CWP-8723-2018 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 207 CWP-8723-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.07.2026 Sheela Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Tapan Kumar Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Aman Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the letter dated 12.09.2013 (Annexure P-4) issued by respondent No.3, whereby the candidature of the petitioner for the post of J.B.T., has been rejected. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to grant appointment to the petitioner on the post of J.B.T. against the advertisement No.2/2012, Category No.1 with all consequential benefits as the similarly situated candidate i.e. respondent No.4 has been appointed by the official respondents on the post of J.B.T. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that respondent No.3/Board issued an advertisement No.2/2012 on MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.16 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-8723-2018 2 07.11.2012 (Annexure P-1) inviting application for 8763 (including 346 posts for backlog of PH(B/L) category) posts of Primary Teachers (PRT). As per the criteria laid down in the advertisement (Annexure P- 1), 67 marks were earmarked for academics and 33 marks were earmarked for interview for preparing the merit of the candidates for the purpose of selection to the post, in question. The petitioner, being eligible and meritorious, was called for interview and appeared before the Interview Committee on 18.07.2013 for verification of her original documents. At the time of verification, she produced all the requisite educational certificates and no deficiency was pointed out by the Committee. However, vide letter dated 12.09.2013 (Annexure P-4), her candidature was rejected on the ground that the detailed marksheet pertaining to her J.B.T. qualification had been issued on 08.01.2013, i.e. after the closing date prescribed for submission of online applications. Thereafter, the final result was declared on 14.08.2014 as discernible from Annexure P-5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner sought information under the RTI Act, 2005 and she came to know that respondent No.4, who had obtained the same qualification from the same institution and whose J.B.T. certificate was also issued on 08.01.2013, had been selected and appointed. As such, the respondents have indulged in a pick and choose policy and adopted a different yardstick in the case of the petitioner. He, thus, submits that the petitioner’s claim cannot be rejected on this hyper-technical ground and MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.16 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-8723-2018 3 she is entitled for appointment against the post in question with all consequential benefits. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the last date for submission of online applications, as stipulated in the advertisement, was 08.12.2012. He further submits that it is a trite law that the eligibility of every candidate has to be determined in terms of the cut- off date prescribed in the advertisement. Admittedly, the petitioner appeared in the final J.B.T. examination in October, 2012 and her result was declared only on 08.01.2013, thereby rendering her ineligible as on the cut-off date. He further submits that the petitioner's reliance upon the case of respondent No.4 is misconceived as the appointment of respondent No.4 has since been withdrawn and he is no longer in service. Learned State counsel further points out that the petitioner approached this Court after an unexplained delay of more than four years from the declaration of the final result on 14.08.2014. Since the entire selection process has long been concluded, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches as well. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 5. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner applied pursuant to Advertisement No.2/2012 (Annexure P-1), issued on 07.11.2012, wherein the last date for submission of online applications MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.16 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-8723-2018 4 was prescribed as 08.12.2012 up to 5:00 p.m. The advertisement specifically provided that the eligibility, educational qualifications, age and supporting certificates of all candidates would be determined with reference to the said cut-off date. Since the petitioner’s result of the J.B.T. examination was declared on 08.01.2013, she had not acquired the requisite qualification as on the closing date i.e. 08.12.2012. In these circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Moreover, the issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra. This Court, in CWP-20338-2026, titled as Deepika v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 08.07.2026, after relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohit Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 1125, as well as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in LPA- 1397-2025, titled as Haryana Public Service Commission v. Pardeep Kumar and others, decided on 03.11.2025, has held that the terms and conditions of a recruitment advertisement are binding on all candidates and are required to be strictly complied with. It has further been held that the requirement of furnishing the prescribed certificate on or before the stipulated cut-off date constitutes a substantive eligibility condition and not a mere procedural formality. Therefore, a candidate who fails to comply with such a mandatory condition cannot seek relaxation by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.16 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-8723-2018 5 7. The principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments is equally applicable to the present case, as the eligibility of a candidate has to be determined strictly in terms of the conditions prescribed in the advertisement. For a ready reference, the operative part of the judgment in Pardeep Kumar’s case (supra), reads as under:- 52. Recently, in Mohit Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others; 2025 SCC Online SC 1125, the issue came to be examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The certificate relied upon by the candidate was not on the format prescribed in the recruitment notification. The question before the Court was as to whether non- consideration of the candidate for such reason would be bad. 53. The issue came to be examined by the Court, and it was held that all aspirants in a recruitment drive are entitled for the equal treatment. Non-compliance with the terms of the advertisement/notification is bound to trigger adverse consequences on rejection of the aspirant’s claimed status. The Court went on to hold, as under in paragraph 19, which reads as under:- “19. It is no longer res integra that terms of an advertisement issued in connection with a selection process are normally not open to challenge unless the challenge is founded on the ground of breach of Article 16 of the Constitution or, for that matter, Article 14. Once an advertisement is issued inviting applications for public employment, it is the responsibility, nay duty, of an aspirant to read and note the terms and understand what its requirements are. If any aspirant finds any of the terms ambiguous and there is scope for an inquiry inbuilt in the advertisement or is provided by any rule/regulation, an effort ought to be first made to obtain clarity for understanding the requirements accurately. If no such scope is available, nothing prevents the MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.16 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-8723-2018 