CWP-4369-2019 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 211 CWP-4369-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.07.2026 Sandeep Dhankar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Kuldeep Sheoran, 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 final result dated 12.01.2019 (Annexure P- 10) to the extent the petitioner has not been selected to the post of PGT Mathematics pursuant to Advertisement No.4/2015 dated 28.06.2015 (Annexure P-1), on account of not awarding the 08 marks towards teaching experience. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to award 08 marks for teaching experience to the petitioner and thereafter consider and appoint him as PGT Mathematics in the General Category, in case he falls within the zone of selection after such award of marks, along with all consequential benefits. A further direction has also been sought to keep one post of PGT Mathematics vacant, during the pendency of the writ petition. MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.16 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-4369-2019 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner possessed the requisite educational qualifications and more than 04 years of teaching experience as on the cut-off date prescribed under Advertisement No.4/2015 (Annexure P-1). He submits that despite disclosing his teaching experience in the online application and claiming to have produced the relevant experience certificates during document verification, the respondents failed to award him the full 08 marks admissible under the prescribed selection criteria. According to the learned counsel, had the said 8 marks been awarded, the petitioner would have secured higher marks than the last selected candidate in the General Category and would have been selected for appointment to the post of PGT Mathematics. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the application form (Annexure P-4, available at Page No.58) and submits that the petitioner had duly mentioned his experience therein, which clearly indicates that the petitioner had worked in R.E.D. Senior Secondary School, Chhuchakwas from 01.08.2014 and as such, he is entitled to the marks of experience for the same. He further refers to the experience certificates (Annexures P-3, colly., available at Page No.56-A) and submits that the experience certificate was countersigned by the Director, C.B.S.E. and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed by awarding the marks in terms of the criteria set out in the advertisement. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner’s MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.16 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-4369-2019 3 claim is required to be rejected as he has not uploaded the scanned copy of experience certificate as required under the conditions imposed in the advertisement (Annexure P-1). He refers to the experience certificate and submits that the certification, in question was issued only on 20.10.2016 whereas the petitioner has uploaded his application (Annexure P-4) on 21.09.2015. He further submits that the petitioner never produced the experience certificate, in question before the respondent/Commission during the scrutiny of documents. He further submits that the petitioner neither uploaded the scanned copy of the said experience certificate along with the online application nor produced the same before the respondent/Commission at the time of scrutiny of documents and as such, no benefit can be claimed by him on the basis of a certificate issued on 20.10.2016, i.e. after the last date prescribed for submission of the online application form. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 5. It is evident from the record that the respondent/Commission had advertised the posts including 1427 posts of PGT (Mathematics) under Advertisement No.4/2015 dated 28.06.2015 (Annexure P-1) and the last date for submission of online application form was fixed as 21.09.2015. The advertisement (Annexure P-1) 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. The list of documents to be MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.16 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-4369-2019 4 uploaded with the application form are specifically mentioned in the advertisement (Annexure P-1), which reads as under:- DOCUMENTS TO BE UPLOADED WITH APPLICATION FORM i) Scanned Copy of Essential Qualifications i.e. Matric showing Date of Birth and mark sheet of Diploma/Degree etc. ii) Scanned Copy of valid Eligibility Certificate in case of DESM candidates duly issued by the respective Zila Sainik Board. iii) Scanned Copy of Sport Gradation Certificate in case of Outstanding Sports Persons, duly issued by the Competent Authority. iv) Scanned Copy of BCA/BCB/SC/PHC/SBC/EBPG Certificate issued by competent authority. v) Scanned Copy of Haryana Domicile Certificate in case of BCA/BCB/SC/PHC/SBC/EBPG/ESM/ DESM/DFF and women issued by competent authority. vi) Scanned Copy of Aadhar Card (Desirable). vii) Copy of e-Challan in case of candidates who have applied earlier against Advt. No. 2/2014 (Advertised by HSTSB). viii) Scanned colored Photograph duly signed by the Candidate. ix) Scanned signatures of the Candidate. x) Scanned copy of Teaching Experience Certificate (if applicable as per note-3 above). 6. The experience certificate relied upon by the petitioner, pertaining to the period from 18.08.2014 to 02.04.2015, was issued on 20.10.2016, i.e. after the last date prescribed for submission of the online application. Consequently, the petitioner could neither have uploaded the said certificate along with the application submitted on 21.09.2015 nor did he produce it before the respondent/Commission during documents scrutiny. Moreover, in Para No.6 of the reply filed on MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.16 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-4369-2019 5 behalf of respondent No.3, it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner has never submitted the experience certificate from 18.08.2014 to 02.04.2015 before the respondent/Commission and for the first time, the same was attached with the present petition. The stand taken by respondent No.3 was never controverted by learned counsel for the petitioner by filing replication or rejoinder. 7. Furthermore, the selection criteria for experience, as detailed in the examination notice dated 11.02.2016 (Annexure R-3/2), clearly stipulated as follows: "II. Experience 16 marks (2 marks for each completed period of one year up to a maximum of 16 marks in teaching of relevant subject)". 8. The petitioner applied under the General Category, appeared in the written examination and was, thereafter, called for scrutiny of documents and interview. At the time of scrutiny of documents conducted on 09.11.2016, the petitioner produced experience certificates showing teaching experience of three years, i.e. from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2014, on the basis whereof he was awarded 06 marks under the prescribed criteria. The petitioner did not raise any further claim for additional marks on account of any other period of experience nor did he produce any further experience certificate before the respondent/Commission during the selection process. The additional claim of the petitioner for award of further 02 marks is sought to be founded upon an experience certificate dated 20.10.2016 which was neither uploaded along with the online application form nor produced at MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.16 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-4369-2019 6 the time of scrutiny of documents. In these circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. 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. 10. The principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments is equally applicable to the present case as the award of marks for experience and the submission of supporting documents have to be determined strictly in terms of the conditions prescribed in the advertisement and examination notice. The relevant observations of the judgment in Pardeep Kumar’s case (supra), are reproduced below: MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.16 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-4369-2019 7 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 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 MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.16 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-4369-2019 8 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 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 MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.16 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-4369-2019 9 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.” 11. This Court, in Deepika’s case (supra), has already held that the conditions prescribed in a recruitment advertisement are binding upon all candidates and must be strictly complied with. The entitlement of a candidate to claim marks under the prescribed criteria must also be assessed with reference to the cut-off date and the documents required under the advertisement. In the present case, the petitioner neither uploaded the scanned copy of the experience certificate dated 20.10.2016 along with the online application form nor produced the same before the respondent/Commission at the time of scrutiny of documents and therefore, he is not entitled to seek any benefit on the basis of the said experience certificate issued on 20.10.2016, i.e. after the last date prescribed for submission of the online application form. MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.16 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-4369-2019 10 12. In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality or arbitrariness in the action of the respondents warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was awarded marks on the basis of the experience certificates produced by him before the respondent/Commission in accordance with the terms of the advertisement and the examination notice. The additional experience certificate, admittedly issued after the cut-off date and not produced during the scrutiny process, could not have been taken into consideration for award of additional marks. The respondents, therefore, rightly assessed the petitioner's merit and he failed to secure marks higher than the last selected candidate. Consequently, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby 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.