IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 222 CWP-14259-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 13.07 .2026 Pawan … PeƟƟoner Versus Secretary, Haryana Staff SelecƟon Commission and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Parveen Moudgil, Advocate for the peƟƟoner. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Addl. Aag, Haryana. ***** NIDHI GUPTA, J . Present Civil Writ PeƟƟon under ArƟcles 226/227 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India has been filed by the peƟƟoner for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direcƟon, parƟcularly in the nature of Mandamus, direcƟng the respondents to select and appoint the peƟƟoner for the post of Earth Work Mistry under Schedule Caste Category and to set aside the impugned acƟon of excluding the peƟƟoner from selecƟon. 2. It is inter alia submiƩed by learned counsel for the peƟƟoner that respondent No.1-Haryana Staff SelecƟon Commission (hereinaŌer ‘the HSSC’) had issued an adverƟsement No. 14/2019 dated 26.08.2019 (Annexure P-1), inviƟng applicaƟons for various categories including 6 posts of Earth Work NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.15 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-14259-2022 (O&M) - 2 - Mistry under Category No. 24. In the said adverƟsement, one post was reserved for Scheduled Caste Category. EssenƟal qualificaƟons for the said post were duly menƟoned in the adverƟsement. PeƟƟoner being a Scheduled Caste, and having the requisite experience and qualificaƟons, had applied for the said post of Earth Work Mistry. It is submiƩed that the peƟƟoner had duly applied under the Scheduled Caste category. However, due to mistake on part of Cybercafe Operator, applicaƟon of the peƟƟoner was inadvertently submiƩed under the General category. On 02.08.2021, wriƩen examinaƟon for the post was held, which the peƟƟoner had taken. Result for the same was declared on 07.10.2021 (Annexure P-4), and peƟƟoner was declared to be successful. 3. It is submiƩed that the successful candidates including the peƟƟoner were then called for scruƟny of documents; and at the Ɵme of scruƟny of documents, the peƟƟoner had also produced his Scheduled Caste CerƟficate, (Annexure P-2) and apprised the respondent that he may be considered in the Scheduled Caste Category. However, the peƟƟoner was astonished to see that in the impugned final result dated 07.05.2022 (Annexure P-5) roll number of the peƟƟoner was not menƟoned, even though the post of Scheduled Caste Category remained vacant due to non-availability of eligible candidates. It is submiƩed that peƟƟoner had immediately represented to respondent No.1 vide leƩer dated 20.05.2022 (Annexure P-6), staƟng therein that peƟƟoner was a Scheduled Caste candidate, but by mistake, peƟƟoner had applied in the General Category. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.15 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-14259-2022 (O&M) - 3 - 4. Accordingly, it is prayed that on humanitarian grounds, name of the peƟƟoner be included in the final selecƟon list of the post vacant under the Scheduled Candidate Category. Ld. counsel further submits that peƟƟoner is an orphan child and therefore, a humanitarian view be taken and a writ of mandamus be issued direcƟng the respondents to appoint the peƟƟoner for the post of Earth Work Mistry under the Scheduled Caste Category which remained unfilled in the final selecƟon due to non-availability of suitable candidate. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State vehemently opposes submissions on behalf of the peƟƟoner and points out that the peƟƟoner has filled his ApplicaƟon form (Annexure R-1/T) under the General Category. Admit Card (Annexure P-3), was also issued to the peƟƟoner under the General Category. PeƟƟoner had raised no objecƟon at that Ɵme. It is only aŌer discovering his merit posiƟon that an objecƟon has been raised by the peƟƟoner. Accordingly, prayer is made for dismissal of the present writ peƟƟon. 6. No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the parƟes. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. 