Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Limited Judicial Review of HPSC Answer Keys, Dismisses Challenge to Preliminary Exam Result Holds Courts Cannot Substitute Expert Opinion on Answer Keys
Case Name: Vardhman Ranjan v. State of Haryana and Another & Connected Matters
Date of Judgment: 15 June 2026
Citation: CWP-15972-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that courts should not interfere with answer keys finalized by subject experts unless the candidate establishes a manifest and indisputable error. In case of any doubt regarding the correctness of an answer, the benefit must go to the examining authority. The Court also held that candidates have no vested right to file cross-objections against objections submitted by other candidates unless such a procedure is specifically provided under the applicable rules or advertisement. Accordingly, the HPSC’s revised answer key and preliminary examination result were upheld.
Summary: The petitions challenged the result of the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) Preliminary Examination conducted pursuant to Advertisement No. 22/2026. The petitioners contended that several answers in the final answer key were incorrect and inconsistent with authentic sources, resulting in an erroneous evaluation of candidates. They further argued that the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) finalized the revised answer key without granting candidates an opportunity to respond to objections raised by others.
The HPSC submitted that all objections received after publication of the provisional answer key were referred to independent subject experts. Based on expert recommendations, the answer key was revised and the examination results were declared. During the pendency of the petitions, the Commission again sought a second expert opinion pursuant to the Court’s directions, and the experts reaffirmed the correctness of the final answer key.
Relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, U.P.P.S.C. v. Rahul Singh, High Court of Tripura v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee, and earlier decisions of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the Court reiterated that judicial review in academic matters is extremely limited. Courts cannot substitute the opinion of subject experts unless the answer key suffers from an obvious and indisputable error requiring no inferential reasoning.
The Court examined each disputed question and found that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate any manifest error in the expert opinion. Even with respect to Question No. 59, where some ambiguity existed, the Court held that settled law requires the benefit of doubt to be extended to the examining authority rather than the candidate.
The Court also rejected the argument that candidates should have been permitted to file cross-objections after consideration of objections by subject experts. It observed that neither the governing rules nor the advertisement prescribed such a procedure, and accepting such a contention would lead to an endless cycle of objections, thereby frustrating the timely completion of the recruitment process.
Consequently, the Court upheld the integrity of the selection process and refused to interfere with the HPSC preliminary examination results.
Decision: All the connected writ petitions were dismissed. The Court upheld the revised answer key and preliminary examination results prepared by the Haryana Public Service Commission and declined to interfere with the ongoing selection process.