The High Court had dismissed petitioner Diksha Kalson's plea on the ground that once she appeared in the examination she was disallowed from challenging Clause 33 of the Advertisement that barred re-evaluation of the paper.

Noting that in view of clause 33 of the advertisement dated November 7, 2023 under which re-evaluation of answer sheets was not allowed, a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said, "We find no fault with the view taken by the High Court on the judicial side."

However, the Bench requested the High Court "to consider the representation sympathetically, regardless of the view taken on the judicial side in the impugned judgments," after senior counsel Sanjay R Hegde pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that against 39 vacancies reserved for Scheduled Caste category candidates, only nine such candidates were included in the final selection list.

"If that is the case, we grant liberty to the petitioner, as well as to other reserved category candidates, who may be placed higher than her in the merit list, to make a representation before the High Court on the administrative side, seeking relaxation of the condition of 45% minimum total marks prescribed for reserved category candidates," the top court said in its order dated March 20.

As Hegde submitted that 30 vacancies remained to be filled in the Scheduled Caste category, the Bench asked the petitioner to make a representation to the administrative side of the High Court, seeking relaxation of the minimum 45% marks prescribed for the Scheduled Caste category candidates.

The Haryana Public Service Commission’s January 2024 advertisement for Civil Judge (Junior Division) recruitment prescribed a minimum of 45% marks — equivalent to 495 out of 1100 — in the mains examination for Scheduled Caste candidates. Kalson scored 493.10 marks — 1.9 marks less than the prescribed minimum marks - leading to her exclusion from the selection process. She was denied re-evaluation in view of Clause 33 of the advertisement that expressly barred it.