7. A perusal of the ApplicaƟon Form (Annexure R-1/T), submiƩed by the peƟƟoner clearly shows that in pursuance to AdverƟsement No.14/2019, under column of ‘ReservaƟon’, peƟƟoner has applied in the ‘General’ Category. It is the contenƟon of the peƟƟoner and as also menƟoned in para 4 of the present writ peƟƟon, that category of the peƟƟoner has been wrongly menƟoned as ‘General’ due to an inadvertent mistake by the Cyber Cafe operator; and in fact peƟƟoner is of Scheduled Caste Category, as evident from Scheduled Caste CerƟficate (Annexure P-2). However, the said contenƟon of the NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.15 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-14259-2022 (O&M) - 4 - peƟƟoner is not tenable as, first and foremost, peƟƟoner is required to fill the ApplicaƟon Form himself. Moreover, in his ApplicaƟon Form (Annexure R-1/T), against the column of Cyber Cafe, peƟƟoner has clearly menƟoned ‘NO’. Thus, the above submissions of the peƟƟoner are incorrect, and it is clear that it is the peƟƟoner himself who had filled the applicaƟon form and not the Cyber Cafe Operator. Even otherwise, the said reason is not acceptable in terms of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Civil Appeal No.198-2005 Ɵtled as J. & K. Public Service Commission Vs. Israr Ahmad & Ors. Law Finder Doc Id #192290 decided on 07.01.2005 wherein it has been held that: “6. We have considered the rival contenƟons advanced by both the parƟes. The contenƟon of the first respondent cannot be accepted as he has not applied for the selecƟon as a candidate enƟtled to get reservaƟon. He did not produce any cerƟficate along with his applicaƟon. The fact that he has not availed the benefit for the preliminary examinaƟon itself is sufficient to treat him as a candidate not enƟtled to get reservaƟon. He passed the preliminary examinaƟon as a general candidate and at the subsequent stage of the main examinaƟon he cannot avail the reservaƟon on the ground that he was successful in geƫng the required cerƟficate only at a later stage. The nature and status of the candidate who was applying for the selecƟon could only be treated alike and once a candidate has chosen to opt for the category to which he is enƟtled, he cannot later change the status and make fresh claim. The Division Bench was not correct in holding that as a candidate he had also had the qualificaƟon and the producƟon of the cerƟficate at later stage would make him enƟtled to seek reservaƟon. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and allow the appeal.” NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.15 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-14259-2022 (O&M) - 5 - The said view has been followed by this Court in CWP-15119-2016 Ɵtled as Shashi Vs. State of Haryana and other on dated 22.05.2018. The relevant para of which is as under:- “7.Perusal of the adverƟsement (Annexure P-1) clearly shows that a candidate can apply only once for a parƟcular category of post adverƟsed. It also makes it clear that no offline form is to be accepted. Another condiƟon included in the adverƟsement is that incomplete applicaƟon form would be rejected. Thus, a candidate is required to be very circumspect while filling the applicaƟon. Although the peƟƟoner may have obtained the EBPG cerƟficate before the extended date of submiƫng applicaƟons, he cannot take benefit thereof as he had applied under the general category. Had he applied for the EBPG category and had failed to aƩach the cerƟficate alongwith the applicaƟon, the case may have been different. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in Usha Dhillon (supra) does not support the case of the peƟƟoner as in the said case the computer had commiƩed a mistake and the same was permiƩed to be corrected. The judgment of the Supreme Court in J&K Public Service Commission (supra) makes it clear that once a candidate has chosen a parƟcular category, he cannot change the same at a later date." 8. The aforesaid view has been affirmed by the Supreme Court as well as by various High Courts in subsequent judgments. As such, the legal posiƟon in this regard is no longer res integra. 9. Furthermore, on a Court query, learned counsel for the peƟƟoner has admiƩed that the cutoff in the General Category is 51 marks, whereas the peƟƟoner has secured only 39 marks and is consequenƟally wait listed at No. 44. Needless to say, the peƟƟoner cannot be permiƩed to jump over the other candidates already borne on the waiƟng list and having more marks than the peƟƟoner. It is also clarified in the wriƩen statement filed by the respondent- NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.15 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-14259-2022 (O&M) - 6 - State that only three posts of Earth Work Mistry, were adverƟsed under the General Category in which the peƟƟoner had applied, and the same have already been filled with the eligible candidates. These