Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Challenges to HPSC HCS Preliminary Exam Answer Key, Finds No Manifest Error

Ten petitioners who failed the HCS (Executive Branch) preliminary examination challenged seven disputed questions; Justice Jagmohan Bansal found no glaring error and declined to substitute expert opinion.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has dismissed ten writ petitions filed by unsuccessful candidates of the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and allied services preliminary examination held on 26 April 2026. Justice Jagmohan Bansal, sitting singly, disposed of all ten petitions by a common order dated 15 June 2026, holding that the answer key finalised by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) after two rounds of expert review did not contain any manifest or glaring error that would justify judicial interference. The court also rejected the argument that candidates were entitled to file cross-objections before the revised key was published.

The Examination and the Disputed Questions

HPSC issued Advertisement No. 22/2026 on 30 January 2026 for the post of HCS (Executive Branch) and other allied services. The selection process comprised a General Studies Examination and a Civil Services Aptitude Test (qualifying test), to be followed by a final examination.

The written test was conducted on 26 April 2026. Two days later, on 28 April 2026, HPSC uploaded a provisional answer key along with the question booklet and invited objections from candidates. Several candidates submitted objections, which were referred to subject experts. On the basis of the experts’ opinion, answers to a few questions were modified and a revised key was uploaded on 2 May 2026. The result was declared on 4 May 2026. None of the ten petitioners figured in the result.

The petitioners challenged Question Nos. 17, 30, 31, 32, 59 and 80 from the General Studies booklet and Question Nos. 6 and 50 from the Civil Services Aptitude Test booklet. For each question, the petitioners proposed a different correct answer from the one accepted by the expert panel. The disputes ranged across art forms, Haryana’s industrial base, the State’s fiscal deficit figures for Budget 2026–2027, tax revenue composition, the Parivar Pehchan Patra scheme, the basic structure doctrine, a calendar-arithmetic problem, and a logic question.

Petitioners’ Case: Wrong Answers and Denial of Cross-Objections

Counsel for the petitioners advanced two distinct lines of attack. First, they argued that both the provisional and the final answer keys were wrong with respect to the disputed questions and were contrary to reliable primary sources, including NCERT textbooks. They contended that the opinion of subject experts, while relevant, cannot be mechanically relied upon and that the authorities — including the court — must apply their minds before accepting expert opinion. On Question No. 59, concerning the Haryana Parivar Pehchan Act, 2021, the petitioners specifically argued that the expert’s answer was contrary to the statutory provisions themselves.

Second, the petitioners argued that the revised key was released without granting them any opportunity to file cross-objections to the objections raised by other candidates. They relied on a 2017 judgment of this court in Ramandeep Kaur v. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CWP No. 8015 of 2017) in support of this procedural grievance.

HPSC’s Defence: Expert Finality and No Entitlement to Cross-Objections

Counsel for HPSC submitted that all objections received from candidates were forwarded to subject experts. The revised key was prepared on the basis of the experts’ report. After the court’s interim order of 21 May 2026 directed the Commission to file an affidavit explaining how objections were adjudicated, the matter was referred to a second set of experts, who reiterated the same answers without any change.

On the procedural point, HPSC argued that there was no rule, regulation, or condition in the advertisement that required candidates to be confronted with objections raised by other candidates before the final key was published. The Commission had acted in a bona fide and transparent manner. HPSC also relied on the Supreme Court’s judgments in Ran Vijay Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2018) 2 SCC 357, and Bihar Staff Selection Commission and others v. Arun Kumar and others, (2020) 6 SCC 362, for the proposition that in the event of doubt, the benefit must go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Bansal surveyed the governing precedents before turning to the specific questions. From U.P.P.S.C. and another v. Rahul Singh and another, 2018 AIR (SC) 2861, the court extracted the settled rule that a candidate must demonstrate not merely that the answer key is incorrect but that the error is glaring, totally apparent, and requires no inferential process of reasoning. Constitutional courts must exercise great restraint and should be reluctant to entertain such challenges.

From Ran Vijay Singh, the court noted the five-point summary: courts should presume the correctness of the key; re-evaluation is permissible only in rare or exceptional cases where a material error is demonstrated without any inferential process; courts have no expertise in academic matters; and in the event of doubt, the benefit goes to the examination authority.

A Division Bench of this court in Navdeep Kaur v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 11695 of 2023, decided 1 June 2023) had held that in the absence of allegations against the expert panel or malafide on the part of respondents, the court cannot re-examine the answer key.

Applying these principles, Justice Bansal examined each disputed question. On the fiscal deficit question (Q. 31), the petitioners claimed the correct figure was 2.6%; a perusal of the Budget 2026–2027 showed the correct figure was 2.65%. The court rejected the petitioners’ contention that the difference was immaterial. On the tax revenue question (Q. 32), the petitioners claimed maximum tax revenue came from State GST followed by Stamps and Registration; the Budget showed it was State GST followed by share from Central Taxes. The expert answer was correct.

On Question No. 59 concerning the Haryana Parivar Pehchan Act, 2021, the court acknowledged doubt about the expert’s answer. However, applying the rule from Ran Vijay Singh and High Court of Tripura v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and others, (2019) 16 SCC 663, the court held that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the Selection Commission. For the remaining questions, the court found it could not conclusively hold that the answers suggested by the subject experts were manifestly incorrect, and there was therefore no scope to substitute the expert opinion.

On the cross-objections argument, the court noted that two earlier decisions of this court — a Division Bench in Sukhnoor Singh v. Haryana Public Service Commission (Law Finder Doc Id #2610722) and a co-ordinate bench in Amit and Others v. State of Haryana and Others (Law Finder Doc Id #2687746) — had already considered and distinguished Ramandeep Kaur, holding that no rule, regulation, or advertisement condition permitted candidates to file cross-objections. The court followed those decisions.

Justice Bansal also took note of the practical consequences. The examination in question was only the preliminary stage; the final examination was scheduled for the end of June 2026. Any interference at the behest of a small number of unsuccessful candidates would stall the entire selection process, to the detriment of the public at large and of the candidates who had already qualified for the final examination.

Outcome

Justice Jagmohan Bansal dismissed all ten writ petitions by the common order dated 15 June 2026. All pending applications in the connected matters were also disposed of. The court found no manifest error in the HPSC’s final answer key and no procedural obligation to afford candidates an opportunity to file cross-objections before the revised key was published.