Punjab and others', decided on 01.06.2023 and other connected cases, wherein the prayer was made for quashing the final answer key in respect of various sets/codes of question papers of preliminary examination of the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch), which was held in pursuance to the advertisement dated 06.09.2022, and after considering judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanpur University, through Vice Chancellor and others v. Samir Gupta and others : 1983(4) SCC 309; Ran Vijay Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others : (2018) 2 SCC 357; H.P. Public Service Commission v.
Mukesh Thakur and others : 2010 (6) SCC 759; U.P.P.S.C. and others v. Rahul Singh and others : 2018 AIR (Supreme Court) 2861;
Haryana Public Service Commission v. State of Haryana and others, Civil Appeal No.7727 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (C) No.30800 of RAVINDER SINGH 2026.04.01 17:31 I agree to specified portions of this document 8 CWP-8596 of 2026 2018); High Court of Tripura through Registrar General v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and others : 2019(2) SCT 117 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No.698 of 2022 titled as 'Penaaz Dhillon v. State of Haryana and others', decided on 14.01.2022, it was held as under:-
"24. It is a settled position of law that judicial restraint is always to be exercised qua interference with answer keys provided by Expert Committees in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanpur University, through Vice Chancellor and others Vs. Samir Gupta and others, 1983(4) SCC 309, has observed as under:-
"16....... We agree that the key-answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct........."
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2018) 2 SCC 357, while dealing with the question of revaluation or scrutiny of answer sheets held as under:-
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:
(i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it;
(ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-
evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a RAVINDER SINGH 2026.04.01 17:31 process of rationalisation" and only in rare or I agree to specified portions of this document 9 CWP-8596 of 2026 exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;
(iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate - it has no Expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and
(v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate."
xx xx xx xx
31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse - exclude the suspect or offending question.
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 RAVINDER SINGH 2026.04.01 17:31 authorities before interfering with the efforts put in I agree to specified portions of this document 10 CWP-8596 of 2026 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 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."
26. Insofar as the argument that this Court not being an alien to the subject of law, should examine the objections raised as in appeal, is devoid of any merit, hence rejected. In this respect gainful reference can be made to a Division Bench Judgment of this High Court in CWP No. 698 of 2022, decided on 14.01.2022, titled as Penaaz Dhillon Vs. State of Haryana and others, wherein challenge was to the result of preliminary examination of the HCS (Judicial Branch) Examination 2020-21 for the post of Civil Judge (Jr. Division). Challenge had been raised to the answer key in the said case. While referring to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and others, 2010 (6) SCC 759, it was held that merely because the subject happens to be law, the Court would not arrogate to itself the powers of the Expert Committee.
27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while reiterating and reaffirming its earlier decisions, held as under in U.P.P.S.C and others Vs. Rahul Singh and others, 2018 AIR (Supreme Court) 2861:-
"12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The Constitutional Courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the RAVINDER SINGH correctness of the key answers."
2026.04.01 17:31 I agree to specified portions of this document 11 CWP-8596 of 2026
28. Details of objections raised by the petitioners, their consideration by the Expert Panel and their evaluation by the learned Recruitment Committee has been reproduced in the foregoing paras. We have also gone through the Original Report of the Expert Panel produced before us. Learned counsel for the petitioners had referred to the judgments, which have admittedly been considered by the Expert Panel as well as the learned Recruitment Committee. Having considered the recommendation of the Expert Committee as further considered, deliberated and decided by the learned Recruitment Committee, details of which as supplied to us and as have been reproduced in the foregoing paras, we find no glaring mistake or opinion which is unreasonable, calling for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the given factual matrix, we do not consider it necessary or appropriate to render a further detailed discussion on each and every individual question.
29. We do not find any such glaring discrepancy in the matter which calls for the matter being referred to another Expert Committee. Routine constitution of such Expert Committee/s has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana Public Service Commission Vs. State of Haryana and others, Civil Appeal No. 7727 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 30800 of 2018). In the said case, Haryana Public Service Commission, had undertaken the selection process to appoint 133 Assistant Professors of Geography (College), for which an objective type question paper was set up wherein candidates were required to answer 100 questions. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that out of 100 questions, most of them are either ambiguous or without correct answer key. Expert Committee was constituted, which on going through the question paper in detail gave its opinion regarding seven questions. Learned Single Judge on going through the question paper concluded that four more questions were ambiguous, therefore should be deleted from consideration. Division Bench in appeal against the decision of the learned Single Judge, while holding that it was not for the learned Single Judge to carry out the exercise of an expert, passed orders for appointing another Expert Committee, which was subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana Public Service Commission's case (Supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if judgment of Division Bench is allowed to stand, there would be no finality to the selection process and especially RAVINDER SINGH keeping in view the fact that there was no allegation as 2026.04.01 17:31 I agree to specified portions of this document 12 CWP-8596 of 2026 such against the Expert Committee, who in its wisdom had submitted its report.
