1 CWP-11598-2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 226 CWP-11598-2023 Date of Decision: 22.07.2026 Arvind Kumar and others ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, DAG Haryana-State. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 02.02.2023 and 09.02.2023 (Annexures P-9 and P-10) respectively, rejecting the claim of petitioners for issuing appointment letters to the petitioners as PGT Sanskrit against the vacancies remained vacant in pursuant to the advt. No.1/2012 dated 07.06.2012 (Annexure P-1) being in violation of the judgment dated 23.08.2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by a Division Bench of this Court. Further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.1 PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.01 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP-11598-2023 and 2 to issue appointment letters to petitioners as PGT Sanskrit and to grant them all consequential benefits for which petitioners are legally entitled. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the erstwhile Haryana School Teachers Selection Board issued Advertisement No.1/2012 dated 07.06.2012 (Annexure P-1) inviting applications for various categories of posts, including 1465 posts of PGT Sanskrit (Category No.10). It is submitted that the petitioners possessed the requisite educational qualifications and were otherwise eligible for appointment under the applicable Service Rules. Learned counsel further submits that by virtue of the corrigendum dated 03.07.2012 (Annexure P-2), the conditions stipulated in Note 2 of the advertisement were relaxed by granting a one- time exemption from HTET/STET to candidates possessing the prescribed teaching experience. The petitioners participated in the selection process; however, upon declaration of the result dated 27.06.2014 (Annexure P-3), they were not selected. It is contended that several candidates were recommended for appointment after claiming the benefit of the aforesaid corrigendum on the strength of fake and bogus teaching experience certificates, thereby adversely affecting the merit position of the petitioners. 2.1 Learned counsel further submits that some of the aggrieved candidates approached this Court by filing CWP No.25682 of 2014, Arun Singh and others versus State of Haryana and another, wherein the principal issue for consideration was whether candidates next in merit were PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.01 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CWP-11598-2023 entitled to be considered for appointment against the vacancies which remained unfilled on account of selected candidates not joining service or having been found ineligible. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 13.11.2017 (Annexure P-4). Aggrieved thereof, the erstwhile Haryana School Teachers Selection Board preferred LPA No.2435 of 2017, which was disposed of on 23.08.2018 (Annexure P-5). While modifying the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench held that although candidates next in merit do not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment, they have a right to be considered for appointment against the vacancies available in accordance with law. 2.2 Learned counsel further submits that the present petitioners had also approached this Court in the earlier round of litigation. CWP No.9333 of 2014, Inna Devi versus State of Haryana and another was treated as the lead case and was decided on 12.09.2022 (Annexure P-6). The said writ petition, along with the connected writ petitions including those filed by the present petitioners, was disposed of in terms of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in LPA No.2435 of 2017, Haryana School Teachers Selection Board versus Arun Singh and others, with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners submitted a detailed representation dated 03.11.2022 (Annexure P-8), wherein they specifically pointed out that several selected candidates had secured appointment by PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.01 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CWP-11598-2023 obtaining the benefit of the corrigendum dated 03.07.2012 on the basis of fake and bogus teaching experience certificates. It is submitted that in paragraph 10 of the said representation, the petitioners specifically pleaded that the Managing Committees of various schools had issued teaching experience certificates to more than one candidate against the same post of Sanskrit Teacher and also annexed a list of such candidates. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners had also specifically pleaded, on the basis of information obtained under the Right to Information Act, that 165 posts in the General Category and 18 posts in the Backward Class Category under Category No.10 (PGT Sanskrit) had remained unconsumed during the selection process. 2.3 Learned counsel further contends that the respondents, while passing the impugned orders dated 02.02.2023 and 09.02.2023 (Annexures P-9 and P-10), failed to consider the aforesaid material and, instead, shifted the entire responsibility upon the Education Department by observing that after forwarding its recommendations, the Selection Commission had become functus officio, and that verification of documents was the exclusive domain of the appointing authority. It is submitted that despite specific allegations regarding candidates who had obtained public employment by producing fake and bogus experience certificates, no action was taken against such candidates. Learned counsel further refers to the public notice (Annexure P-13), whereby candidates possessing doubtful teaching experience certificates were granted a final opportunity to PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.01 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 CWP-11598-2023 appear before the Document Verification Committee. According to learned counsel, the issuance of the said notice itself establishes that appointments of several selected candidates were under scrutiny and that vacancies were available. Consequently, the petitioners, being candidates next in the order of merit, were entitled to consideration for appointment in terms of the law laid down by this Court in Arun Singh (supra). 