Last Updated on January 16, 2026 by Satish Mishra

The Punjab Haryana High Court dealt with multiple challenges to the PSTET 2017 results and related recruitments, focusing on issues like wrong answers (e.g., Question 131, where ‘C’ was later deemed correct for some), eligibility criteria cutoff dates (eligibility assessed on the last date of application), and revision of results after selection processes concluded, with courts often ruling that revised results couldn’t overturn finalized selections but granting marks for specific errors, impacting eligibility and potential appointments.

This is a case digest on Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test challenged in High Court Chandigarh wherein court partially allowed the petition and gave one mark to students who have given option ‘C’ as correct answer to question no. 131. If the new total of marks make them eligible, then they shall be entitled to apply for recruitment and date of online submissions may also be extended.

Key Issues & Rulings:

Wrong Answer Keys: Candidates challenged incorrect answers in the PSTET 2017, with the court granting extra marks (e.g., one mark for Q.131) if the revised total made them eligible, potentially extending application deadlines.
Eligibility Cutoff Dates: A major point was whether eligibility should be based on the original application date or the revised PSTET result date; courts generally held that eligibility is determined by the last date for application submission, preventing disruption of finalized selections.
Revised Results vs. Finalized Selection: The High Court dismissed pleas to reopen selection processes based on revised PSTET results, stating that candidates already appointed based on their eligibility at the time couldn’t be affected by later revisions.
Impact on Recruitment: When extra marks were awarded, courts directed authorities to prepare revised lists and consider petitioners for appointment if they fell within the new zone of consideration.
Lack of 2017 Exam: Some petitions noted the failure to conduct the PSTET in 2017 as required, affecting eligibility for the subsequent recruitment drive.

Now, let us have the judgment

Also Read- Chandigarh High Court Regularization in Government Job Case

Examples of Cases:

Birinderjit Singh vs. State of Punjab: Led to a committee decision on relief for petitioners based on the revised 2017 PSTET.
Shampa Arora vs. State of Punjab: Petitioners sought marks from a previous case (CWP 25794 of 2015) for the same paper, leading to a revised list being ordered.

In essence, the High Court aimed to balance fairness for candidates with errors in the test against the stability of ongoing teacher recruitments, often providing marks for genuine errors but not allowing widespread re-evaluation of concluded processes.

Rishu Goyal & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 20 March 2020

Petitioner

Rishu Goyal

Respondents

State of Punjab

In the instant case, the petitioners had appeared for the Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test (PSTET-2017) conducted on 25.02.2018. Upon the conclusion of the test, the concerned authorities invited objections to the answer key uploaded on 05.03.2018. The petitioner and some other similarly placed persons filed certain objections out of which some objections were accepted and the revised answer key was uploaded on 13.04.2018 along with the result of the test. The complaint of the petitioner was that the answer key wan not properly revised and certain answers uploaded in the revised answer key were also incorrect.

Also Read- Regularization Case in Punjab Haryana High Court

Although the Writ Petition has raised objections against a large number of answers in the revised answer key, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined her arguments to the answers related to Question No. 49, 96 and 131. The counsel argued that the answer in the revised Answer Key to Question No. 49 is incorrect and the same has been admitted by the Respondents. The correct answer to Question No. 49 is option ‘C’ whereas in the revised answer key option ‘B’ is mentioned. As far as Question No. 96 is concerned, the counsel argued, that there is an ambiguity because the Punjabi version of the said question does not give the unit of weight in respect of the correct answer. Therefore, all students must be the benefit of the doubt. And in respect of Question No. 131, the correct answer is option ‘C’ whereas the revised answer key mentions option B as the correct answer.

Also Read- Haryana Staff Selection Commission PTI Post Challenged in Supreme Court

The learned counsel for the State submitted that as far as Question No. 49 is concerned the revised answer key records option ‘C’ as the correct answer and thus, there is no mistake. Regarding Question No. 96, reliance was placed on note no. 10 in the question paper, which stated:

“The question paper will be both in English & Punjabi. In case of any doubt, the English version will be taken as final.”

Thus, the submission that candidates were unable to read the English Language cannot be accepted because all candidates have a basic knowledge of the English language as they aspire to be teachers in the near future. And as far as Question No. 131 is concerned the learned counsel maintained that option ‘B’ was the correct answer and not option ‘C’ as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Also Read- Dismissal Challenged Punjab Education Tribunal Upheld by High Court

The Learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court meticulously answered all the questions raised in the Writ Petition. The court observed that Question No. 49 pertained to the meaning of the expression “Tattsam Shabd”. A reference to the revised answer key indicates that option ‘C’ is the correct answer and hereby the petitioner also acknowledged the same. Thus, there is no error in the revised answer key as far Question No. 49 is concerned.

In Question No. 96, the question of ambiguity arose when the unit of weight was mentioned as ‘kilogram’ in the English language but the same was not mentioned for the Punjabi version, however a reference to note No. 10 shows that the English version would prevail. The Court observed that reliance upon Manmit Singh vs. State of Punjab and another,^[1] by the petitioner cannot be accepted. The Court opined that all applicants appearing for the Teachers Eligibility Test aspire to be teachers and it is reasonable to expect that they would have basic knowledge of the English Language. They cannot claim complete ignorance of the said language and if they do, then, they do not deserve to be appointed as teachers.

Regarding Question No. 131, the correct option according to the petitioners is ‘C’ while the answer mentioned in the revised answer key is ‘B’. The question related to average permissible noise levels as per the Environmental Protection Act. To validate the answer reference was made to the Schedule annexed with the Act wherein it was mentioned that the day time noise limit ‘in an area of silence zone’ is 50db. Option ‘C’ is 50db and therefore the petitioners are correct. Contentions on behalf of the respondent that the average of day time and night time noise level was the correct answer cannot be accepted.

Also Read- Appointment Against Sanctioned Posts Only

Consequently, the revised answer key is incorrect so far as Question No.131. The petitioners thereby are liable to receive the benefit of the said answer and deserve credit if one mark. The Writ Petition is partially allowed, all students who have marked option ‘C’ as the correct answer to Question No. 131 deserve to be awarded one mark. If the said addition to their total marks makes them eligible they shall be entitled to apply for the recruitment mentioned above. The respondents are directed to carry out the necessary revision by 23.03.2020 and consequently, the final submission date for the online application is extended 25.03.2020.

Also Read- Can Appointment Notification Change after Advertisement CAT Tribunal

For case specific advice please contact Punjab Haryana High Court Chandigarh best Lawyers Advocates in Mohali Panchkula Zirakpur Derabassi Kharar Baltana etc who have expertise in challenging the public examination like PSTET wherein objections to answer key are not revised properly and certain answers are incorrect.

Post Written by – Research Team of LegalSeva (LawFirm) of Satish Mishra Advocate. Responses from Google’s AI Overview included in Post.

Disclaimer: This is for informational purposes only. Consult a qualified lawyer for advice specific to your case.