Punjab and Haryana HC Dismisses Plea for E-Admit Card After Applicant Failed to Upload PDF Form for Nine Months

Justice Nidhi Gupta dismissed a writ petition seeking an e-admit card for the Assistant District Attorney exam, holding that the petitioner's own carelessness in not completing the application upload process was not a ground for court intervention.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh on 2 July 2026 dismissed a civil writ petition filed by Angrej Brar, an aspirant for the post of Assistant District Attorney in the Haryana Prosecution Department. Brar had sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226/227 of the Constitution directing the respondent authority to accept his application and issue an e-admit card for the examination scheduled on 5 July 2026. Justice Nidhi Gupta, sitting singly, found that the petitioner's application had been rendered “INCOMPLETE” entirely due to his own failure to take a printout of the submitted form, convert it to PDF, and upload it on the portal — a step he did not take at any point during the nearly ten months between the application deadline and the exam date.

The Recruitment Process and What Went Wrong

The Haryana Department of Personnel and Training published Advertisement No. 18/2025 on 8 August 2025 inviting applications for the post of Assistant District Attorney in the Prosecution Department. The online application window ran from 13 August 2025 to 2 September 2025. Angrej Brar submitted his application bearing No. ADA32185 within the stipulated period along with the requisite fee and documents.

The e-admit card issuance date was originally set as 21 June 2026, which was later extended to 27 June 2026. When Brar attempted to download his e-admit card on 27 June 2026, he found that his application had been marked incomplete. He then travelled from his native place to the office of respondent No. 2 on 29 June 2026, where, with the help of clerical staff, he learnt the reason: after submitting the online form, he was required to take a printout, convert it into a PDF, and upload it back on the portal. He had not done so.

Brar filed CWP-19660-2026 on that basis, arguing before the court that this was a mere technical lapse that did not show as a mandatory step before submission was completed on the portal, and that it should not be used to block his career prospects.

Petitioner's Argument: A Technical Oversight, Not Wilful Default

Ms. Savita Rana, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, placed on record the averment in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, which stated that Brar came to know only afterwards that he was supposed to take a printout, convert it into a PDF, and upload the same on the portal, and that this step did not show as a mandatory tab before submission was completed. The submission was that this was a technical issue and not an intentional default, and that denying the e-admit card on this ground would cause irreparable prejudice to the petitioner's future career.

Brar's counsel further contended that the petitioner's computer-related knowledge was limited, making it harder for him to navigate the technical requirement. The court was asked to direct respondent No. 2 to permit upload of the PDF and thereafter issue the e-admit card.

State's Opposition and the Court's Assessment

Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the respondent-State, opposed the petition, contending that the e-admit card was withheld solely on account of the petitioner's own mistake and that the writ petition deserved dismissal.

Justice Nidhi Gupta accepted this position. The court observed that it was the petitioner's own admitted case that the e-admit card could not be issued because he failed to take a printout, convert the form to PDF, and upload it. The court characterised this as “rank carelessness” on the petitioner's part in submitting the application.

The court drew particular attention to the timeline. The advertisement was published on 8 August 2025. The application was submitted by the closing date of 2 September 2025. The e-admit card issuance date was ultimately extended to 27 June 2026. During the entire intervening period from 2 September 2025 to 27 June 2026 — approximately nine months — the petitioner made no attempt to verify that his application was in order or that it had been submitted in compliance with the rules. He discovered the problem only on 27 June 2026 and reached the respondent's office only on 29 June 2026, with the examination just days away on 5 July 2026.

The court rejected the submission that the mistake was one of oversight rather than intention, holding that this was not a sufficient ground to interfere with the examination process, especially when the examination was imminent and the petitioner himself had failed to comply with the stipulated requirements.

On the plea of limited computer knowledge, Justice Gupta was equally unimpressed, observing that computers are omnipresent and essential for survival in today's age, and that this constituted no ground for the direction sought.

Adherence to Recruitment Instructions and the Supreme Court's Position

Justice Gupta set out the broader principle underlying the dismissal. It is imperative, the court held, that simple instructions and timelines in submitting application forms be adhered to — not merely to maintain the sanctity of the process but also to prevent the chaos that would result if rules and conditions are permitted to be flouted. This discipline, the court added, is especially required when a candidate is aspiring to a public position.

The court drew support from the Supreme Court's decision in Mohit Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, decided on 15 May 2025 (Law Finder Doc Id # 2730841). In that case the Supreme Court held that the terms of an advertisement issued in connection with a selection process must be scrupulously followed, and that non-compliance results in adverse consequences for the aspirant. The Supreme Court's reasoning, as quoted by Justice Gupta, was that once an advertisement is issued for public employment, it is the responsibility of an aspirant to read and understand the terms. If any term is perceived as ambiguous, the aspirant ought to seek clarity before or during the process, and may participate without prejudice to rights. But an aspirant who takes a calculated chance based on his own understanding and later emerges unsuccessful cannot ordinarily challenge the process on the ground that the disputed term was capable of being understood differently.

The Supreme Court further held that courts should lean in favour of the recruiting authority's understanding of its own advertisement, particularly after aspirants have participated without raising any demur. Justice Gupta applied this position to the present facts: the petitioner raised no query, sought no clarification, and made no attempt to verify compliance for nine months.

Outcome

The civil writ petition CWP-19660-2026 was dismissed. All pending applications in the matter were also disposed of. The examination for the post of Assistant District Attorney in the Haryana Prosecution Department was set to proceed on 5 July 2026 without any court-directed inclusion of the petitioner.