2.4 Learned counsel further submits that during the pendency of the present writ petition, this Court, vide order dated 06.03.2024, directed the respondents to file an affidavit indicating the status of vacant posts in view of the public notice (Annexure P-13). In purported compliance thereof, respondents No.1 and 2 filed a status report stating that although 47 candidates had not joined pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, those vacancies were under consideration in SLP No.3263 of 2023, Tarsem Sharma versus State of Haryana and others, and that no vacancy of PGT Sanskrit was available except the said 47 posts. Learned counsel vehemently contends that the respondents have deliberately mixed up the vacancies arising out of Advertisement No.4 of 2015 with those pertaining to Advertisement No.1 of 2012, although both recruitment processes are entirely distinct and have no nexus with each other. It is, therefore, argued that the respondents have attempted to circumvent the directions issued by this Court and have failed to disclose the actual vacancy position arising out of Advertisement No.1 of 2012, thereby frustrating the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.01 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 CWP-11598-2023 claim of the petitioners for consideration against the vacancies which admittedly remained unfilled. 3. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer made by the petitioners and submits that the petitioners have no vested right to claim appointment. It is contended that in the earlier round of litigation, this Court, while deciding Inna Devi (supra) (Annexure P-6), merely directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for appointment and, in case representations were submitted by them, to consider and decide the same by passing appropriate speaking orders in accordance with law. In compliance with the aforesaid directions, the representations submitted by the petitioners (Annexure P-8) were duly considered and separate speaking orders were passed in respect of each of the writ petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners were not recommended for appointment, as they had secured lesser marks than the last selected candidate in their respective categories. Learned State Counsel further submits that against the requisition of 1465 posts of PGT Sanskrit sent by the Department to the erstwhile Haryana School Teachers Selection Board in the year 2012, only 1239 candidates were recommended by the Board as eligible for appointment. Thereafter, the Department again sent a requisition for 626 posts of PGT Sanskrit under the direct quota in the year 2015, wherein 89 posts were carried forward on account of Scheduled Caste backlog and the remaining posts were converted to other categories. It is submitted that the aforesaid requisition remained pending on account of the litigation arising PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.01 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 CWP-11598-2023 out of LPA No.1928 of 2019, Saneh Lata and others Versus State of Haryana and others, decided on 12.01.2023. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, certain candidates preferred SLP (C) No.3263 of 2023, Tarsem Sharma (supra) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Commission recommended 607 candidates, out of whom the Department issued appointment letters to 556 candidates, whereas the appointment letters of 4 candidates were kept on hold on account of issues relating to their Master's Degree qualification and 47 candidates failed to join despite issuance of reminders by the Department. Learned State Counsel further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 22.04.2024, directed that all the aforesaid 47 vacant posts be offered to candidates possessing the qualification of Shiksha Shastri, strictly in order of merit, and in the event such candidates do not come forward to join, the unfilled posts may be offered to candidates possessing the qualification of Acharya, again strictly in the order of merit. It is, thus, submitted that the aforesaid Special Leave Petition is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned State Counsel further contends that, in compliance with the order dated 06.03.2024 passed by this Court, 39 candidates mentioned in Annexure P-13 against Advertisement No.1 of 2012 were called for document verification before the Document Verification Committee on 10.06.2023. Out of the said 39 candidates, only 12 candidates pertained to the post of PGT Sanskrit and all of them had already joined the post of PGT Sanskrit. Consequently, there is no vacancy PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.01 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 CWP-11598-2023 available in the Department against Advertisement No.1 of 2012 except the aforesaid 47 posts, which are presently under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.3263 of 2023, Tarsem Sharma (supra). The recruitment process initiated pursuant to Advertisement No.1 of 2012 has, therefore, attained finality and the subsequent recruitment process initiated pursuant to Advertisement No.4 of 2015 has substantially been completed. Accordingly, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file with their able assistance. 5. It transpires from the record that the erstwhile Haryana School Teachers Selection Board issued Advertisement No.1 of 2012 dated 07.06.2012 inviting applications for various posts, including the post of PGT Sanskrit. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners participated in the selection process but were not selected in the final result declared on 27.06.2014. