CWP-23608-2021(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 224 CWP-23608-2021(O&M) Date of decision: 20.07.2026 Poonam Lata and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. S.P. Yadav, Advocate for petitioners No.1 to 4, 7, 9 and 11. Mr. Abhishek K. Premi, Advocate for the applicant/petitioners No.5, 6, 8 and 10. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in the present 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 impugned final result dated 14.11.2021 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioners have not been considered for ap- pointment despite being eligible and having secured higher merit than certain selected candidates. Further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to consider the petitioners for the post of Art & Crafts Teachers against advertisement No.6/2006, as petitioners are entitled for the post and have secured more higher marks than the last selected candidate. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.24 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23608-2021(O&M) 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is no longer res inte- gra. It is contended that the issue regarding the validity of the diploma qualification and the relevant cut-off date now stands concluded by the Division Bench of this Court in Haryana Staff Selection Commission Versus Jagdip Singh and others and connected matters, LPA No.1151 of 2024, decided on 21.08.2025 (Annexure P-16). Learned counsel submits that while deciding the aforesaid appeal, the Division Bench affirmed the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in Sunita and another Versus Haryana Staff Selection Commission and another, CWP No.16214 of 2008, decided on 07.01.2009, wherein, while placing reliance upon the earlier Division Bench judgment in Navneet Kaur Versus State of Punjab and others, 2008(4) SCT 192, it was held that where the last date for submission of applications is extended by issuance of a corrigendum, the eligibility of such candidates has to be determined with reference to the extended last date and not the original cut-off date. 3. Per contra, learned State Counsel reiterates the stand taken in the reply. However, she is unable to controvert the legal position settled by the aforesaid judgments. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper-book. 5. The controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.24 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23608-2021(O&M) 3 Jagdip Singh (supra). While affirming the judgment rendered in Sunita (supra), the Division Bench approved the view taken on the basis of the earlier Division Bench judgment in Navneet Kaur (supra). 6. In Sunita case (supra), this Court observed as under:- “This petition was filed for quashing the advertise- ment for filling up the post of Art and Craft Teachers on the ground that it was not in conformity with the Rules since in the advertisement the minimum age mentioned was 18 years as on 21.08.2006 while in the rules the same was 17 years. During the pendency of the petition the respondents issued a corrigendum correcting the age and permitting such persons who had consequently been rendered eligible to apply by 10.12.2008. The second point of discord between the parties is that the petitioners acquired the essential qualification by diploma dated 12.3.2007. As per the respondents even if the petitioners had been rendered eligible in terms of age yet they could not be held eligible since they did not have the requisite qualifications on the prescribed date viz. 21.8.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, argues that as far as the petitioners are concerned, for them the cut off date would be 10.12.2008 and thus, they would have to be con- sidered eligible. Counsel has cited the case of Navneet Kaur Vs.State of Punjab and others reported as 2008(4) SCT 192 wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:- “It is evident that by the corrigendum the applications for 700 posts and 600 posts of Mathematics Master/Mistress were invited and the date was extended to 31.8.2006. Once the last date for submission of applications has been ex- tended to 31.8.2006 it follows that the eligibility as per PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.24 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23608-2021(O&M) 4 Clause 10 would automatically be considered as on 31.8.2006. The detailed marks card of the petitioners in re- spect of her B.Ed examination is dated 20.08.2006 (Annex- ure P-1) and accordingly she has to be considered as eligible. In my opinion this decision of a Division Bench is binding on me and since the last date for application was extended for persons like the petitioners the cut off date for them would be subsequent date viz. 10.12.2008. In this view of the matter I hold that the petitioners are eligible to be considered for appointment and consequently allow the petition.” 5. In view of the above and without expressing any opinion on the inter se merit of the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to reconsider the claim of the petitioners strictly in the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench in Jagdip Singh (supra) as well as the judgments passed in Sunita and Navneet Kaur (supra). If upon such consideration the petitioners are found entitled, the consequential benefits shall be extended to them in accordance with law. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by passing a well reasoned speaking order. 6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 20.07.2026 P.C Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.24 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document