candidates are selected on merit basis, and names are recommended by the Commission to the concerned Department on the basis of merit. The respondents have further denied receipt of any communicaƟon from the peƟƟoner aŌer declaraƟon of final result dated 07.05.2022. In these facts, it would be apposite to refer to judgment of this Court in CWP-4483-2021 Ɵtled as Ashu Sharma versus State of Punjab and others, wherein it has been held that: - “Terms and condiƟons of an adverƟsement are sacrosanct, and no changes in the applicaƟon form, including the category selected, are permissible once submiƩed, as per the condiƟons of the adverƟsement. A. Service law-Recruitment Process-AdverƟsement-Terms and condiƟons of AdverƟsement sacrosanct-Candidates cannot claim to recƟfy errors in the applicaƟon form, including changes in category, aŌer submission-Public noƟce allowing such changes held contrary to the adverƟsement and illegal. B. Service Law- Recruitment Process-No change in category permissible aŌer submission of applicaƟon form Once a candidate opts for a category, they cannot later change it at any stage of the selecƟon process. Public noƟce permiƫng such a change withdrawn rightly. XXX XXX XXX D. Service Law- Recruitment Process-Candidates responsible for errors in applicaƟon form No claim for recƟficaƟon allowed even if form filled by third-party (e.g., cybercafe)-Graduate candidates expected to verify applicaƟon details before submission. XXX XXX XXX NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.15 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-14259-2022 (O&M) - 7 - 7. It is a seƩled principle of law that the terms and condiƟons of the AdverƟsement are sacrosanct and are to be complied with by all the compeƟng candidates. As per the AdverƟsement dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure P-1), which included a condiƟon No.7 (xii), (xiii) and (xv) as per which condiƟons, the candidates will not be allowed to recƟfy any mistake in the applicaƟon form and the applicaƟon should be submiƩed with due care and no change in the same will be allowed aŌer submission of the applicaƟon and no representaƟon in this regard will be entertained by the Office. The said condiƟons are as under:- "xii. The candidate will be responsible for any mistake while online submission of applicaƟon. The EducaƟon recruitment will not responsible. xiii. While taking help of the Cyber Cafe aƩendant for online applicaƟon, the candidates are advised to fill their forms by self. No change can be done aŌer submission of online applicaƟon and approved and no opportunity will be given. No representaƟon regarding this will be considered by the office. xv. The decision of the Recruitment Directorate regarding this recruitment will be final and applicable to all." XXX XXX XXX 15. Further, as per the seƩled principle of law, no change can be allowed in the category once, the said category has been filled by the candidate himself/herself. In the present case, the respondents by public noƟce dated 13/14.01.2021 allowed the change of the category and that too aŌer holding of the wriƩen examinaƟon. The same is not permissible and the respondents recƟfied their mistake. XXX XXX XXX 20. It may be noƟced that the judgments have been given that in case the candidate is not tech-savy, the chance be given to recƟfy the mistake. In the present case, in order to ensure that the candidates fulfills the form as he/she wanted, a specific entertained on the ground that the mistake has NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.15 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-14259-2022 (O&M) - 8 - occurred due to form filled by an employee/owner of the cybercafe. Once, the peƟƟoners who are compeƟng for the post of Science Master/Mistress and are graduate, cannot be allowed to contend that they did not check their applicaƟon form before submiƫng the same even if, the same was filled in the cybercafe. Hence, the benefit of the said judgments cannot be given to the peƟƟoners keeping in view the specific terms and condiƟons in the adverƟsement coupled with the seƩled principle of the law seƩled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India noƟced hereinbefore.” 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual and legal posiƟon, the present writ peƟƟon stands dismissed. 11. Pending applicaƟon(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) 13.07.2026 JUDGE Neelam Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.15 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh