1 CWP-31703-2018(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 104 CWP-31703-2018(O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2026 Sandeep Kumar and others ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR\ Present : Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra, Advocate for the applicant/petitioners. Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl.AG, Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. CM-11278-CWP of 2026 The present application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking direction to respondent No.2 to recommend the name of applicant/petitioner No.1 for the post of PGT Sanskrit and to offer appoint to him. Learned counsel for applicant/petitioners submits that vide order dated 27.02.2023 (Annexure A2) passed by this Court, this writ petition was ordered to be adjourned sine die to await the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in SLP(Civil) No.4525 of 2023 titled as Tarsem Sharma and others v. State of Haryana and others. Further, during the pendency of the present writ petition, against 626 posts, 530 candidates have been offered appointment as discernible from Annexure A3. He thus prays for revival of the present writ petition. OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.23 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP-31703-2018(O&M) Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as well as arguments addressed and with the consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up on board for final decision for today itself. Annexures A1 to A3 are taken on record subject to just exceptions. Filing of certified copies thereof is exempted. Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place. Application is disposed of, accordingly. Main case 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to conduct interview and include the name/roll number of the petitioners in the final result and appoint them against the post of PGT Sanskrit (Rest of Haryana Cadre) on the basis of their merit in their respective category subject to decision of SLPs bearing No. SLP(C) 25184- 25214 of 2018. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners, inter alia, contends that petitioner No.2 and other similarly situated candidates have been offered appointments vide order dated 23.01.2024 (Annexure A3). At this stage, learned counsel submits that he would be satisfied if the present writ petition be treated as a comprehensive representation and claim of petitioner No.1 be ordered to be decided by the respondents by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner. 3. Learned State counsel submits that he has no objection in case a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the claim of petitioner No.1 by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.23 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CWP-31703-2018(O&M) 4. In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/competent authority to treat the present writ petition as a comprehensive representation and to consider and decide the claim of petitioner No.1 by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 5. It is further directed that the decision so taken shall be communicated to petitioner No.1. Needless to observe that in case the petitioner No.1 is found entitled to the relief claimed, all consequential benefits shall also be granted expeditiously, in accordance with law. 6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) 21.07.2026 JUDGE ‘om’ Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.23 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document