IN THE HIGH 210 Surender Singh Haryana Staff Sele CORAM: HON' Present:- Mr. R Mr. S NIDHI GUPTA, J. Prese of India has been especially in the 20.05.2022 (Anne Chargeman Mech petitioner for the certiorari be issu (Annexure P-21) a as the petitioner i writ in the nature HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARY AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date Versus Selection Commission ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA r. R. S. Dhull, Advocate for the petit r. Suneel Ranga, DAG, Haryana. ***** resent Civil Writ Petition under Arti een filed by the petitioner for issua the nature of certiorari quashing t nnexure P-3) and detailed result echanical (Category No. 16) to the the post under General Category; issued quashing the impugned sp 1) as the same is Illegal and against er is duly eligible for the post in qu ture of mandamus directing the Res RYANA WP-6893-2023 (O&M) ate of Decision:- 18.08.2026 … Petitioner ... Respondent PTA petitioner. Articles 226/227 of the Constitutio ssuance of a writ, order or direction ing the impugned final result date sult Annexure P-5 for the post o the extent of non-selection of th ory; further a writ in the nature o d speaking order dated 20.01.202 inst the admitted facts of the matte in question; further for issuance of Respondent-Commission to declar ution ction, dated st of f the re of .2023 atter e of a clare NEELAM KUMARI 2026.08.19 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6893-2023 the petitioner el qualifications and 2. It is pursuance to Adve by the responden General Category petitioner was allo 3. There petitioner has se (Annexure P-3). Ho high merit of the 27.07.2022 (Anne still not included petitioner's name 4. Ld. co years' experience considered. It is p evident from Anne account. Accordin informed that his not mentioned in 5. There previously worked (O&M) - - r eligible for the post in questio and experience attained by the peti is inter alia submitted by ld. cou Advertisement No. 14/2019 dated 2 dent, petitioner had applied for po gory. As documents submitted by allotted roll number and issued Ad hereafter, petitioner had taken th s secured 44 marks. The result ). However, name of the petitioner the petitioner and vacant posts. Su nnexure P-4) was issued in the res ded. Then, detailed result (Annex me was again omitted. d. counsel contends that Advertis nce in relevant field but does not m is pointed out that petitioner has Annexures P-6 to P-14. However, th ordingly, petitioner had approach his name was in the list of ineligib d in the Experience Certificate subm hereafter, petitioner had approache rked and requested them to prov estion in view of the educationa petitioner. . counsel for the petitioner that i ed 22.09.2019 (Annexure P-1) issue r post of Chargeman (Mechanical) i by the petitioner were in orde Admit Card. n the written examinationin whic sult was declared on 20.05.202 ner did not appear in the list despit s. Subsequently, corrigendum date result, but name of petitioner wa nnexure P-5) was announced, an ertisement No. 14/2019 requires ot mention how experience is to b has experience in various fields, a r, the same has not been taken int oached the Commission and wa ligible candidates as name of post ubmitted by the petitioner. ached the companies where he ha provide certificate to the petitione tional at in ssued al) in rder, which .2022 spite dated r was , and res 5 to be ds, as into was ost is e had ioner NEELAM KUMARI 2026.08.19 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6893-2023 with the post nam P-15) and 24.05.20 previous employe Commission by wa 6. As re had filed CWP-228 30.09.2022 (Anne representation an (Annexure P-21), p 7. Ld. co discriminatory in Commission has a different yardstick 8. It is f (Annexure P-24) r posts are to be con 9. It is l Chhanda vs. Chair not adopt hyper prayed that the pr 10. Per c petitioner and ref the reply to the ef (O&M) - - name mentioned in it. Said Certifica 5.2022 (Annexure P-19) were duly loyers; and petitioner had duly y way of representation. s representation of the petitioner 22814-2022; which was disposed o nnexure P-20) with a direction n and pass speaking order. Vide im 1), petitioner's representation has b d. counsel contends that the impug in nature, as in a similar case as accepted similar certificate as stick cannot be adopted in the case is further submitted that as per R 4) received by the petitioner, pos e converted to General Category. is lastly submitted that Hon'ble S Chairman, Jee 2004 (4) SCT page 54 er-technical attitude while conside e present writ petition be allowed. er contra, ld. State counsel has referred to submissions made by e effect that the Experience Certific tificates dated 24.05.2022 (Annexur uly provided to the petitioner by h duly submitted the same to th ner was still not decided, petitione ed of by this Court vide order date ion to the Commission to decid e impugned order dated 20.01.202 as been rejected. pugned action of the respondents ase of one Rohtash s/o Nand La as given to the petitioner. Thus, ase of the petitioner. er RTI information dated 03.11.202 posts are still lying vacant as ESM ble Supreme Court in case of Doll ge 546, has held that agency shoul sidering documents.It is accordingl ed. has opposed submissions of th by the respondent in para No. 6 o rtificates submitted by the petitione exure by his the ioner dated ecide .2023 nts is Lal, us, a .2022 ESM Dolly hould ingly f the . 