Tejpal Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.03.2026 Tejpal Singh ......Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and another ......Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
Present:
Mr. Mandeep Kumar Dhot, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, D.A.G., Punjab.
*** ANOOP CHITKARA J.
1.
Challenging the order dated 27.03.2026 passed by the Single Judge of this Court in CWP1755-2026, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner to allow him to appear in examinations as a Special Category candidate was dismissed, the appellant has come up before this Court by filing the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2.
Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a "Specially abled person" and has 100% visual impairment (blind). Counsel further submits that the appellant has applied for the post with the Punjab State Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2025, and filled the form through a cybercafé. He instructed the computer operator to enter his category as "Physically handicapped Category", however, the computer operator filled in the form as a candidate in the General Category. Pursuant to the examination conducted, the petitioner scored 60 marks in the preliminary examination; he was declared ineligible for appearance in the main examination in the General Category. However, he relates to the category from General (71) to a person with Disabilities (Blind and Low Vision) (76-A), and he is eligible to appear in the Main Examination, as candidates who secured 40 marks were declared successful and eligible for the Main Examination.
3.
Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Single Bench fell into error while considering the facts of the case and argued that the petitioner is 100% specially abled person and his disability certificate dated 01.01.2021, duly annexed by him in the writ petition, at Annexure P-2, which was issued by him prior to the advertisement issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission. Ld. Counsel additionally submits that the petitioner was duly
provided with a scribe for the writing examination and Annexure P4-Admit Card issued to him. From the very initiation of the process, the petitioner was a candidate of the reserved category. Ld. Counsel for the appellant also submits that the appellant filed a representation for a change of category, which was rejected by the authority without proper consideration. 4.
We have gone through the record and perused the reply dated 12.03.2026, which is part of the judicial file, and the same reads as follows: - "4. That it is imperative to mention here that the petitioner while filling online application form entered his main category i.e. Category Name for the Posts as General Category, Category Code 71 and petitioner also entered Category Name for Fee Calculation as General with regard to the ibid posts, which is clearly mentioned in the application form (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner.
However, petitioner filled the Physically Handicapped Details in his online application form (Annexure P-3) for extra time and requirement of scribe regarding ibid posts, As petitioner filled the main category as General Category (Code 71) while submitting his online application form (Annexure P-3), therefore, petitioner has been considered under General Category (Code 71) only and not under the Physically Handicapped Category. Accordingly, Admit Card (Annexure P-5) was also issued to the petitioner in the General Category (Code 71) only. Consequently, result of the petitioner has also been declared in the General Category (Code 71)....
5. That it is also noteworthy to mention here with regard to the representation dated 12.01.2026 (Annexure P-8) sent by the petitioner regarding change of category, Commission office provided detailed reply to the petitioner via email dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure R-2) wherein it is clarified that after due consideration of your email/representation regarding change of category, the Commission has decided that the category once filled cannot be changed under any circumstances. Therefore, in light of clauses mentioned in the 'General Information for the candidates' in the advertisement, your category cannot be changed at this stage."
5.
Further, as per the advertisement, no person is entitled to change the category, as mentioned by the learned Single Judge in para 7 of the judgment, which reads as follows:- "As per the settled principle of law, the terms and conditions of the employment notice are sacrosanct and are to be strictly complied with by all competing candidates and no change can be allowed in the applied category, once the said category has been duly filled by the candidate himself/herself. In the present case, the petitioner had applied
under the General category. As per the 'General Information for the Candidates' mentioned in the advertisement, Note 5 of point No.2.1 provides as under: - "The candidates are advised to select their category carefully and with due diligence, as the category once selected by a candidate will not be changed under any circumstances and if found ineligible under that category will have their candidature rejected."
Point No.6.2 stipulates thus: - "Candidates are advised to fill their details in the online application form carefully e.g., Name, Father's Name, Date of Birth, Category for post, Qualification, Experience, Photo and Signature, Category for fee, etc. After the final submission of online application form by the candidate, NO CHANGE WILL BE ALLOWED, and the candidate will be responsible for any mistake in the data filled in the online application form. CATEGORY ONCE SELECTED BY CANDIDATE WILL NOT BE CHANGED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES."
Point No.6.9 provides that no change will be allowed after submission of the application. Same reads as under: - "Candidate should carefully fill the details in the Online Application Form and click on the "SUBMIT" button at the, end of the Online Application Format. Before pressing the "SUBMIT" button, candidates are advised to verify every detail filled in the application. NO CHANGE/EDIT WILL BE ALLOWED AFTER SUBMITTING THE APPLICATION FORM.
Further, Note (1c) of point No.11 of the advertisement provides as under: - "CATEGORY ONCE FILLED BY THE CANDIDATE SHALL BE SACROSANCT AND NO CHANGE SHALL BE PERMITTED AT ANY STAGE OF THE EXAMINATION."
6.
Vide detailed judgment dated 27.03.2026, the Single Bench of this Court had dismissed the writ petition and discussed the case law in detail, and on the face of it, there is no illegality in the judgment.
7.
In addition, the petition did not cite any IP address to establish that the form was filled out at a cyber cafe rather than at his home. To rule out the possibility that the form was filled out
from his home with the assistance of family members, it was incumbent upon him to annex the internet IP address and the computer's MAC address. Needless to say, a computer has a unique identity through its MAC address, and when it is connected to the internet, it is also assigned an IP address. To demonstrate that the form was filled out through a cyber cafe, it is incumbent upon the appellant to have mentioned not only the MAC address but also the IP address so that the Geolocation tagging could have been done to establish that the form was filled out from a cafe and not from any other place. Nor has any affidavit of the computer operator concerned been annexed to the writ petition by the appellant. However, this Court cannot take the evidence in LPA; it was for the candidate to establish his prima facie case. This is for the reason that there is no way to find out the stand of the appellant, as the form was filled out through a cafe where assistance was sought from a stranger. 8.
Secondly, the Public Service Commission provides a scribe to every candidate who belongs to the "Specially Abled category" or the general category who is unable to write the examination due to some physical injuries, as per the procedure. Simply because the Appellant was provided a scribe to write the examination would not automatically lead to a presumption that the form filled out in the "General Category" had to be treated as for the "Special category".
9.
Thirdly, the representation filed by the petitioner for a change of category on 12.01.2026, i.e., after declaration of the result.
10.
Given the above, the matter is not worth issuing notice because no ground is made out to interfere in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 11.
Consequently, the present LPA is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand dismissed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE (SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE 30.03.2026 Jyoti Sharma/ Anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes Whether reportable:
No.