Ravinder Kumar And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
IN TH
214
Ravinder K
State of Ha
CORAM: HON
Present:- Mr. A
Ms. R
Mr. P
Mr. G
NIDHI GUPTA, J .
HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AN
D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-1744
Date of De
1-2026 (O&M)
ecision:- 02.11.2026
umar and others
… Petitioners
Versus
aryana and others
... Respondents
N'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
A
Ajit Singh Lamba, Advocate and
Rhea Annie, Advocate for the pe
etitioners.
Parveen Mehta, AAG, Haryana.
G. S. Sandhu, Advocate for respo
ondent No.2-HPSC.
Prese
ent Civil Writ Petition under Art
ticles 226 of the Constitution of
f
India has been fil
led by the petitioners for issuan
nce of a writ order or direction,
,
especially in the
e nature of certiorari for qua
ashing the Advertisement no.
.
19/2025 dated
08.08.2025 (Annexure P-1); a
and the impugned scheme of
f
screening syllabu
s announced vide announceme
ent dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure
e
P-2) for the posts
s of Assistant Engineer (Civil), P
ublic Works (B&R) Department,
,
Haryana and Sub
Divisional Engineer (Civil), Panc
hayati Raj Department, Haryana
a
issued in further
rance and of advertisement N
No. 19/2025 dated 08.08.2025
5
(Annexure P-1) fo
or which the examination is sch
heduled for 14.06.2026; and for
r
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.04 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-17441-2026
issuance of an ap
6 (O&M) - 2 -
ppropriate writ, order or direct
tion, especially in the nature of
f
mandamus direc
cting the respondents to wit
thdraw/modify the impugned
d
announcement d
dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure P-
-2) and to prescribe a syllabus
s
having substantia
al technical civil engineering com
mponent in accordance with the
e
nature of posts,
prescribed technical qualificat
tions, service rules and duties
s
attached to the
posts in question; and also fo
r issuance of directions to the
e
respondents tha
at during the pendency of th
he present writ petition, the
e
respondents may
y kindly be restrained from c
conducting the Screening Test
t
scheduled for 14
4.06.2026 vide Annexure P-3 o
on the basis of the impugned
d
screening schem
me and syllabus announced v
vide notice dated 22.08.2025
5
(Annexure P-2).
2. It is i
inter alia submitted by ld. coun
sel for the petitioners that vide
e
Advertisement N
o. 19/2025 dated 08.08.2025 (A
Annexure P-1), respondent No.
.
2/Haryana Public
Service Commission (hereinafte
er referred to as the 'HPSC') had
d
invited online app
plications from eligible candidat
tes for appointment to Group-B
B
posts of: (i) Ass
sistant Engineer (Civil) in Pub
blic Works (B&R) Department
t
Haryana; (ii) Mu
nicipal Engineer (Civil) in Muni
icipal Corporation, Urban Local
l
Bodies Departme
ent Haryana; and (iii) Sub Divisio
onal Engineer (Civil) Panchayati
i
Raj in Developme
ent and Panchayats Department
Haryana.
3. Ld. c
counsel submits that the petit
tioners are regular-degree Civil
l
Engineers. Petitio
oners 1 to 3 are serving Assista
nt Engineers in the Irrigation &
&
Water Resources
s Department with NOCs (Anne
exure P-8). In the present writ
t
petition, the petit
tioners are aggrieved of and hav
ve laid challenge to the Scheme
e
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.04 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-17441-2026
and Syllabus of th
6 (O&M) - 3 -
he Screening Test notified on 22
2.08.2025 (Annexure P-2) under
r
Advertisement N
o. 19/2025 dated 08.08.2025 (
(Annexure P-1) for the posts of
f
Assistant Engine
er (Civil), PWD (B&R) and S
ub Divisional Engineer (Civil),
,
Panchayati Raj, i
nsofar as the Screening Test e
xcludes every Civil Engineering
g
subject and scree
ens candidates solely on General
Studies.
4. It is s
submitted that the petitioners d
do not question (i) the power of
f
the Commission t
to hold a Screening Test; (ii) the
e three-stage pattern; or (iii) the
e
relevance of gene
eral awareness as a component.
The challenge is confined to an
n
elimination criter
rion that wholly excludes the co
ore competence of a specialised
d
technical post.