6 aspirant from seeking clarity by making a representation should such clarity be not provided, the aspirant may participate in the process without prejudice to his rights and may question the term even after he is not selected. However, if the aspirant does not make any such effort and takes a calculated chance of selection based on his own understanding of the disputed term in the advertisement and later, he emerges unsuccessful, ordinarily, it would not be open to him to challenge the selection on the ground that the disputed term is capable of being understood differently. In such cases, the courts should be loath to entertain such plea of ambiguity while preferring to accept the recruiting authority’s understanding of the said term. This is for the simple reason that the recruiting authority is the best judge of what its requirements are and it is such understanding of the recruiting authority that would matter most in cases brought up before the courts; hence, after commencement of the process wherein aspirants have participated without raising any demur as to what a particular terms means, even if any of the terms be ambiguous, the courts should lean in favour of the recruiting authority.” 54. The facts of the present LPAs are analyzed, and we find that the advertisement clearly required the candidates to submit BC(A)/BC(B) certificate. The advertisement was issued in June 2024 i.e. 21.06.2024. The candidates, who claimed reservation for BC(A)and BC(B), were required to belong to Non-Creamy Layer. The determination of Non- reamy Layer is with reference to the income and assets of a candidate. Certificate of BC(A)/BC(B)are, therefore, based on changing financial status of the applicant and therefore, it becomes necessary for the appellant- Commission to require the candidate to submit the certificate issued before the cut-off date. 55. We may note that under Section 5(1)(b) of the Haryana Backward Classes (Reservation in Services and Admission in Educational Institutions) Act, 2016 provides that ‘no person belonging to creamy layer or backward MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.16 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-8723-2018 7 class, shall be entitled to claim reservation for appointment in services under the State against the post reserved for the Backwards classes specified in the schedule’. 56. The certificate of reservation is to be issued on the basis of income of the applicant during the previous financial year and as assessed during the last three financial years. The candidates, therefore, were directed to submit a certificate based on the income during the period 01.04.2024 to 31.03.2025 and assets of last three financial years i.e. 2022-2023, 2023-2024 and 2024-2025. 57. It is undisputed that all the respondents-writ petitioners claimed reservation in BC(A)/BC(B)or EWS category but had not submitted their respective caste certificate of the relevant period. In the leading case, the respondent No.1-Pradeep Kumar submitted the BC(A) certificate dated 31.12.2019. Similarly, BC(A)/BC(B) certificates of all other candidates/respondents were not of the relevant period as per the advertisement. The candidates were required to be possessed of the certificates on the last date of making of application i.e. 12.07.2024. The certificates annexed by them since were not in terms of the advertisement, therefore, they were rightly ignored.” 8. Furthermore, it is trite law that the delay in approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be condoned if sufficient cause is indicated or a reasonable explanation is provided for the same. However, the facts of the matter at hand indicate otherwise. Learned counsel petitioner has failed to specify any compelling or extenuating circumstance which prevented the petitioner from approaching this Court for such a long time. Reference in this MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.16 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-8723-2018 8 regard may be made to the judgment rendered by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Others vs. Ram Gopal (2021) 13 SCC 225, wherein, the following was held: “16. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence- sitters cannot be allowed to barge into Courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated that there are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced. In S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, this Court observed thus: “17. It is also well settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". .... It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment.” (emphasis added) 9. Further, in Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and others 2024 AIR SC 2717, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that the High Courts must factor in the delay, while exercising its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further opined that undue and unexplained delay may be reason enough to dismiss a petition as indolent litigants ought not to be encouraged by writ Courts. MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.16 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-8723-2018 9 10. In State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179, while considering the issue regarding delay and laches and referring to earlier judgments on the issue, a Two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that repeated representations made will not keep the issues alive. A stale or a dead issue/dispute cannot be got revived even if such a representation has either been decided by the authority or got decided by getting a direction from the court as the issue regarding delay and laches is to be decided with reference to original cause of action and not with reference to any such order passed. Delay and laches on the part of a government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in a situation of that nature, will not be attracted as it is well settled that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant. 11. Apart from the above, this Court, in Deepika’s case (supra), has held that the conditions prescribed in a recruitment advertisement are binding upon all candidates and must be strictly complied with. The eligibility of a candidate has to be determined with reference to the cut-off date prescribed in the advertisement. In the present case, the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification on the relevant date and, in any event, approached this Court after more than four years from the declaration of the final result without any satisfactory explanation. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as well. MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.16 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-8723-2018 10 12. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the action of the respondents warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, admittedly, did not possess the requisite qualification on the prescribed cut-off date and, therefore, her candidature was rightly rejected. The reliance placed by the petitioner upon the appointment of respondent No.4 also does not advance her case, particularly when it has been stated that the said appointment has already been withdrawn. In any event, no parity can be claimed on the basis of an appointment, if any, granted contrary to the terms and conditions of the advertisement. The petitioner has, in any case, approached this Court after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than four years. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 14.07.2026 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.16 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.