CWP-22089 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 233-A Ankita State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. Constitution of India is for quashing the respondent P-7) submitted by the petitioner has been rejected petitioner has secured 50 marks i.e. more than the last cut AND for issuance of a writ in the nature of respondents to consider/select Advertisement No. 03/2023 dated 20.03.2023 (Annexure P of MPHW(F) Heal candidate; appointment of the petitioner, during the pendency of present writ petition. 2. that the present writ petition has been rendered 22089-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: Versus State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Kanwarnoor Singh Sethi, Advocate for Mr. Rao Ajender Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suneel Ranga, DAG, Haryana. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of quashing the order dated 28.02.2025 (Annexure P respondent No. 1 whereby the representation dated submitted by the petitioner has been rejected petitioner has secured 50 marks i.e. more than the last cut for issuance of a writ in the nature of respondents to consider/select the candidature of the petitioner against Advertisement No. 03/2023 dated 20.03.2023 (Annexure P of MPHW(F) Health, Category No. 259 in Group No. 32 as a selected candidate; AND directing the respondent appointment of the petitioner, during the pendency of present writ At the very outset learned counsel for the that the present writ petition has been rendered 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-22089-2025 Date of Decision: 16.07.2026 .… Petitioner .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Kanwarnoor Singh Sethi, Advocate for Mr. Rao Ajender Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suneel Ranga, DAG, Haryana. filed under Articles 226/227 of the writ in the nature of Certiorari 28.02.2025 (Annexure P-10) passed by representation dated 09.02.2024 (Annexure submitted by the petitioner has been rejected, despite the fact that the petitioner has secured 50 marks i.e. more than the last cut-off 41.5 marks; for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the dature of the petitioner against Advertisement No. 03/2023 dated 20.03.2023 (Annexure P-1) for the post , Category No. 259 in Group No. 32 as a selected directing the respondents to keep one post vacant for appointment of the petitioner, during the pendency of present writ learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous, and may be of the 10) passed by 09.02.2024 (Annexure despite the fact that the off 41.5 marks; directing the dature of the petitioner against 1) for the post , Category No. 259 in Group No. 32 as a selected to keep one post vacant for appointment of the petitioner, during the pendency of present writ submits and may be RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.17 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-22089 disposed of respondents the present petition. 3. connected writ petition bearing No. 4. aforesaid submissions of learned counsel 5. 6. as having been rendered 7. 16.07.2026 rishu 22089-2025 disposed of as such, as vide Revised Result announced by the respondents; the petitioner stands selected. the present petition. Copy of the Revised Result connected writ petition bearing No. CWP-15225 Learned counsel for the respondent aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. In view of the above, the present writ petition is as having been rendered infructuous. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable as such, as vide Revised Result announced by the selected. As such, nothing survives in Revised Result has been appended with 15225-2025. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not disputed the for the petitioner. the present writ petition is disposed of application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No As such, nothing survives in appended with State has not disputed the disposed of RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.17 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.