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not offering appointment against the vacancies remaining unfilled, certain candidates approached this Court by filing in Arun Singh (supra), which came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge on 13.11.2017. The relevant extract thereof reads as under:- “In the present case, as noticed, vide notice dated 07.11.2014, the persons who had not joined were being given PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.01 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 CWP-11598-2023 last chance and the first of the writ petitions i.e. CWP No. 12879 of 2014 came to be filed on 07.07.2014. The petitioners have been staking their claim against the unfilled seats and, therefore, the petitioners herein had approached this Court at the earliest on account of the seats not being filled up. The defence of the State has been referred to above in detail. No justifiable reason as such has been given as to why the posts were not filled up and, therefore, the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench would be directly applicable regarding the State's lack of right as such to act in an arbitrary manner. However, in the case of CWP No. 18851 of 2014, the petitioner has not been able to make out that she would fall within the zone of consideration as per merit as there is a wide disparity between the last candidate appointed and the petitioner. Secondly, nothing has been averred regarding the aspect of candidates not having joined in the said category and at what stage the petitioner was placed on the merit list and, therefore, there is no scope for interference in the said case. Accordingly, no relief can be granted in the said case. Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners would be entitled for appointment against the vacant seats which were never consumed being in the zone of consideration and accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The petitioners shall be offered appointment letters and the State should operate the merit list in the respective categories in the subjects of English, Hindi, and Biology. In case there are persons senior in merit than the petitioners, they will firstly be offered the said posts and in case the vacancies still exist, the petitioners will be accommodated. The necessary exercise be PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.01 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10 CWP-11598-2023 concluded within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment.” 6. However, the aforesaid judgment was modified by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.2435 of 2017, rendered in Arun Singh (supra), whereby the judgment of the learned Single Judge was clarified to the extent that the candidates could only claim consideration for appointment against the existing vacancies and not appointment as a matter of right. The relevant observations made by the Division Bench read as under:- “There is indeed no doubt that even if the respondents had been selected on merit and were within the zone of the advertised vacancies, it would not confer a right upon them to claim appointment. As an extension of that logic they being next in merit list to those selected would also have no right to claim appointment. The only direction that the Writ Court could have given considering the vacancy positions and the respondents being next up in merit after the selected candidates, was that they ought to be considered by the State for appointment. Learned Single Judge committed a wrong in saying that the respondents are entitled for appointment which binds the appellant to a mandate. Therefore, we only clarify the order of learned Single Judge to mean that the private respondents be considered for appointments in view of the existing vacancies. All appeals stand disposed of in above terms.” 7. Thereafter, the petitioners herein, along with other similarly situated candidates, approached this Court by filing Inna Devi (supra), which came PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.01 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11 CWP-11598-2023 to be disposed of on 12.09.2022 (Annexure P-6). The operative part of the said order reads as under:- “By this common order, five writ petitions, the details of which have been mentioned in the heading, are being disposed of as all of them involve similar question of law. Learned counsel for both the parties agree that the question of law raised in the present petitions stands answered in LPA No.2435 of 2017 titled as Haryana School Teachers Selection Board versus Arun Singh and others, decided on 23.08.2018 and the present petition be also disposed of in the same terms and conditions. Ordered accordingly. In case, the petitioner(s) have any grievance with regard to the merit, the same be also addressed before the respondents for their consideration and appropriate decision by filing appropriate representation and in case, any such representation is filed, same be decided as expeditiously as possible. Let the consideration if any, for which the petitioner(s) become entitled under this order, be given within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this order.” 7.1 In compliance with the aforesaid directions, the petitioners submitted their representation (Annexure P-8), which was duly considered by the competent authority and separate speaking orders dated 02.02.2023 and 09.02.2023 (Annexures P-9 and P-10) came to be passed. While PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.01 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12 CWP-11598-2023 rejecting the claim of the petitioners, the competent authority observed that the petitioners had secured lesser marks than the last selected candidate in their respective categories. It was specifically recorded that the last selected candidate in the General Category had secured 53.14 marks out of 100 marks, whereas the last selected candidate in the BC Category had secured 52.09 marks out of 100 marks. Consequently, the petitioners were held not entitled to appointment against the post of PGT Sanskrit pursuant to Advertisement No.1 of 2012. 