5. It is p
pointed out that the undisputed
d facts are that: a) The Screening
g
Test has 100 Mult
tiple Choice Questions, a 25% c
ut-off, and only candidates four
r
times the numbe
er of posts proceed to the Su
bject Knowledge Test (SKT); b)
)
marks of the Scre
eening Test are not counted; c)
) The Screening Test syllabus is
s
entirely general,
while the Subject Test consiste
d entirely of Engineering topics
s
and carries 87.5%
% weightage; d) The Service Ru
les are silent on the method of
f
direct recruitmen
nt; e) The only reason offered
for departing from the earlier
r
technical pattern
n is that the Commission is
s "evolving with the current
t
situation/circums
stances"; f) The advertisement
t remained in abeyance under
r
orders dated 2
6.08.2025 and 25.03.2026 in
n CWP-25104-2025, and the
e
Combined Screen
ning Test was announced only o
on 14.05.2026; g) The State has
s
adopted the C
ommission’s reply vide orde
er dated 10.06.2026; h) no
o
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.04 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-17441-2026
requisitioning De
6 (O&M) - 4 -
epartment has offered any ind
dependent justification for the
e
impugned action.
.
6. Ld. C
Counsel argues that the Screenin
ng Test is an elimination test and
d
must satisfy the
rational-nexus requirement. O
Only four times the number of
f
posts proceed to
the Subject Knowledge Test (SKT
T). Resultantly, a candidate with
h
superior engineer
ring knowledge can be eliminate
ed without that knowledge ever
r
being assessed. It
t is submitted that it is material
that the marks obtained in the
e
Screening Test ar
re not carried forward. Even th
hough a Division Bench of this
s
Court in judgmen
nt dated 23.4.2026 passed in L
LPA-3171-2025 HPSC v. Lakhan
n
Singh and conne
cted appeals, has held that: "th
hough the Screening Test is said
d
to be only qualif
fying in nature, but its merit w
will become relevant, once it is
s
found that only
four times the number of c
candidates is to be called for
r
subsequent asses
ssment." In the said case, the
HPSC's appeals concerned the
e
post of Assistant
t District Attorney under Adve
ertisement No. 18/2025 dated
d
8.08.2025. This ad
dvertisement was issued the sam
me day as the present one, with
h
the identical scre
eening syllabus and scheme (25
5% minimum marks; four times
s
the posts; marks
not counted). The Division Benc
ch "found substance in the view
w
taken by the le
earned Single Judge that the
e paramount consideration is
s
knowledge of the
e core field, "which does not find
d part of the Screening Test"”. It
t
also held that th
e test's merit " will become rele
evant " because only four times
s
the posts procee
ed to the next level. Only afte
er that finding did the learned
d
Advocate Genera
al offer a modified pattern of 5
50% subject questions with ten
n
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.04 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-17441-2026
times the posts
6 (O&M) - 5 -
called, expressly confined to A
ADA. It is urged that the same
e
pattern is require
ed to be applied to the present ca
ase as well.
7. Ld. C
Counsel further submits that E
Exclusion of the core subject is
s
irrational and se
elf-contradictory. The respond
ents prescribe a regular Civil
l
Engineering degr
ree as the essential qualificatio
on and a wholly technical SKT
T
carrying 87.5% w
weightage—thereby acknowledg
ging technical knowledge as the
e
paramount cons
sideration—yet the threshold
filter tests none of it. The
e
qualification is re
educed to a mere ticket of en
ntry. Supervision, maintenance,
,
estimation and co
osting of public works are engin
eering functions (Haryana PWD
D
Code, Chapters 6
6.5 and 6.6); and the PWD (B&
&R) Class-II Rules, 1965 require
e
fitness "for activ
ve outdoor duties". These dut
ties furnish no rationale for a
a
threshold test con
nfined to History, Culture, and C
urrent Events.
8. It is
submitted that the impugned
action is also an unexplained
d
departure from
the Commission's own consis
stent practice. For SDE (Civil),
,
Development &
Panchayats Department (Ann
ouncement dated 12.04.2023,
,
Annexure P-4), a
bout 80% of screening questio
ons were from Civil Engineering
g
and about 20%
from general awareness. For A
AE (Civil/Mechanical/Electrical),
,
Irrigation (Advt. N
No. 59/2023 and Announcemen
nt dated 08.07.2024, Annexures
s
P-5 and P-6), bra
anch-specific technical syllabi we
ere prescribed at the screening
g
stage. The 3-stag
ge pattern is thus not in issue; t
the syllabus is. No expert study,
,
departmental co
onsultation or reason is disclo
osed for deviating from past
t
practice. The only
y reason given is that the Comm
ission is "evolving".
