CWP-31289-2018 & CONNECTED CASES 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 206 Date of decision: 21.07.2026 1. CWP-31289-2018 (O&M) Mithilesh and others ....Petitioners Versus Haryana Staff Selection Commission and others ....Respondents 2. CWP-3145-2019 (O&M) Sonia and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents 3. CWP-26774-2018 (O&M) Harikesh and others ....Petitioners Versus Haryana Staff Selection Commission ....Respondent 4. CWP-24776-2023 (O&M) Pardeep ....Petitioner Versus Haryana Staff Selection Commission and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. S. S. Duhan, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in all the cases. Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.29 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-31289-2018 & CONNECTED CASES 2 HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1. With the consent of all the parties, the aforementioned writ petitions are taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CWP- 31289-2018. PRAYER 2. Prayer in the writ petition (CWP-31289-2018) filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for summoning the record of selection process for the post of PGT Computer Science at Category No.1, in advertisement No.5/2015 and thereafter, issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the final result dated 25.11.2018 (Annexure P-4) for the post of PGT Computer Science (Rest of Haryana) for School Education Department, Haryana against advertisement No.5/2015, Category No.1. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents not to issue appointment letters to the selected candidates pursuant to the final result dated 25.11.2018 (Annexure P-4) for the post of PGT Computer Science (Rest of Haryana) for School Education Department, Haryana against advertisement No.5/2015, Category No.1, during the pendency of the writ petition. CONTENTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, inter alia, contended that the petitioners applied for the post of PGT (Computer Science) pursuant to Advertisement No.5/2015 dated 05.07.2015, wherein the prescribed essential qualification was M.Sc. Computer MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.29 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-31289-2018 & CONNECTED CASES 3 Science (Regular two-year course)/MCA (Regular three-year course)/B.E./B.Tech. (Computer Science/Computer Engineering/IT) (Regular Course) with 55% aggregate marks from a recognized University. It is submitted that the petitioners successfully qualified the written examination and their documents were scrutinized. However, despite the advertisement specifically requiring qualifications obtained through the regular mode, the respondents shortlisted certain candidates who had acquired their degrees through distance education mode, contrary to the terms of the advertisement as well as the applicable service rules. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the respondent/Commission called only twice the number of candidates against the advertised vacancies for interview, whereas three times the number of vacancies ought to have been called, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioners. It is also argued that out of the selected candidates, 42 candidates did not join pursuant to the offer of appointment and, therefore, the petitioners, being next in the order of merit, are entitled to be considered for appointment. CONTENTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the writ petition and submits that the respondent-Commission has acted strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement and the applicable service rules. It is contended that there is no statutory requirement to prepare or operate a waiting list and, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim appointment merely because certain selected MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.29 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-31289-2018 & CONNECTED CASES 4 candidates failed to join. It is further submitted that, upon verification, only three of the candidates whose selection has been questioned by the petitioners were found to possess degrees obtained through distance education mode and their recommendations have already been withdrawn. Learned State counsel has also argued that the petitioners were not shortlisted for interview as they failed to secure the prescribed cut-off marks and, even if they had been called for interview and awarded maximum marks, they would still not have surpassed the marks secured by the last selected candidates in their respective categories. ANALYSIS 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 6. On 24.01.2023, the following order was passed by this Court: "Prayer in this petition is to call for the record of the selection process for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) Computer Science, category No.1, in advertisement No.5/2015 and to quash the final result dated 25.11.2018 (Annexure P4). As per the aforesaid advertisement, the essential qualification for the post of PGT Computer Science, are as under:- 'M.Sc. Computer science (regular two year course)/MCA(regular three year course)/B.E./B.Tech. Computer Science/Computer MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.29 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-31289-2018 & CONNECTED CASES 5 Engg./IT(regular course) with 55% aggregate marks from a recognized university)' Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners applied for the aforesaid post and were successful in the written examination, as would decipher from the result dated 16.04.2017(Annexure P- 2); that, thereafter, documents were also scrutinized; that vide notice dated 22.09.2018, the candidates equal to twice the number of vacancies were called for interview/viva voce and thereafter the final result was declared on 25.11.2018 (Annexure P- 4). He further submits that, though, the scrutiny of the documents was to be strictly done as per the qualification criteria i.e. the candidates having requisite degree from the regular course and not the distant one were to be called for the interview, yet the selection was done in contravention of the said criteria, as candidates having degree from the distant education were also called. Still further, it is submitted that candidates, namely, Sunil Sharma and others, Sakshi Aneja and Archana Kumari, preferred CWP-19126-2015, CWP-19909-2015 and CWP- 18215-2015 before this Court, challenging the qualification criteria of having degree from the regular course and that, though, the said writ petitions were dismissed vide orders dated 01.10.2015 and 20.10.2015, yet Sunil Sharma and Archana Kumari, have been selected in the final list. Learned State counsel submits that the candidature of the petitioners were duly considered and as they have not reached the cut- off marks, they were not short- listed for the interview. The result of the petitioners is as under:- MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.29 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-31289-2018 & CONNECTED CASES 6 Sr. No. Name Roll number Category Marks obtained in written exam Cut-off marks for intervi ew 1 Mithilesh 50108653 General 98 104 2 Harikesh 50109555 BCA 94 98 3 Sandeep Rathi 50109136 General 100 104 4 Nidhi Khatkar 50100096 General 102 104 At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that had the candidates (as mentioned below), having requisite degree from the distant education were not called, the petitioners, who were having the same from regular mode, would have been in the zone of consideration. 