Qualifying Marks in CSAT Do Not Override Mandatory OMR Instructions; HPSC Can Disqualify Candidate for Leaving More Than 10% Questions Undarkened: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Name: Mohd. Sahid v. Haryana Public Service Commission and Another

Date of Judgment: 23 June 2026

Citation: CWP-19324 of 2026

Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a candidate who qualifies the CSAT (Paper-II) by securing the prescribed qualifying marks cannot claim eligibility for the HCS Main Examination if he violates a mandatory condition of the examination scheme by leaving more than 10% of the questions without darkening any option on the OMR sheet. The Court reiterated that examination instructions contained in the advertisement are binding upon every candidate, and a participant who takes part in the selection process with full knowledge of such conditions cannot subsequently challenge them after suffering disqualification.

Summary: The petitioner challenged the order of the Haryana Public Service Commission rejecting his candidature for admission to the HCS (Executive Branch) Main Examination. Although he had secured more than the prescribed 33% qualifying marks in CSAT (Paper-II) and more than 54% marks in General Studies (Paper-I), he was declared disqualified because he had left more than 10% of the questions without darkening any of the prescribed options on the OMR sheet, contrary to the conditions contained in the advertisement.

The petitioner argued that since CSAT was only a qualifying paper and its marks were not to be counted for preparing merit, his candidature ought not to have been rejected on the basis of an alleged violation occurring in that paper. He further contended that candidates with lower marks in General Studies had been permitted to appear in the Main Examination.

Rejecting these submissions, the High Court held that the petitioner’s disqualification did not arise from his performance in CSAT but from non-compliance with a mandatory examination instruction expressly incorporated in the advertisement. The Court observed that the condition requiring candidates to darken one of the prescribed circles for every question, including the “E” option for unattempted questions, was an independent eligibility requirement governing the conduct of the examination.

The Court further relied upon the earlier Division Bench judgment in Sujata v. Haryana Public Service Commission, which had upheld the validity of an identical clause providing for disqualification where a candidate leaves more than 10% of the questions without darkening any option. Reiterating the settled principle that a candidate cannot challenge the terms of an advertisement after voluntarily participating in the selection process, the Court found no illegality in the Commission’s decision.

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the petitioner’s disqualification and held that the Haryana Public Service Commission had rightly denied him admission to the HCS Main Examination for violating the mandatory OMR instructions contained in the advertisement, notwithstanding that he had secured the prescribed qualifying marks in CSAT.