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.04 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-17441-2026
09. It is
6 (O&M) - 6 -
further submitted that Posts i
n different departments under
r
different Rules a
re subjected to one common,
wholly non-technical Screening
g
Test without any
y disclosed basis, further evide
ncing non-application of mind.
.
Moreover, it is
relevant to note that the pe
titioners are not unsuccessful
l
candidates challe
nging the process after participa
ating in it.
10. It is
accordingly prayed that the pr
resent writ petition be allowed
d
and that “ a writ
t in the nature of certiorari be
e issued for the Advertisement
t
No.19/2025 date
ed 08.08.2025 (Annexure P-1)
and as well as the impugned
d
scheme of scree
ening examination and screen
ning syllabus announced vide
e
announcement d
dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure P
P-2) for the posts of Assistant
t
Engineer (Civil),
Public Works (B&R) Departme
ent, Haryana and Sub Division
n
Engineer (Civil), P
Panchayati Raj Department, Ha
aryana issued in furtherance of
f
Advertisement N
No.19/2025 dated 08.08.2025 (
( Annexure P-1) for which the
e
examination is sc
cheduled for 14.06.2026; and a w
writ in the nature of mandamus
s
be issued direc
cting the respondents to wit
thdraw/modify the impugned
d
announcement d
dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure P-
2) and to prescribe a syllabus
s
having substantia
al technical civil engineering com
mponent in accordance with the
e
nature of posts,
prescribed technical qualifica
tions, service rules and duties
s
attached to the p
osts in question.”
11. Per c
contra , ld. counsel appearing f
for respondent No. 2/HPSC has
s
strongly rebutted
d arguments advanced on behalf
f of the petitioners and submits
s
that the entire is
ssue sought to be raised by th
he petitioners stands settled by
y
judgment dated
31.10.2025(Annexure R-2/3) pa
assed by Co-ordinate Bench of
f
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.04 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-17441-2026
this Court in CW
6 (O&M) - 7 -
WP-32117-2025 titled as Amit A
Ahalawat vs. State of Haryana
a
and others . Accor
rdingly prays for dismissal of the
e present writ petition.
12. No o
other argument is made on be
ehalf of the ld. counsel for the
e
parties. I have h
eard the ld. counsel and perus
sed the case file and record in
n
detail. I find no m
merit in the submissions advance
ed on behalf of the petitioners.
13. The
primary contention of the peti
itioners is that the syllabus for
r
Screening Test an
nnounced vide the impugned An
nnouncement dated 22.08.2025
5
(Annexure P-2) h
as no nexus with the post soug
ght to be filled i.e. post of Civil
l
Engineer; as the
e syllabus for the Screening T
Test is related 100% to non-
-
engineering subje
ects and is therefore not relevan
nt.
14. How
wever, the said argument on
behalf of the petitioners is
s
misconceived an
d fallacious. In the present ca
ase, syllabus specified for the
e
Screening Test is a
as under: -
“ Sch
eme/Pattern of Exam :-
1. Sc
creening Test
(a) Total number of MCQs: 100
0
(b) Total Marks: 100
(C) Time duration of the exam: 0
02 hours
d) All questions carry equal mar
rks
e) Each question will have five
meant for a situation where a
question un-attempted.
options. The fifth option will be
e
e
candidate intends to leave the
(f) One-fourth mark will be ded
ducted for each wrong answer.
(g) In case, a candidate neit
ther attempts a question nor
bble, then One-fourth mark will
r
darkens the fifth option/bub
be deducted for each such q
(h) The medium of exam will be
l
uestion.
e English and Hindi.
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.04 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-17441-2026
6 (O&M) - 8 -
(i) A candidate will have to se
ecure a minimum of 25% marks
s
to clear the Screening Test.
(j) Candidates four times the
e number of advertised posts
s
e
d
alongwith bracketed candida
Subject Knowledge Test, pr
the minimum cut-off marks o
(k) The marks obtained by the c
ates, if any, will be called for the
rovided that they have secured
of 25%.
candidates in the Screening Test
al selection because it is meant
gory-wise candidates.