6 of ioner NEELAM KUMARI 2026.08.19 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6893-2023 could not be cons the said Certificat Rohtash was appo 11. No o parties. I have hea find no merit in th 12. A per pertains to the po The essential qual "Essen 13. The the experience certificates submit and appointment categorically state experience certif by the petitioner. (O&M) - - considered as name of post was no ficates. As regards case of Rohtash ppointed in pursuance to a court or o other argument is made on be heard ld. counsel and perused the in the submissions advanced on beh perusal of the record of the case e post of Chargeman Mechanical, qualification for the post in question Essential Qualification:- i) Matric with I.T.l. Certi Trade along with five yea ii) Six months certificate in C (iii) Hindi/Sanskrit as one of Higher." petitioner has contended that th ce certificate submitted by the bmitted by Rohtash son of Nand La ent has been given to him. Ho stated that this contention of the rtificates of the petitioner and Roh ner. The details regarding experien s not mentioned by the petitioner i tash, ld. State counsel submits tha rt order. behalf of learned counsel for th d the case file and record in detail. behalf of the petitioner. case shows that the present matte cal, Advt. No. 14/2019, Cat. No. 16 tion is as under: - Certificate in Moulder/Turner/Fitte e years experience in relevant field e in Computer Applications e of the subject in Matriculation o at the respondents have disregarde the petitioner, whereas identica d Lal have been accepted to be vali However, the respondents hav f the petitioner is incorrect as th Rohtash are not identical as allege rience certificates of petitioner an er in s that r the tail. I atter o. 16. Fitter on or arded ntical valid have the leged r and NEELAM KUMARI 2026.08.19 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6893-2023 candidate Rohtash has been given by (i) Sr. No. Post on whi experience claimed. 1 Apprenticeship Certificate Tra Fitter 2 Maintenance Fitter 3 Not Mentioned 4 Not Mentioned 5 Not Mentioned 6 Not Mentioned 7 Not Mentioned (O&M) - - tash along with reason for consid n by the respondents as per chart re Details of Petitioner’s Experien which Name of company/firm where experience gained Period Experience eship e Trade Escort Ltd. Mathura Road Faridabad 15.10.2001 to 14.10.2002 nce R.N.V.N. Enterprises 01.04.2005 to 30.09.2005 ioned Kamal Enterprises 30.01.2009 to 29.01.2010 ioned Sukhmaa Sons & Associates 09.02.2010 to 29.01.2011 ioned Kay CEE Enterprises 16.02.2011 to 15.02.2012 ioned Sukhmaa Sons & Associates 27.02.2012 to 19.02.2013 ioned Kamal Enterprises 15.03.2013 to 19.02.2014 nsidering/not considering the sam reproduced below: - erience:- d of ience Total experienc e Remarks .2001 .2002 1 year Considered .2005 .2005 6 months Considered .2009 .2010 1 year Cannot be consider name of post on w the petitioner worked and att experience is mentioned. .2010 .2011 11 months 20 days Cannot be consider name of post on w the petitioner worked and att experience is mentioned. .2011 .2012 1 year Cannot be consider name of post on w the petitioner worked and att experience is mentioned. .2012 .2013 11 Months 23 days Cannot be consider name of post on w the petitioner worked and att experience is mentioned. .2013 .2014 11 Months 4 days Cannot be consider name of post on w the petitioner worked and att experience is mentioned. same sidered as on which er has attained is not sidered as on which er has attained is not sidered as on which er has attained is not sidered as on which er has attained is not sidered as on which er has attained is not NEELAM KUMARI 2026.08.19 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6893-2023 (ii) Sr. No. Post o experie claimed 1 Appren Certific Turner 2 Not Me 3 Not Me 4 Line M 14. Upon candidates, the re compliance of ord petitio experi Ltd. M Fitter (O&M) - - Details of Rohtash’s Experienc st on which perience imed Name of company/firm where experience gained prenticeship rtificate Trade rner Hero Motocorp. Ltd. t Mentioned Sukhmaa Sons & Associates t Mentioned Kamal Enterprises e Mistry/HS-2 महाबक, आयुधिनमाणीखमरया, जबलपुर, रामंालय, भारतसरकार pon comparison of the certific e respondents in their Additional order dated 04.03.2025passed by t “That from the details etitioner and candidate Rohtash, xperience certificates of petitioner, o td. Mathura Road Faridabad & R.N.V itter & Maintenance Fitter for the pe rience:- Period of experience Total experience Remarks 27.08.2010 to 26.08.2011 1 year Consider 29.08.2011 to 15.08.2012 11 Months 17 days Cannot consider name of on whic petitione worked attained experien not mention 21.08.2012 to 30.07.2013 11 Months 09 days Cannot consider name of on whic petitione worked attained experien not mention 30.05.2014 to 18.09.2019 5 years 3 months & 19 days Consider rtificates submitted by both th al Affidavit dated 31.10.2025filed i by the Court, have stated as follows etails of experience certificates o sh, it is clear that out of total 7 er, only 2 certificate issued by Escor R.N.VN. Enterprises, on post of Trade e period 15.10.2001 to 14.10.2002 & arks sidered not be sidered as e of post which the tioner has ked and ined erience is tioned. not be sidered as e of post which the tioner has ked and ined erience is tioned. sidered the led in lows: es of tal 7 scort Trade 02 & NEELAM KUMARI 2026.08.19 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6893-2023 01.04. to tot the po Mould canno petitio menti candid experi calcula candid experi to 26. 