1. Parmod Kumar (Roll No.50105336) 2. Neetu Nasheir (Roll No.50104878) 3. Sunil Sharma (Roll No.50111177) 4. Archana Kumari (Roll No.50103431) 5. Swaranjit Singh (Roll No.50103583) 6. Jimit Kumar (Roll No.50107380) 7. Jatinder Singh (Roll No.50105486) 8. Deepak (Roll No.50111596) Upon this, learned State counsel prays for time to file an additional affidavit of the officer concerned of respondent No.2 regarding the aforesaid aspect of the matter. On his request, adjourned to 20.02.2023" 7. The first grievance raised by the petitioners is that the respondent/Commission ought to have called three times the number of MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.29 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-31289-2018 & CONNECTED CASES 7 vacancies for interview instead of twice the number of vacancies. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has not indicated any clause in the said advertisement, any statutory rule or instruction that mandates the respondent/Commission to adopt such a course. On the contrary, the notice dated 22.09.2018 (Annexure P-3) specifically provides that candidates equal to twice the number of vacancies would be called for interview. Therefore, no illegality can be attributed to the procedure adopted by the respondents in this regard. 8. Further, it has been contended that since 42 selected candidates did not join service, the petitioners are entitled to be considered for appointment being next in merit. This contention is equally without merit. In the absence of any provision requiring the respondents to maintain a waiting list, the mere fact that certain selected candidates did not join does not confer any right upon the petitioners to seek appointment. In fact, it is settled law that even selected candidates do not possess an indefeasible right to appointment. A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, 2009(2) SCC 73, wherein the Court, has observed as under: “16. The state as an employer has a right to fill up all the posts or not to fill them up. Unless a discrimination is made in regard to the filling up of the vacancies or an arbitrariness is committed, the concerned candidate will have no legal right for obtaining a writ of or in the nature of mandamus. [See Batiarani Gramiya Bank v. Pallab Kumar & ors., 2003(4) SCT 321 : (2004)9 SCC 100] In Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, 1991(2) SCT 555 : [(1991)3 SCC 47], a Constitution Bench of this Court held : MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.29 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-31289-2018 & CONNECTED CASES 8 "7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bonafide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted." In State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220], this Court held : "The mere fact that a candidate's name appears in the list will not entitle him to a mandamus that he be appointed. Indeed, if the State Government while making the selection for appointment had departed from the ranking given in the list, there would have been a legitimate grievance on the ground that the State Government had departed from the rules in this respect... 11. It must be remembered that the petition is for a mandamus. This Court has pointed out in Dr Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. Governing Body of the Nalanda College that in order that mandamus may issue to compel an authority to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on that authority and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. Since there is no legal duty on the State Government to appoint all the 15 persons who are in the list and the petitioners have no legal right under the rules to enforce its performance the petition is clearly misconceived.” (emphasis added) MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.29 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-31289-2018 & CONNECTED CASES 9 9. As such, since no legal right of the petitioners have been breached, there is no occasion for them to claim consideration for appointment. 10. Further still, as far as the contention regarding selection of certain candidates who had obtained their qualifications through distance education mode is concerned, the respondents have admitted in their additional affidavit dated 27.10.2023 that, out of the candidates identified by the petitioners, three candidates, namely, Archana Puri, Sunil Sharma and Jatinder Singh, were found to be ineligible and proceedings for withdrawal of their recommendations had already been initiated. Moreover, prescription of a regular degree as an essential qualification has been upheld by this Court in CWP No.19126 of 2015 titled as ‘Sunil Sharma and others vs. State of Haryana and others,’ CWP No.19909 of 2015 titled as ‘Sakshi Aneja vs. State of Haryana and another’ and CWP No.18215 of 2015 titled as ‘Archana Kumari vs. State of Haryana and another.’ Therefore, in view of the stand taken by the respondents, no further directions are required on this aspect except to observe that the respondents shall conclude the proceedings against the ineligible candidates, if not already finalized, in accordance with law. 11. The principal question, however, is whether exclusion of the aforesaid ineligible candidates would entitle the petitioners to appointment. The answer has to be in the negative. The respondents have specifically pleaded in their affidavit dated 12.09.2022 that the MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.29 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-31289-2018 & CONNECTED CASES 10 petitioners had failed to secure the minimum cut-off marks prescribed for being shortlisted for interview. Petitioner No.1 secured 98 marks against the cut-off marks of 104 marks in the General Category; petitioner No.2 secured 94 marks against the cut-off marks of 98 marks in the BCA Category; petitioner No.3 secured 100 marks against the cut-off marks of 104 marks; and petitioner No.4 secured 102 marks against the cut-off marks of 104 marks. 12. More importantly, the respondents have specifically averred that even if the petitioners had been called for interview and awarded full marks therein, they would still have failed to surpass the marks secured by the last selected candidates, who obtained 126 marks in the General Category and 116 marks in the BCA Category. This factual assertion has not been disputed by the petitioners. 13. Therefore, even if the candidature of the ineligible candidates is excluded from the zone of consideration, the petitioners do not improve their position in the merit list so as to become entitled for appointment to the post, in question. The non-selection of the petitioners is attributable to their own merit position and not to the inclusion of the aforesaid candidates. CONCLUSION 14. In view of the above discussions, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned selection process in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, all the aforementioned writ petitions are dismissed. MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.29 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-31289-2018 & CONNECTED CASES 11 15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 16. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected cases. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 21.07.2026 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.29 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.