(
t
t
will not be counted for fina
only for shortlisting of categ
S
Syllabus for the Screening Test is
s as under: -
G
General Science
C
Current Events of National and In
nternational Importance
H
History of India
In
ndian and World Geography
In
ndian Culture, Indian Polity and
Indian Economy
G
General Mental ability (Reasonin
ng and Analytical abilities)
B
m
g
Basic numeracy (numbers an
magnitude etc., - Class X level
graphs, tables, data sufficiency e
nd their relations, order and
d
l), Data interpretation (charts,
etc. – Class X Level).
H
Haryana GK- History, Geography,
, Polity, Economy, Culture etc.”
15. The
relevance and importance of th
he above said syllabus has been
n
admitted by the p
petitioners themselves in para 9
9(C) of the present writ petition,
,
as follows: -
“9. ……… C) Because the Hary
yana Public Works Department
t
Code applicable to engineerin
ng departments including Public
c
Works (Buildings & Road
ds), Irrigation, Public Health
h
Engineering, Urban Local
Bodies and Panchayati Raj
j
Departments unequivocally
y recognizes that officers
s
appointed against the posts i
in question perform specialized
d
technical functions involv
ving execution, supervision,
maintenance and manageme
ent of vital public infrastructure
e
and engineering works dir
rectly affecting public safety,
structural integrity and util
lization of public funds. It is
s
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.04 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-17441-2026
6 (O&M) - 9 -
pertinent to mention that ev
ven in the service rules for the
e
post, the examination within t
the department for the purposes
s
of promotion to the class tw
wo post is only on the basis of
f
technical subjects and which
also fortifies the fact that the
e
essence of selection the pos
st is not based on any other
r
general criteria.”
16. Thus
s, the petitioners admit that
besides the core subject of
f
engineering, offic
cers would also require knowled
dge of other subjects in order to
o
perform their du
uties which includes “ specialize
ed technical functions involving
g
execution, supe
rvision, maintenance and m
management of vital public
c
infrastructure an
d engineering works directly af
ffecting public safety, structural
l
integrity and utili
ization of public funds.” The pet
titioners have admitted that the
e
post would not
just entail raising structures
but would involve specialised
d
technical function
ns; for which the petitioners wo
ould obviously require skills and
d
abilities and know
wledge beyond just the course
e subject. Mere straitjacket and
limited knowledg
ge would not suffice.
17. Even
n otherwise, a perusal of the abo
ove syllabus makes it very clear
r
that it cannot be
said that any of the subjects me
entioned therein are extraneous
s
or alien and have
e no Nexus for appointment to
o the post in question. General
l
science includes
chemistry and physics, which
h are essential ingredients of
f
engineering. Know
wledge of important National a
nd international Current events
s
is important to
stay abreast of and updated
with the latest developments,
,
including in the
field of engineering. Even judg
ges and lawyers are constantly
y
brushing up thei
ir knowledge with the latest j
judgments as the law evolves.
.
Further, one can
always learn from history, espe
cially in India when as long ago
o
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.04 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-17441-2026
as Harappa and R
6 (O&M) - 10 -
Rakhi Gari, the drainage system
m was likely more efficient, than
n
even today in som
me places. Knowledge of geogra
aphy and geology would also be
e
imperative. And s
so on so forth. Therefore, it is m
my clear view that by no stretch
h
of the imaginatio
on, can it be said that the Impug
gned syllabus has no connection
n
with the post sou
ught to be filled.
18. In an
ny event, it is trite law that this
Court is not the subject expert;
;
and can therefor
re not substitute its view for th
hat of the expert body. It is not
t
disputed by ld. co
ounsel for the petitioners that it
is an established position in law
w
that the Commis
ssion/HPSC is the expert body w
which, in consultation with the
e
State Department
ts, is competent to decide with
regard to the subjects for which
h
a candidate is req
quired to be tested for shortlist
ting for undergoing the Subject
t
Knowledge Test.
This Court cannot enter into
the domain of the HPSC and
d
exercise power v
vested in the HPSC, as this Cou
urt does not have the required
expertise to dete
rmine the appropriate criteria fo
or selection.
