Disposed¶24

Rajesh Kumar v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC16 May 2025CWP/10922/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP-10922-2019 (O&M); Rajesh Kumar v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission; Forester recruitment, Forest Department; Advertisement No.12 of 2015, Category No.12; benefit-of-marks/answer-key claim (questions 9, 46, 53, 95); BC-A category written cut-off 122; selection mark 141, waiting-list mark 139; sealed-cover result 129 (114 written + 15 viva voce); writ petition disposed of as infructuous; Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.; decided 16.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; petition disposed of as having been rendered infructuous; the sealed-cover result was perused and returned to learned State Counsel; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of. ¶24

Rajesh Kumar Vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of 04 marks for questions No. 9, 46, 53 and 95 so as to exceed the BC-A category cut-off and qualify for the interview. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

Even if the benefit of the three disputed questions were extended, the petitioner's total score would be around 117 marks, below the BC-A written-examination cut-off of 122, so he would in any case not be eligible.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

As per the final result, 141 marks were required for selection and 139 for the waiting list; the petitioner still falls short of the same.

¶23

Key takeaways

The writ petition was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.), CWP-10922-2019 (O&M), decided 16.05.2025 — Rajesh Kumar v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission and another. The petitioner sought directions to be called for interview to the post of Forester, Forest Department (Advertisement No.12 of 2015, Category No.12), claiming denial of the benefit of 04 marks for questions No. 9, 46, 53 and 95, which would have placed him above the BC-A category cut-off. Under an interim order he had provisionally participated in the interview; his sealed-cover result showed 114 marks (written) + 15 marks (viva voce) = 129. The State reported that the last selected candidate secured 141 marks and the last waiting-list candidate 139 marks; on an expert report, benefit of one question stood extended, leaving three in dispute. The Court held that even conceding those three questions the petitioner would score about 117, below the BC-A written cut-off of 122, and short of the 141/139 marks, and therefore disposed of the writ petition as infructuous, returned the result to State counsel, and disposed of pending miscellaneous applications.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

218

¶3

CWP-10922-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.05.2025

RAJESH KUMAR

......Petitioner

VERSUS

HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ANOTHER

¶8

.......Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

¶10

¶11

Present: - Ms. Parbeen Kumari Dharwal, Advocate for Ms. Gunjan Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Tapan Kumar, DAG, Haryana.

¶13

¶14

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

¶15

The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondents to call the petitioner for the interview for the post of Forester, Forest Department against advertisement No.12 of 2015, Category No.12 having secured more marks than the last candidate called for interview.

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner had claimed that the benefit of 04 marks against question No. 9, 46, 53 and 95 has not been extended to him and that if the benefit of the said 04 questions is extended, the marks of the

¶17

VISHAL SHARMA 2025.05.23 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

-2-

¶19

CWP-10922-2019 (O&M)

¶20

petitioner would exceed the cut off marks against the BC-A category and he would be qualified to participate in the interview process.

¶21

Under interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner was provisionally permitted to participate in the interview process. The result in the sealed cover has been produced before this Court as per which the petitioner has secured 114 marks in the written examination and 15 marks in the Viva voce and a grand total of 129 marks.

¶22

Learned State Counsel has informed that as per the final result prepared, the last selected candidate had secured a total of 141 marks whereas the last candidate in the waiting list had secured 139 marks.

¶23

Learned State Counsel further informs that on seeking report from the experts, benefit of 01 question had been extended to the petitioner and hence, the dispute would be only with respect to three questions. For the sake of argument, even if the benefit of these three questions is extended to the petitioner, yet, the total score of the petitioner would be around 117 marks. Since the cut-off in the written examination for BC-A category is 122 marks, hence, the petitioner in any case would not be eligible. Further, as per the final result, for being selected, the marks required to be obtained was 141 and 139 for the waiting list. The petitioner still falls short of the same.

¶24