1 CWP-25652-2021 and CWP-26530-2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 230 Date of Decision: 07.07.2026 1.CWP-25652-2021 INDERJEET BATRA ..Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ..Respondents 2.CWP-26530-2021 NAVNEET KAUR ..Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Ravinder Bangar, Advocate and Ms. Anjali Bangar, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Addl. AG Haryana for respondent No.3-Commission. Mr. Jitender Singh Chahal, Advocate for respondent No.4 (in CWP-25652-2021) and for respondents No.4 and 5 (in CWP-26530-2021). **** PARUL VERMA 2026.07.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 2 CWP-25652-2021 and CWP-26530-2021 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. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP 26530-2021. 2. The present Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the action of respondent No. 3 in not including the roll number of the petitioner in the final (remaining) result dated 09.10.2021 (Annexure P-11) for the post of PGT Punjabi against Advertisement No. 04/2015, Category No. 15, despite the petitioner having secured 116 marks, which are equal to the marks secured by the last selected candidate. It is further the case of the petitioner that two posts of the General Category are lying vacant and one candidate belonging to the BCA Category, namely Manpreet Kaur (Roll No. 31501174), having secured 125 marks, is liable to be adjusted against the available General Category vacancies, thereby rendering the petitioner entitled to selection against the resultant vacancy in the BCA Category. Despite the aforesaid facts, the petitioner has not been included in the final result, which action is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. PARUL VERMA 2026.07.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 3 CWP-25652-2021 and CWP-26530-2021 2.1. The petitioner further seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 3 to consider and include the candidature of the petitioner in the final result dated 09.10.2021 (Annexure P-11), being an equally meritorious candidate, and to issue an appointment letter, if found entitled in accordance with merit, along with all consequential benefits. The petitioner also prays for a direction to respondent No. 3 to keep one post in the BCA Category vacant for the petitioner during the pendency of the present writ petition and further to stay the operation of the final result dated 09.10.2021 (Annexure P-11) and/or the joining of the selected candidates pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement till the final adjudication of the present writ petition. 2.2. The petitioner further seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the selection of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 on the ground that the said selections are illegal and contrary to the applicable rules. It is the specific case of the petitioner that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were absent at the time of the initial interview and scrutiny of documents but subsequently filed CWP No. 24642 of 2016 and CWP No. 19345 of 2021, respectively, and obtained orders from this Court on the issue of eligibility/non-eligibility without disclosing the fact of their absence from the interview, thereby enabling them to participate in the remaining selection process and secure selection. It is further averred that respondent No. 6 did PARUL VERMA 2026.07.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 4 CWP-25652-2021 and CWP-26530-2021 not possess the requisite HTET qualification on the date of interview and, therefore, was ineligible under the terms and conditions of the advertisement. Although respondent No. 6 was permitted to participate in the interview provisionally, subject to his eligibility, and the result was directed to be produced before this Court on the next date of hearing, i.e. 24.01.2022, respondent No. 6 was nevertheless declared selected. According to the petitioner, such selection is illegal and contrary to the directions issued by this Court. CONTENTIONS 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner applied for the post of PGT Punjabi pursuant to Advertisement No. 04/2015 dated 28.06.2015 (Annexure P-1), whereby a total of 179 posts of PGT Punjabi were advertised under Category No. 15. There is no dispute with regard to the eligibility and qualifications of the petitioner, and being fully eligible, she participated in the selection process. The petitioner secured 102 marks in the written examination and 14 marks in the interview, thereby obtaining an aggregate of 116 marks. The final result was declared on 23.02.2017, wherein the last selected candidate in the BCA category had also secured 116 marks; however, the petitioner was not selected. 3.1. Learned counsel further submits that one candidate bearing Roll No. 31501203, namely Poonam Rani, who was initially selected against the PARUL VERMA 2026.07.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 5 CWP-25652-2021 and CWP-26530-2021 BCA category, was subsequently adjusted against the General Category due to the non-availability of suitable candidates in the General Category. Likewise, another candidate, namely Manpreet Kaur, bearing Roll No. 31501174, who had secured 125 marks and was initially selected in the BCA category, was also adjusted against the General Category as vacancies were available therein. 3.2. It is further contended that on 14.09.2021, the respondent- Commission issued a notice for conversion of seven SBC category posts into General Category posts. Consequently, the Haryana Staff Selection Commission again shortlisted candidates and called them for interview, as is evident from the notice dated 14.09.2021 (Annexure P-6). 3.3 Learned counsel further submits that the candidature of respondents No. 4 to 6 is doubtful, as respondents No. 4 and 5 were absent at the time of the initial interview and scrutiny of documents. However, they subsequently obtained orders from this Court without disclosing the fact that they had remained absent during the earlier interview process. It is specifically contended that respondent No. 5, namely Sarabjeet Kaur, approached this Court by filing CWP No. 19345 of 2021 and obtained an interim order by concealing material facts. PARUL VERMA 2026.07.