30. We must note at this stage that much stress had been laid on the fact that deletion of question no.1 is unfair on the premise that the Expert Panel had recommended change of answer to question no.1 from option D to C and the same was accepted by the learned Recruitment Committee at the first instance on 13.02.2023. Therefore, deletion of question no.1 was incorrectly directed by the learned Recruitment Committee at a subsequent stage, working to the detriment of a number of candidates, who would otherwise have been eligible to take the Mains examination, having answered the said question correctly. However, we find no merit in this argument in view of the discussion in the foregoing paras. We further reiterate that having perused meeting note dated 17.02.2023 of the learned Recruitment Committee we find that decision to delete Question no.1 was a well deliberated process after taking note of 35 cross-objections which were received against the proposed answer key to question no.1. It is reiterated that we have deliberately not entered the realm of discussion on the individual questions as in terms of the arguments as raised before us for the reason that we do not find the opinion and the recommendation of the Expert Panel and the decision taken by the learned Recruitment Committee to be discrepant or unreasonable which calls for any interference. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ran Vijay Singh (Supra), in the event of doubt, benefit necessarily has to be given to the examination authority rather than the candidate and exclusion of an offending question has been found to be correct way out.
31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court of Tripura through Registrar General Vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and others, 2019 (2) SCT 117, held that the right to seek a writ of mandamus is based on the existence of a legal right and corresponding duty with the answering respondent to carry out public duty. In the absence of any provision, the writ Court, it is held would exercise its powers only in a situation which is rare and exceptional. No such exceptional circumstance has been pointed out in these writ petitions.
32. It is pertinent to note that there is no allegation whatsoever against the Expert Panel or the learned Recruitment Committee. In-fact, learned counsel for the RAVINDER SINGH petitioners have been at pains to express that there is 2026.04.01 17:31 I agree to specified portions of this document 13 CWP-8596 of 2026 categorically no allegation or any mala fide alleged either against the Expert Panel or learned Recruitment Committee and that they would point out only the discrepancies on the basis of which they seek relief."
9. To the similar effect is the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Balraj Singh v. State of Haryana and others : 2025 NCPHHC 69684, wherein also it has been held that the Court should exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of answer keys. Recently, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has also discussed the similar issue in Pratima Yadav and others v. State of Haryana and others : 2025 NCPHHC 139202, wherein also, a writ of certiorari was sought for quashing the final answer key (revised) released by the respondent-
Commission, pertaining to screening test for the post of Assistant Professor (College Cadre) Hindi against advertisement dated 02.08.2024, to the extent answers of 13 disputed questions were involved. In the said case also, the said 13 disputed questions were examined by the two Expert Committees and after considering the whole issue, it has been held as under:-
"5. It is apparent from the facts enumerated above that after conduct of Screening Test for the post in question on 10.08.2025, the Commission invited objections to the answer key which was uploaded on 11.08.2025. The objections received were duly considered by a panel of two subject experts who held senior academic positions in two different universities, and the final answer key was published/uploaded based upon their advice on 23.08.2025. Since the candidates were still not satisfied and had been persisting with their representations/objections, the Commission decided to take second opinion of the experts on the objections, and the same were sent to the subject RAVINDER SINGH experts again. This time the panel consisted of three 2026.04.01 17:31 I agree to specified portions of this document 14 CWP-8596 of 2026 experts; apart from the two who were originally there, a third one was also included. The objections were again examined and based upon experts' advice, the impugned revised answer key was uploaded on 08.09.2025, deleting two more questions.