19. Furth
hermore, the said issue has bee
en considered and decided by a
a
coordinate Bench
h in case of Amit Ahalawat (sup
pra). Wherein, for appointment
t
to post of Assist
ant Environmental Engineer, id
dentical syllabus as the present
t
one had been pre
escribed for the Screening Test. T
Thus, in identical circumstances,
,
similar argument
ts were rejected by the Coordin
nate Bench after examining the
e
entire case law on
n the issue, for reasons very suc
ccinctly and pithily encapsulated
d
as under: -
“ 6. T
The general trend in recruitmen
t to government jobs continues
s
to re
ely heavily on bookish knowledg
ge. The examinations conducted
d
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.04 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-17441-2026
6 (O&M) - 11 -
for t
this purpose tend to emphasiz
ze upon rote learning and the
e
mech
hanical reiteration of facts r
rather than assessing critical
l
think
king or practical problem-solvin
ng abilities. Such an approach
h
often
n fails to account for creat
tivity, adaptability, emotional
l
intel
ligence and other such skills t
that are essential for effective
e
adm
inistration, especially in the c
context of public service. It is
s
certa
ainly a welcome step when t
the authorities responsible for
r
recru
uitment look beyond the traditio
onal norms and adopt a process
s
that
attempts to gauge a candidate
e’s overall intelligence quotient
t
and
situational judgment. Such sele
ection processes are more likely
y
to a
appoint well-rounded public s
servants capable of nuanced
d
appli
ication of the knowledge.
7. As
s far as the integration of gener
ral awareness into the selection
n
crite
rion is concerned, this Court is
of the considered opinion that
t
the s
same cannot be considered irre
elevant especially for posts that
t
requ
uire interdisciplinary considerati
ions. It is entirely justifiable to
o
expe
ect future public servants to hav
ve cognitive alertness, practical
l
decis
sion making capacity with a c
constitutional sensibility and a
a
sense
e of civic awareness. Moreove
er, the very nature of the job
b
dem
ands that the officers are awa
are of scientific advancements,
socio
o-economic trends and public po
olicy developments to serve the
e
peop
ple to the best of their abilities. T
Thus, general knowledge exams
s
go b
beyond testing memory and de
elve into the field of analytical
l
comp
prehension ensuring that the
candidate can identify issues,
conn
nect diverse subjects, predict con
nsequences and make informed
d
decis
sions.
8. Fu
urther still, it is trite law that C
Courts must not to interfere in
n
recru
uitment process when the adver
rtisement qua the same is clear
r
and
within the legal framework.
It is the prerogative of the
e
emp
loyer to lay down an eligibility
y criterion as it alone can best
t
judg
e suitability of a candidate for t
the advertised role. A two-Judge
e
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.04 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-17441-2026
6 (O&M) - 12 -
benc
ch of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
t in Maharashtra Public Service
e
Com
mission through its Secretary
vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade
e
and
others (2019) 6 SCC 362 , speaki
ing through Justice Navin Sinha,
has m
made the following observations
s in this regard:
“10. The essential qualificatio
ons for appointment to a post
t
are for the employer to decid
de. The employer may prescribe
e
additional or desirable qualifi
fications, including any grant of
f
preference. It is the employe
er who is best suited to decide
e
the requirements a candidate
e must possess according to the
e
needs of the employer and
the nature of work. The court
t
cannot lay down the conditio
ons of eligibility, much less can
n
it delve into the issue with reg
gard to desirable qualifications
s
being at par with the essenti
ial eligibility by an interpretive
e
re-writing of the advertisem
ment. Questions of equivalence
e
will also fall outside the dom
main of judicial review. If the
e
language of the advertiseme
ent and the rules are clear, the
e
Court cannot sit in judgmen
t over the same. If there is an
n
ambiguity in the advertiseme
ent or it is contrary to any rules
s
or law the matter has to go b
back to the appointing authority
y
after appropriate orders, to p
proceed in accordance with law.
In no case can the Court, in th
he garb of judicial review, sit in
n
the chair of the appointing a
authority to decide what is best
t
for the employer and inte
erpret the conditions of the
e
advertisement contrary to the
e plain language of the same.”
(emphasis added)
9. Th
he respondent-HPSC chose to
make a policy modification by
y
chan
nging the Screening Test syllabus
s in view of the significant back-
-
log o
of vacancies from the recruitm
ment process of the year 2023.