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 6 CWP-25652-2021 and CWP-26530-2021 3.4. It is further submitted that respondent No. 6 was not eligible on the date of the interview as he did not possess the requisite HTET qualification, whereas the petitioner fulfilled all the eligibility conditions prescribed under the advertisement. Despite this, respondent No. 6 was selected, even though this Court had permitted him to participate in the interview only provisionally and subject to his eligibility. He submits that the final result was declared by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission on 09.10.2021, wherein the roll numbers of respondents No. 5 and 6 were included in the select list, as is evident from Annexure P-11. It is contended that the petitioner was fully entitled to be selected; however, she was illegally excluded from the final select list. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.11.2021 (Annexure P-15) to the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, but no action was taken thereon. 3.5. It is further argued that respondents No. 5 and 6 are liable to be excluded from the final select list, as they were only provisionally interviewed pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court and had allegedly concealed material facts while obtaining such orders. Learned counsel also submits that the respondents failed to operate the waiting list, and had the waiting list been operated, the petitioner would have been selected. According to learned counsel, such failure is contrary to the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Swati Gupta PARUL VERMA 2026.07.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 7 CWP-25652-2021 and CWP-26530-2021 and others v. State of Haryana and others, CWP-6844-2017, decided on 21.03.2023, which was decided in terms of the statement made by learned State counsel in CWP-23350-2018. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 opposes the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that the candidature of the petitioner was rightly not considered. It is contended that the plea raised by the petitioner regarding the appointment of respondents No. 4 and 5 is wholly misconceived, as both of them were interviewed pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court in CWP-24642-2016 and CWP-19345-2021, respectively. 4.1. Learned State counsel further submits that, in compliance with the order passed by this Court in CWP-22746-2016 titled Satish Kumar Malik and others v. State of Haryana and others, the respondent- Commission, vide notice dated 30.11.2016, decided to call candidates for scrutiny of documents to ascertain eligible candidates, twice the number of vacancies, for the interviews scheduled to be held on 06.12.2016. The petitioner was also called for scrutiny of documents for the post in question, appeared on the scheduled date, and was found eligible. Thereafter, on the basis of the written examination and scrutiny of documents, the Commission issued notice dated 22.12.2016 calling the eligible candidates for interview PARUL VERMA 2026.07.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 8 CWP-25652-2021 and CWP-26530-2021 on 28.12.2016. The petitioner also appeared in the interview on 28.12.2016 and was found eligible. 4.2. It is further submitted that the respondent-Commission declared the final result for the post in question on 23.02.2017; however, the petitioner could not be selected. The last selected candidate in the BCA category in the said result had secured 116 marks. Subsequently, the State Government decided that, in respect of all advertisements wherein the result relating to the SBC category had been kept in abeyance due to Court orders, the SBC posts would be treated as belonging to the Unreserved/General Category. Consequently, the respondent-Commission declared the remaining final result for the post in question on 09.10.2021, but the petitioner was again not selected. 4.3. Learned State counsel submits that the last selected candidate in the BCA category in the result dated 09.10.2021 had also secured 116 marks, which were the same as those secured by the petitioner. However, since the petitioner and the last selected candidate had secured equal marks, the tie was resolved on the basis of age. The petitioner, whose date of birth is 06.10.1984, was younger than the last selected candidate in the BCA category, namely Gurjeet Singh (Roll No. 31500796), whose date of birth is 11.11.1982. Therefore, the petitioner was not selected. PARUL VERMA 2026.07.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 9 CWP-25652-2021 and CWP-26530-2021 4.4. It is further contended that Manpreet Kaur, bearing Roll No. 31501174, who had also secured 116 marks, was not selected against the General Category as she was younger than the last selected candidate under the General Category. She was, therefore, selected against the category under which she had applied, i.e. the BCA Category. With regard to the selection of Tejinder Singh, bearing Roll No. 31500032, learned State counsel submits that he was found eligible in view of the corrigendum issued by the Commission and was, therefore, rightly recommended for appointment to the post in question. Likewise, Sarabjeet Kaur, bearing Roll No. 31500840, was interviewed pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in CWP-19345-2021 titled Sarabjeet Kaur v. State of Haryana and others. 4.5. Learned State counsel further submits that Harjinder Singh (respondent No.6) was inadvertently recommended for appointment to the post in question. However, upon re-examination of his eligibility, the respondent-Commission found him ineligible and, accordingly, withdrew its recommendation vide letter dated 31.10.2022. 4.6. It is further submitted that the reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Swati Gupta (supra) is wholly misconceived. The said judgment has been stayed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1983 of 2024, Haryana PARUL VERMA 2026.07.