6. This Court finds no reason to differ with the view taken by the subject experts after examining their reports, as there is no mala fide alleged or arbitrariness noticed in the entire exercise. Their recommendations are based upon reasons. The Commission has acted in a reasonable and fair manner in sending the objections to the subject experts, and declaring final answer key as well as the result only as per their recommendations. This Court finds no justifiable or compelling reason to go into the validity of some of the answers disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) on the basis of extracts of certain books appended to the petition; nor does it possess the domain knowledge to undertake the exercise. Also, there is no reason to doubt the advice of senior academicians, having expertise in the subject, who have examined the objections. Accordingly, no exception can be taken to the procedure followed by the Commission in declaring/revising the answer key for the Test."
10. To the similar effect is a recent judgment of this Court in CWP No.748 of 2018 titled as Paramjeet Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and another, decided on 03.12.2024.
11. The next grievance of the petitioner is that the result of the Preliminary Examination, which has been declared, was required to be declared in two distinct sets of posts. In this regard, he has categorized the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent Jails/District Probation Officer (Grade-Il) as one set and the other posts as second set. For this assertion, the plea, which has been taken, is that the maximum age limit is 28 years for set No. 1 whereas, for set No. 2, as mentioned above, the maximum age limit is 37 years as RAVINDER SINGH 2026.04.01 17:31 I agree to specified portions of this document 15 CWP-8596 of 2026 on 01.01.2025. His assertion is that there is a possibility that against the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent Jails/District Probation Officer (Grade-II), the number of candidates declared eligible for appearing in the Mains Examination may or may not be 12-13 times the advertised posts of this category. The competition, thus, in this category if it is less than 12-13 times the total vacancies, would be lesser. His primary contention is that in case the number of candidates being less for these posts, who have qualified for the Mains Examination, the merit in the Preliminary Examination should have gone lower in merit to fulfill the said shortfall in the number of candidates so that the mandate of the Statute is fulfilled which requires calling of candidates for the Mains Examination to the extent of 12-13 times the total vacancies. On this basis, challenge has been posed by the petitioner to the fixing of 12-13 times the total number of vacancies as the candidates to be called for participating in the written main examination for all.
12. The assertion of the petitioner trying to put the total number of posts into two different sets i.e. one for DSP and DSP (Jails) whereas the other posts i.e. Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch), Tehsildar etc. appears to be devoid of any merit. It is not supported by any Statutory Rules. This distinction, which was being sought to be drawn by the petitioner, is primarily based upon the fact that the upper age limit for set No. 1 i.e. DSPs' is 28 years whereas, for set No. 2, it is RAVINDER SINGH 2026.04.01 17:31 I agree to specified portions of this document 16 CWP-8596 of 2026 37 years apart from the factum that for the post of DSP/DSP (Jails) etc., there is a physical examination prior to the interview.
13. The case of the petitioner is based upon conjectures and surmises as on facts also, it has been found that there has been sufficient candidates at the stage of shortlisting for the Mains Examination as also for physical test and interview in the category, for which the petitioner has applied i.e. General (Male).
14. The petitioner has filed the instant petition on 18.03.2026 with the grievance that he has not been shortlisted for the Main Examination on account of certain wrong, vague/ambiguous questions i.e. Questions No.14, 21, 61, 93 and 99.
15. Concededly, the revised answer keys were released on 06.01.2026 and the Preliminary Examination result was, thereafter, declared on 10.01.2026, whereas the petitioner has approached this Court after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than two months when the Main Examination is already scheduled to be held on 01.04.2026 to 10.04.2026. The petitioner had not filed any objections to the answer key within the stipulated period from 08.12.2025 to 12.12.2025. The other candidates have approached this Court well in time by filing various petitions such as CWP-1950-2026 (Karanbeer Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others) and other connected cases, wherein the similar issue was involved with regard to the wrong/vague/ambiguous questions given in the Preliminary Examination and this Court sent the matter to the Vice Chancellor, RAVINDER SINGH 2026.04.01 17:31 I agree to specified portions of this document 17 CWP-8596 of 2026 Panjab University, Chandigarh for re-checking of the same by an expert committee. A person who is sitting numb and approached the Court at a belated stage is not entitled to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The precise claim of the petitioner at this belated stage cannot be adjudicated upon in terms of the facts and circumstances as narrated above.
16. Keeping in view the above, the factual matrix and the settled law, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner has no merit, which deserves to be and is dismissed accordingly.
30.03.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR)
R.S. JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
RAVINDER SINGH
2026.04.01 17:31
I agree to specified
portions of this document