Learn
ned counsel for the petitioner h
has argued against exclusion of
f
engin
neering subjects from the Screen
ning Test, however, a candidate
e
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.04 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-17441-2026
6 (O&M) - 13 -
does
s not have a vested right to be
e subjected to the exact same
e
stand
dards of the last recruitment
cycle. Further, allowing candi-
-
date
es to instruct the recruiting agen
ncy regarding examination pat-
-
tern
and eligibility criteria would h
ave an unwarranted contagion
n
effec
ct, much to the detriment of al
ll stakeholders. It must also be
e
note
ed that the candidates are due
e to be subjected to a subject
t
know
wledge test once they qualify for
r it by obtaining a generous 25%
%
mark
ks in the Screening Test. A two-
-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Su-
-
prem
me Court in Satya Dev Bhagaur
r and others vs. State of Rajas-
-
than
n and others (2022) 5 SCC 314 al
lso reiterated that Courts should
d
not i
instinctively interfere in policy m
matters unless the same is palp-
-
ably
arbitrary. Speaking through Ju
ustice B.R. Gavai, the following
g
was
held:
“16. It is trite that the Courts
would be slow in interfering in
n
the policy matters, unless the
e policy is found to be palpably
y
discriminatory and arbitrary.
This court would not interfere
e
with the policy decision when
a State is in a position to point
t
out that there is intelligible dif
ifferentia in application of policy
y
and that such intelligible diffe
erentia has a nexus with the ob-
-
ject sought to be achieved.
17. This Court in the case of
f Krishnan Kakkanth v. Govern-
-
ment of Kerala and others,
(1997) 9 SCC 495 has observed
d
thus:
"36. To ascertain unre
in the context of Article
necessary to enter upo
the wisdom in the polic
ment. It is immaterial w
prehensive policy decisi
equally immaterial if it
policy decision is unwise
asonableness and arbitrariness
e 14 of the Constitution, it is not
s
t
t
-
-
s
e
on any exercise for finding out
cy decision of the State Govern-
whether a better or more com-
ion could have been taken. It is
t can be demonstrated that the
e and is likely to defeat the pur-
-
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.04 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-17441-2026
6 (O&M) - 14 -
pose for which such de
the policy decision is d
trary and not informed
suffers from the vice of
statute or provisions of
cision cannot be struck
mind that except for th
public policy in the cont
tionality, courts should
ocean of public policy".
ecision has been taken. Unless
s
emonstrably capricious or arbi-
-
t
y
by any reason whatsoever or it
f discrimination or infringes any
f the Constitution, the policy de-
-
n
a
k down. It should be borne in
he limited purpose of testing a
text of illegality and unconstitu-
-
d
avoid "embarking on uncharted
10.
It would not meet the objectiv
ve standards of logic and justice
e
if the
e Courts step into the shoes of
f domain experts and substitute
e
their
r conclusions with its own. The
demands of the job and nature
e
of in
nteractions it forces can only be
e most accurately predicted by
y
the e
employer. Therefore, the establ
lishing screening criteria aiming
g
at se
electing all-rounded candidates c
cannot be held to be violative of
f
Artic
cles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
n. The same has also been accu-
-
ratel
ly summarized by a Division Be
ench of this Court in Ashish Ku-
-
mar’
’s case (supra), wherein speaki
ing through Justice M.S. Rama-
-
chan
ndra Rao, the following was obse
erved:
44. As stated in the policy dt.
bility Test was introduced to s
cruitment process for Govern
posts and Group-D posts wit
therein.
05.05.2022, the Common Eligi-
simplify and standardise the re-
nment employment to Group-C
-
-
C
d
th some exceptions mentioned
45. We agree with the said v
candidates who have obtained
the skilled test and/or written
relegating the meritorious ca
failure of the very objective
large number of candidates in
a substantial number of them
examination to the tune of 2,9
view since consideration of all
d minimum marks in the CET for
l
r
f
n
n
d
n
n test would have the effect of
andidates, and would result in
of the policy particularly when
n lakhs appeared for the CET and
had qualified in the CET written
92,000 for the posts in question.
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.04 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-17441-2026
6 (O&M) - 15 -
46. In our opinion, the claus
shortlisting is in tune with th
meritorious candidates in Gov
number of meritorious cand
would expedite the conducti
and avoid unnecessary litiga
cants.
se in the policy providing for
r
g
he main objective of inducting
vernment jobs, and limiting the
didates by way of shortlisting
e
g
n
ing of examination, evaluation
ation by non-meritorious appli-
-
47. Counsel for petitioners als
ing was for only General kn
ledge, but knowledge in subj
securing of 70% marks ther
test/written examination in th
cannot be permitted.
so pleaded that in the CET, test-
nowledge and computer know-
-
-
e
ject was not tested; and so the
rein for appearing in the skill
he relevant subject for the post,
l
,
48. In the case of The Univer
Rao and Another AIR 1965 (S
it would normally be wise an
decisions of academic matter
miliar with the problems they
can be.
rsity of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda
SC) 491 , the Supreme Court held
a
d
e
nd safe for the Courts to leave
rs to experts who are more fa-
y face than the Courts generally
-
y
49. In Sanchit Bansal v. The Jo
oint Admission Board (JAB) and
d
Ors (2012) 1 SCC 157 , the Supr
reme Court held as under:
"In Maharashtra State
Board of Secondary and Higher
r
Secondary Education v.
. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth
h
1984 (4) SCC 27 it was o
observed thus:
"...the Court sho
substitute its own
dent and proper
in preference to t
al men possessin
experience of act
cational institutio
trolling them."
ould be extremely reluctant to
o
n views as to what is wise, pru-
-
s
in relation to academic matters
those formulated by profession-
ng technical expertise and rich
tual day-to-day working of edu-
-
h
-
-
ons and the departments con-
In All India Council for T
Technical Education v. Surinder
r
Kumar Dhawan 2009 (1
11) SCC 726 this Court held:
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.04 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-17441-2026
6 (O&M) - 16 -
" The courts are
academic or tech
themselves in p
technical bodies
matters involving
nical education.
petitions from ind
to permit courses
convenience or t
vide better oppor
that one course is
lising the repercu
education in gene
cation and deter
tion. ....The role
education and ro
a simple rule. If
policy or an issue
courts keep their
law or principle o
plied or enforced,
with education
in."(Emphasis Sup
neither equipped nor have the
hnical background to substitute
place of statutory professional
e
e
l
c
and take decisions in academic
g standards and quality of tech-
-
g
If the courts start entertaining
dividual institutions or students
s of their choice, either for their
to alleviate hardship or to pro-
s
r
-
k
rtunities, or because they think
s equal to another, without rea-
ussions on the field of technical
-
l
-
-
n
eral, it will lead to chaos in edu-
rioration in standards of educa-
of statutory expert bodies on
ole of courts are well defined by
y
it is a question of educational
e involving academic matter, the
l
e
r hands off. If any provision of
of law has to be interpreted, ap-
f
-
d
p
, with reference to or connected
n, the courts will step
pplied)
This Court also repeated
dly held that courts are not con-
-
cerned with the practic
cality or wisdom of the policies
s
but only illegality.
In Directorate of Film F
Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain
n
2007 (4) SCC 737 this Co
ourt held:
"Courts do not a
thorities examini
and appropriaten
ad visors to the
which the execut
scope of judicial r
of the Governmen
the fundamental
and cannot act as appellate au-
-
y
ing the correctness, suitability
ness of a policy, nor are courts
s
y
e
y
executive on matters of policy
tive is entitled to formulate. The
review when examining a policy
nt is to check whether it violates
l rights of the citizens or is op-
s
-
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.04 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-17441-2026
6 (O&M) - 17 -
posed to the pro
opposed to any s
arbitrary. Courts
ther on the groun
ground that a be
is available. Lega
wisdom or sound
of judicial review
ovisions of the Constitution, or
r
y
tatutory provision or manifestly
cannot interfere with policy ei-
nd that it is erroneous or on the
etter, fairer or wiser alternative
-
e
e
e
ality of the policy, and not the
dness of the policy, is the subject
t
"
(Emphasis Supplied)
)
19. Thus, the process
of evaluation, the process of
f
ranking and selection of
of candidates for admission with
h
reference to their perfo
ormance, the process of achiev-
-
ing the objective of se
electing candidates who will be
e
better equipped to suit
t the specialised courses, are all
l
technical matters in aca
ademic field and courts will not
t
interfere in such proces
sses. Courts will interfere only if
f
they find all or any of
f the following: (i) violation of
f
any enactment, statut
tory Rules and Regulations; (ii)
)
mala fides or ulterior m
motives to assist or enable pri-
-
vate gain to someone
or cause prejudice to anyone;
;
or where the procedur
re adopted is arbitrary and ca-
-
pricious. An action is s
said to be arbitrary and capri-
-
cious, where a person,
, in particular, a person in au-
-
thority does any action
n based on individual discretion
n
by ignoring prescribed
d rules, procedure or law and
d
the action or decision i
is founded on prejudice or pre-
-
ference rather than re
eason or fact. To be termed as
s
arbitrary and capriciou
us, the action must be illogical
l
and whimsical, somet
thing without any reasonable
e
explanation. When an
n action or procedure seeks to
o
achieve a specific obje
ective in furtherance of educa-
-
tion in a bona fide m
manner, by adopting a process
s
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.04 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-17441-2026
6 (O&M) - 18 -
which is uniform and n
non-discriminatory, it cannot be
e
described as arbitrary o
or capricious or mala fide."