30.05. महाब are co 19 Da experi consid certific Associ case o and c menti that o denied given petitio (O&M) - - 1.04.2005 to 30.09.2005 respectivel total 1 year & 6 months experienc e post in question 5 years experie oulder/Fitter/Turner, Further, the r annot be considered because the etitioner has claimed to work an entioned. Further, regarding th andidate Rohtash, it is pertinent to m xperience certificates the 2 certific alculating experience because the andidate has claimed work experien xperience certificate of candidate Ro 26.08.2011 from Hero Motocorp. Lt 0.05.2014 to 18.09.2019 on the p महाबक, आयुधिनमाणीखमरया, जब re considerable and the total experie 9 Days. Therefore, as the candidate xperience which is required for the p onsidered for the post in question. Further, it is relevant to ertificates as claimed by petitioner ssociates and Kamal Enterprises hav ase of Rohtash also because, the na nd candidate namely Rohtash had entioned on those certificates. The at on identical experience certifi enied appointment whereas, other iven appointment is wrong and in etitioner has not been considered rig tively are considerable which come rience whereas for being eligible fo perience is required on the post o the rest of certificates of petitione the name of post, on which the k and attained experience, is no the experience certificates o t to mention here that out of total 4 rtificates cannot be considered fo the name of post on which the erience, is not mentioned. However te Rohtash for the period 27.08.2010 rp. Ltd. on the post of Trade Turner & he post of Line Mistry/ HS-2 from जबलपुर, रामंालय, भारतसरकार periences is of 6 years, 3 Months and date Rohatash has fulfilled 5 years o the post in question has rightly been t to mention here that the identica ioner issued by Sukhmaa Sons and s have also not been considered as in he name of post on which petitione had claimed experiences was no . Therefore, the claim of petitione ertificates the petitioner has been other candidate Rohtash has been d incorrect hence, denied and the ed rightly for the post in question fo omes le for st of tioner h the s not s of otal 4 d for the ever, .2010 ner & from रतसरकार s and ars of been ntical s and as in tioner s not tioner been been d the n for NEELAM KUMARI 2026.08.19 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6893-2023 not fu post in is allo whose respon filed b menti consid 15. The assertions of the r and Rohtash are n 16. Even certificates of Roh would constitute petitioner.Two wr I am supported in Bihar V. Kameshw held that:- (O&M) - - ot fulfilling the condition of 5 years ost in question. Further, if the present ap allowed then it will set the wrong hose candidature has not been con spondent Commission. It is also per led by the respondent Commission entioned therein for non selectio onsidered reply to this application in he petitioner has not been able the respondents. It is therefore clea re not comparable being on a differ ven otherwise, even assuming Rohtash had been wrongly accepte ute no ground for repeating the s o wrongs do not make a right. There d in my view by judgment of Hon eshwar Prasad Singh, (SC): Law Fin “D. Constitution of Discrimination Equality - Wro concept of equality envisag Constitution is a positive concep negative manner. When any have committed an illegality individual or group of individu benefits Two wrongs can never ears experience to be eligible for the nt application filed by the petitione rong precedent to other candidate considered on same ground by the o pertinent to mention that the repl ission in present case and ground lection of petitioner may also be n in addition to present affidavit.” able to controvert the above sai clear that the case of the petitione ifferent footing. for the sake of argument tha epted by the respondents, the sam he same mistake in the case of th here is no concept of negative parity Hon’ble Supreme Court in State o w Finder Doc Id# 6532 wherein it of India, Articles 14 and 16 Wrong orders contrary to law The visaged under Article 14 of the oncept which cannot be enforced in a any authority or Court is shown to lity or irregularity in favour of an ividuals, others cannot claim simila ever make a right.” r the tioner dates y the reply ounds o be ” said ioner that same f the arity. te of it is 16 The f the d in a n to of an imilar NEELAM KUMARI 2026.08.19 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6893-2023 (O&M) - - XXXX 24. The concept of equality (Article 14?) of the Constituti cannot be enforced in a negati is shown to have committed favour of any individual or gro claim the same illegality or ir thereof to them. Similarly wron one individual does not entitle In this regard this Court in NDMC and others, 1996(2) SC that citizens have assumed wro of Article 14 of the Constitut before law to all citizens. Benef an irregular or illegal manner c the plea of equality as en Constitution by way of writ pet Court observed: "Neither Article 14 within the equality clau empowers the High Co equality before law. If su amount to directing to procedure or an illega benefits to others. Befo clause is upheld, it must that his claim being just him, while it has been process there has been a Again, in Secretary, Jaipur De Daulat Mal Jain and others, lity as envisaged under Article 14 titution is a positive concept which egative manner. When any authority tted any illegality or irregularity in r group of individuals others canno or irregularity on ground of denia wrong judgment passed in favour o title others to claim similar benefits in Gursharan Singh and others v 2) SCC 459: 1996(1) R.R.R. 563 held d wrong notions regarding the scope stitution which guarantees equalit enefits extended to some persons in ner cannot be claimed by a citizen on enshrined in Article 14 of the t petition filed in the High Court. T le 14 of the Constitution conceive clause this concept nor Article 226 h Court to enforce such claim o . If such claims are enforced, it sha to continue and perpetuate an illega illegal order for extending simila Before a claim based on equalit ust be established by the petitione just and legal, has been denied to een extended to others and in thi en a discrimination." r Development Authority, Jaipur v hers, 1997(1) SCC 35: 1997(1) RCR le 14 which hority ity in annot enial ur of efits. ers v. held scope uality ons in en on f the t. The ceives e 226 m of shall illegal imilar uality tioner ed to n this ur v. ) RCR NEELAM KUMARI 2026.08.19 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6893-2023 (O&M) - - (Civil) 379 this Court considere Constitution and reiterated its concept of equality holding: "Suffice it to ho founded upon ultra vires made to some other per legal premise to ensure i or perpetuate such illega In other words, judicial perpetuate the illegalitie the High Court was cle appellants to allot the lan In State of Haryana and o 1997(3) SCC 321: 1997(3) SCT 1 "The doctrine of existence of an enforcea and denied equality as had been given the sam only when invidious discr and similarly circumstanc relationship in that beha whatsoever and cannot b to them, i.e., benefit of High Court was wholly w that there was invidiou allow a wrong to pe committing mis approp from service and subseq and he is reinstated in circumstanced person cla idered the scope of Article 14 of the d its earlier position regarding the o hold that the illegal allotmen vires and illegal policy of allotmen r persons wrongly, would not form a ure it to the respondent or to repea llegal order, nor could it be legalised icial process cannot be abused to alities. Thus considered, we hold tha s clearly in error in directing the e land to the respondents." nd others v. Ram Kumar Mann CT 135 (SC) this Court observed: of discrimination is founded upon rceable right. He was discriminated as some similarly situated person same relief. Article 14 would appl discrimination is meted out to equal stanced without any rational basis o behalf. The respondent has no right not be given the relief wrongly given it of withdrawal of resignation. The lly wrong in reaching the conclusion idious discrimination. If we canno perpetrate, an employee, afte propriation of money, is dismissed bsequently that order is withdrawn d into the service. Can a similarl n claim equality under Section 14 fo f the g the ment ment rm a epeat lised. ed to that g the ann, upon nated rsons apply quals sis or right, given . The lusion annot after issed rawn ilarly 14 for NEELAM KUMARI 2026.08.19 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6893-2023 17. In vie petition stands dis 18. Pendi 18.08.2026 Neelam Wheth Wheth (O&M) - - reinstatement? The an converse case, in the fir but the wrong order c claiming equality for enf stated earlier, his rig enforceable right to entit for enforcement thereo Government does not gi order and claim parity or make a right.” view of the factual and legal positi dismissed. ending application(s), if any, also sta ether speaking /reasoned Yes / N ether Reportable Yes / N answer is obviously "No". In a e first instance, one may be wrong der cannot be the foundation fo r enforcement of the same order. A right must be founded upon entitle him to the equality treatmen hereof. A wrong decision by the ot give a right to enforce the wrong ity or equality. Two wrongs can neve osition noted above, the present wr o stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE s / No s / No In a rong n for er. As upon ment the rong never t writ NEELAM KUMARI 2026.08.19 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document