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. The Bench held that the commission could not apply the priority mechanism meant for ex-servicemen, disabled ex-servicemen and their dependents while shortlisting candidates for the main exam when the recruitment advertisement restricted its operation to the final selection stage.
The court, however, 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. The directions by Justice Sandeep Moudgil came on a petition filed by an aspirant who appeared in the preliminary exam conducted on April 26.
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 the objections raised by him to certain questions in the provisional answer key had not been properly considered.
The commission 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. The petitioner was represented by senior advocate DS Patwalia, along with counsel Abhishek Masih.
The court 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 exam result and shortlisting candidates for the main exam.
Examining the recruitment conditions, the court noted that Clause 17(xv)(E) of the advertisement merely 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”.
It noted that the commission had admitted that while declaring the preliminary exam result, it had applied the priority list contemplated under the clause. It added: “The tabulation furnished by the Commission 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.”
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. “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,” it said.
Allowing the petition in part, the court directed the commission to revise the preliminary exam result by applying the reservation and preference provisions relating to ex-servicemen strictly in accordance with Clause 17(xv)(H).