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 10 CWP-25652-2021 and CWP-26530-2021 School Teacher Selection Board v. Swati Gupta and others, vide order dated 22.11.2024. Learned State counsel submits that the statement made by the learned State counsel in CWP No.23350 of 2018 (Sanju Bala v. State of Haryana and others), on the basis whereof the Co-ordinate Bench proceeded to decide the matter, was contrary to the instructions dated 18.09.2018 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana. As per the said instructions, a waiting list is required to be prepared and operated only in respect of Group-B (Non-Gazetted) posts, whereas there is no provision for preparation or operation of a waiting list for Gazetted posts, including the post of PGT, which is the subject matter of the present writ petitions. 5. Learned State counsel, however, fairly submits that consequent upon the withdrawal of the recommendation of Harjinder Singh, Inderjeet Batra, petitioner in CWP No.25652 of 2021, is next in order of merit amongst the eligible General Category candidates. On the basis of the instructions dated 22.05.2026, taken on record as Mark 'A', it is submitted that the candidature of the said petitioner is presently under active consideration by the competent authority after verification from the concerned employer regarding the resultant vacancy arising out of the withdrawal of Harjinder Singh's recommendation. It is, therefore, submitted PARUL VERMA 2026.07.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 11 CWP-25652-2021 and CWP-26530-2021 that an appropriate decision in accordance with law shall be taken by the competent authority within a period of six weeks. OBSERVATIONS & ANALYSIS 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record with their able assistance, this Court finds that the primary grievance raised by the petitioner Navneet Kaur is that she secured 116 marks, which, according to her, are equal to the marks secured by the last selected candidate in her category and, therefore, she ought to have been selected. However, a perusal of the written statement filed by respondent No.3 reveals that Gurjeet Singh (Roll No.31500796), who was the last selected candidate in the BCA category, had also secured 116 marks. Since both the petitioner and the said candidate obtained equal marks, the tie was resolved in accordance with the prescribed criteria on the basis of age. The petitioner, whose date of birth is 06.10.1984, was admittedly younger than Gurjeet Singh, whose date of birth is 11.11.1982. Consequently, the petitioner could not be selected. 6.1. Likewise, the contention of the petitioner regarding Manpreet Kaur is devoid of merit. The record demonstrates that she was not adjusted against the General Category as alleged. Having secured marks equal to the last selected General Category candidate, she was also rendered PARUL VERMA 2026.07.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 12 CWP-25652-2021 and CWP-26530-2021 unsuccessful in the General Category on account of being younger in age and was, therefore, selected only against the BCA Category, under which she had originally applied. 7. This Court also finds no merit in the challenge to the selection of Tejinder Singh. As noticed in the written statement, he was found eligible in terms of the corrigendum issued by the respondent-Commission and was, therefore, rightly considered for appointment. Similarly, no interference is called for in respect of the appointment of Sarabjeet Kaur. She had participated in the selection process pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in CWP No.19345 of 2021, and her challenge already stands concluded by the judgment dated 07.04.2026, whereby the said writ petition was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous after noticing her appointment/continuation in service. She has been found fully eligible for appointment and the allegations levelled by the present petitioner questioning her eligibility are wholly contrary to the record. Consequently, the challenge to her selection deserves to be rejected. 8. The reliance placed by the petitioner upon the judgment rendered in Swati Gupta (supra) for seeking operation of the waiting list is equally misconceived. The operation of the said judgment has already been stayed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1983 of 2024 vide order dated 22.11.2024. Moreover, in view of the instructions dated PARUL VERMA 2026.07.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 13 CWP-25652-2021 and CWP-26530-2021 18.09.2018 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, there is no provision for preparing or operating a waiting list for the post of PGT, which is admittedly a Gazetted post. 8.1. However, it is not disputed by the respondents that the recommendation of Harjinder Singh has been withdrawn after he was found ineligible. Learned State counsel has fairly stated, on the basis of the instructions placed on record as Mark 'A', that Inderjeet Batra, petitioner in CWP No.25652 of 2021, is next in order of merit amongst the eligible General Category candidates and that his candidature is under active consideration by the competent authority. In view of the said statement, the claim of Inderjeet Batra deserves to be considered in accordance with law. CONCLUSION 9. Consequently, CWP No.26530 of 2021 (Navneet Kaur v. State of Haryana and others) is dismissed being devoid of merit. However, CWP No.25652 of 2021 (Inderjeet Batra v. State of Haryana and others) is allowed. The competent respondent-authority is directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner Inderjeete Batra for appointment against the vacancy which arose consequent upon the withdrawal of the recommendation of Harjinder Singh and to pass an appropriate speaking PARUL VERMA 2026.07.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 14 CWP-25652-2021 and CWP-26530-2021 order, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 9.1. In case the petitioner is found entitled to appointment, he shall be granted appointment with all consequential notional benefits strictly in accordance with his position in the merit list. However, he shall not be entitled to any back wages or salary for the period during which he did not actually discharge duties. 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 11. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 07.07.2026 parul verma Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PARUL VERMA 2026.07.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.