8. The principal contention raised by the petitioners is that vacancies were still available under Advertisement No.1 of 2012, as reflected in the information obtained under the Right to Information Act and referred to in paragraph 10 of the representation (Annexure P-8). However, the said contention cannot be accepted in view of the specific affidavit filed by respondents No.1 and 2 pursuant to the order dated 06.03.2024 passed by this Court. In the said affidavit, it has been specifically stated that the recruitment process initiated pursuant to Advertisement No.1 of 2012 had already attained finality; out of the requisition of 1465 posts, 1239 candidates were recommended for appointment. It has further been explained that 89 posts were carried forward on account of Scheduled Caste backlog, whereas the remaining vacancies were converted into other categories in accordance with the applicable Government instructions. Thereafter, a fresh requisition for 626 posts of PGT Sanskrit was sent by the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.01 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 13 CWP-11598-2023 Department, which subsequently became the subject matter of further litigation. 9. The record further reveals that the subsequent recruitment initiated pursuant to Advertisement No.4 of 2015 became embroiled in litigation culminating in the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in LPA No.1928 of 2019, Sneh Lata (supra). The said judgment was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) No.3263 of 2023 Tarsem Sharma (supra), wherein orders dated 15.12.2023 and 22.04.2024 came to be passed, in which the following was observed on 22.04.2024:- “….it is directed that all the 47 vacant posts be offered to the candidates having qualification of Shiksha Shastri, strictly in order of merit. However, if a candidate having qualification of Shiksha Shastri does not come forward to join, then such unfilled post may be offered to the candidate having qualification of Acharya, of course, in the order of merit.” 9.1 It is not in dispute that the aforesaid Special Leave Petition is still pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the remaining 47 vacancies are governed by the interim directions passed therein. 10. Another significant aspect which cannot be lost sight of is that the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Arun Singh (LPA No.2435 of 2017) (supra) has attained finality. The petitioners have neither challenged the aforesaid judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court nor have they PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.01 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 14 CWP-11598-2023 been able to demonstrate any independent legal right entitling them to claim appointment beyond what has been recognized by the Division Bench. 11. Further, it is a settled proposition of law that mere selection or inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. A recruitment advertisement is merely an invitation to eligible candidates to apply and, unless the applicable recruitment rules provide otherwise, the State is under no legal obligation to fill all or any of the advertised vacancies. However, the decision not to fill the vacancies has to be taken bona fide and for valid reasons and, if the vacancies are filled, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Vijeesh, (1996) 3 SCC 139, wherein, while relying upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, it was held as under:- "It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.01 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 15 CWP-11598-2023 does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted." 11.1 Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, (2009) 2 SCC 479, wherein it was observed as under:- "16. The State as an employer has a right to fill up all the posts or not to fill them up. Unless a discrimination is made in regard to the filling up of the vacancies or an arbitrariness is committed, the concerned candidate will have no legal right for obtaining a writ of or in the nature of mandamus." 11.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court further relied upon the judgment in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220, and observed as under:- "The mere fact that a candidate's name appears in the list will not entitle him to a mandamus that he be appointed. Indeed, if the State Government while making the selection for appointment had departed from the ranking given in the list, there would have been a legitimate grievance on the ground that the State Government had departed from the rules in this respect... 11. It must be remembered that the petition is for a mandamus. This Court has pointed out in Dr. Rai Shivendra PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.01 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 16 CWP-11598-2023 Bahadur v. Governing Body of the Nalanda College that in order that mandamus may issue to compel an authority to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on that authority and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. Since there is no legal duty on the State Government to appoint all the persons who are in the list and the petitioners have no legal right under the rules to enforce its performance, the petition is clearly misconceived." 11.3 In the present case, such consideration already stands extended to the petitioners pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Inna Devi (supra). Their representations were duly considered by the competent authority and rejected by passing reasoned speaking orders after recording that the petitioners had secured lesser marks than the last selected candidates in their respective categories. Furthermore, the respondents have placed on record a specific affidavit explaining the vacancy position and the subsequent developments arising from the litigation pertaining to Advertisement No.4 of 2015, which is presently pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the absence of any arbitrariness, perversity or violation of any statutory provision in the impugned speaking orders, no ground is made out for interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.01 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 17 CWP-11598-2023 12. Consequently, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. 13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 21.07.2026 Puneet Chawla Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.01 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document