50. The Commission is
an expert body and is compe-
-
tent to decide in consu
ultation with the State depart-
-
ments on what subjects
s a candidate is to be tested for
r
short listing. It is not th
he province of this Court to en-
-
ter into the domain of
f the Commission and exercise
e
the power vested in t
the Commission as this Court
t
does not have the requ
uisite expertise in that regard.
51. It is not the case o
of the petitioners that General
l
knowledge or analytica
al skills tested in the CET are
e
wholly irrelevant for ap
ppointment to the posts in ques-
-
tion.”
(emphasis added)
11.
In light of the authoritative pr
ronouncements rendered by the
e
Divis
sion Bench of this Court and th
he Hon’ble Supreme Court, this
s
Cour
rt is of the considered view that
t the decision in Lakhan Singh’s
s
case
(supra) is distinguishable on f
facts and would not govern the
e
prese
ent controversy.”
20. Ther
refore, the issue in the present
case already stands settled by
y
this Court by afo
resaid judgment dated 31.10.20
025 (Annexure R-2/3) rendered
d
in case of Amit A
Ahlawat (supra). Even the judg
gment in case of Lakhan Singh
h
supra has been
considered and rejected by t
he coordinate Bench. I am in
n
complete agreem
ment with the above view.
21. Refe
rence may also be made to ano
other judgment of this Court in
n
CWP-32139-2025
5 Amit Ahalawat vs. State of Ha
aryana and others, as under:-
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.04 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-17441-2026
6 (O&M) - 19 -
“Besides, the impugned syllab
bus makes it apparent that it is
s
for the purpose of testing th
he knowledge of candidates on
n
different topics of science, cu
urrent events, history of India,
Indian and world Geography
y, Indian culture, Indian polity,
general mental ability, and b
basic numeracy as well as data
a
interpretation of Class X lev
vel. General awareness can be
e
gauged from one's knowledge
e of these subjects/topics. If the
e
Commission thinks the can
ndidates to be appointed as
s
Lecturer in Civil Engineering sh
hould also possess basic general
l
knowledge, there is nothing w
wrong about it. No subject can
n
be taught and studied in iso
olation. It has to relate to the
e
social set-up, as also to vario
ous other subjects. A generally
y
aware person will be a step a
ahead to understand, co-relate,
expound and explore the sub
bject. Hence, a candidate with
h
such knowledge and analytic
cal skills is likely to be a better
r
teacher as compared to the
one lacking that mindfulness.
And it cannot be said that syl
llabus of the Screening Test has
s
no nexus or relevance for
recruitment to the posts in
n
question. Further, so far as th
he subject of Civil Engineering is
s
concerned, the scheme of exam
mination prescribes an exclusive
e
test for it, viz., Subject Know
wledge Test. This obviates the
e
requirement of testing the ca
andidates with respect to their
r
knowledge of the subject in th
he Screening Test.”
22. In vie
ew of the abovesaid factual and
d legal position, the present writ
t
petition stands di
ismissed.
23. Pend
ding application(s), if any, also st
ands disposed of.
02.11.2026
Neelam
( N
NIDHI GUPTA )
JUDGE
Whethe
Whethe
er speaking /reasoned Yes / No
er Reportable Yes / No
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.04 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document