IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 229 CWP-20039-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 23.07.2026 Deepak Vaisoha … PeƟƟoner Versus State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. K.D. S. Hooda, Advocate Mr. Sumit Ruhal, Advocate and Mr. Yashwir Singh Hooda, Advocate for the peƟƟoner. Ms. Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana. ***** NIDHI GUPTA ,J Present Civil Writ PeƟƟon under ArƟcles 226 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India has been filed by the peƟƟoner for issuance of a writ in the nature of CerƟorari quashing the impugned Merit List/Result dated 12.08.2024 (Annexure P-4) for the post of Supervisor Hospitality OrganizaƟon, Haryana in Group No.56, Category No.351 under AdverƟsement No.4/2024 whereby the peƟƟoner has not been allowed to appear in the Main ExaminaƟon for the posts, despite having more marks than the last qualified candidate (cut off marks), under General Category who is having only 55.76 marks, whereas the peƟƟoner is having 65.31 marks, which is illegal, arbitrarily and against the provision of ArƟcles 14 & 16 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India and issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus direcƟng the respondents to consider and allow the peƟƟoner to appear in the Main ExaminaƟon which is going to be held on 17.08.2024 for the NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.28 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-20039-2024 (O&M) - 2 - post of Supervisor Hospitality OrganizaƟon, Haryana in Group No.56, Category No.351 under AdverƟsement No.4/2024 dated 28.06.2024 (Annexure P-2). 2. It is inter alia submiƩed by ld. counsel for the peƟƟoner that vide noƟficaƟon dated 05.05.2022, State of Haryana had declared a policy for recruitment to Group C and D posts through CET 2022. Vide AdverƟsement No. CET-01/2022 dated 17.06.2022, applicaƟons were issued for 453 categories of posts of various departments. On 5/6 November 2022, CET (Pre) ExaminaƟon was held. Result of the said examinaƟon was declared on 10.01.2023. PeƟƟoner had applied in the BC(B) category and had scored 65.31 marks, as evident from the score card of the peƟƟoner (Annexure P-1). 3. ThereaŌer, AdverƟsement No.3/2023 dated 07.03.2023 was published by respondent No. 2 for 376 categories in 58 groups (later on increased to 401 categories in 63 groups). Subsequently, the said adverƟsement was dropped due to liƟgaƟon; and re-adverƟsed Group-1, Group-2, Group-56 and Group-57 posts vide AdverƟsement No. 4/2024 dated 28.06.2024 (Annexure P-2), inviƟng applicaƟons for direct recruitment to Group C posts from CET Group C qualified candidates. 4. Ld. counsel submits that in the said AdverƟsement No. 4/2024 it is specifically stated that candidates who had applied against AdverƟsement No.3/2023 have to apply afresh for these posts. Accordingly, PeƟƟoner had submiƩed his applicaƟon form (Annexure P-3) under the BC(B) non-creamy layer and had applied for different posts of different departments in Group No. 56 as well as other adverƟsed posts. On 12.08.2024, respondent No.2 had published a list (Annexure P-4) of candidates shortlisted for various posts in Groups 56 and NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.28 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-20039-2024 (O&M) - 3 - 57 as adverƟsed under AdverƟsement No.4/2024 for appearing in the Skill-cum- Mains WriƩen ExaminaƟon scheduled to be held on 17.08.2024 (for Group No.56) and 18.08.2024 (for Group No.57). Cut-off marks for General Category for the post of Supervisor (Category 351) were 55.760007. PeƟƟoner had secured 65.31 marks in BC(B) category. However, as there was no post for BC(B) under Category 351, therefore, roll number of the peƟƟoner was not menƟoned in the result. 5. Ld. counsel contends that as per Clause 7.11 given in AdverƟsement No. 4/2024, it was sƟpulated that in case there is no vacancy in a Reserved Category, then candidates of the Reserved Category can apply under the General Category. Accordingly, peƟƟoner had sent an email dated 12.08.2024, (Annexure P-5) to the official website of respondent No.2. PeƟƟoner had also sent a representaƟon dated 13.08.2024 (Annexure P-6), to the respondent Commission requesƟng to consider the peƟƟoner's category as General for Category 351 in Group 56. However, as no response was received from the respondents, peƟƟoner was constrained to file the present writ peƟƟon. 6. Ld. counsel submits that in view of the fact that peƟƟoner has qualified the examinaƟon and has secured more marks than the cut-off candidate for the General Category, peƟƟoner is bound to be considered against the General Category. Ld. Counsel reiterates that the peƟƟoner belongs to BC (B) Category and there was no vacancy for BC (B) in Category No.351, accordingly the peƟƟoner was to be considered as General Category Candidate for short lisƟng of candidates under Category No.351. It is contended that the acƟon of the respondent for not considering the peƟƟoner as General Candidate under NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.28 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-20039-2024 (O&M) - 4 - Category No.351 is illegal, arbitrary and against their own adverƟsement and policy. It is submiƩed that the peƟƟoner has fundamental right to appear and compete for the post under Category 351, as General Category Candidate as he is having more marks than the last candidate short listed for the siƫng in the examinaƟon. 7. It is accordingly prayed that the present writ peƟƟon be allowed. 8. Per contra, ld. State counsel has opposed the submissions of the peƟƟoner and contended that admiƩedly, the peƟƟoner has applied in the BC(B) Category. As such, peƟƟoner cannot be considered in the General Category. In this regard, learned State Counsel refers to Clause 7.2 of the adverƟsement. 9. Furthermore, it is clearly menƟoned in announcement/shortlisƟng of candidates dated 12.08.2024 (Annexure P-4), that the list of candidates 03 Ɵmes the number of adverƟsed posts in various categories of Group 56 and 57 is given in the said announcement. The remaining list of shortlisted candidates 1 Ɵme of the number of adverƟsed posts in various categories of Group 56 & 57 shall be published in the meanƟme. 10. In view of the aforemenƟoned facts, the peƟƟoner was not supposed to apply for BC(B) category as it was clearly menƟoned in Appendix-B (Clause 2) of the Advt. No. 04/2024 that, there exists no vacancy in the BC(B) category under Category No. 351. It is also pointed out that the peƟƟoner was not shortlisted for Category No. 351, as there was no post under BC(B) category. Whereas peƟƟoner has applied under BC(B) category, so it is NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.28 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-20039-2024 (O&M) - 5 - own fault of the peƟƟoner for not being shortlisted for category No. 351. It is lastly submiƩed that the adverƟsement is a magna carta for the selecƟon process and the InstrucƟons menƟoned therein cannot be deviated from for conducƟng the recruitment fairly. 11. In view of the above, prays for dismissal of the writ peƟƟon. 12. 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. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent-State. 13. It is an undisputed fact on record that the peƟƟoner had applied under the BC(B) non-creamy layer category for various posts vide his ApplicaƟon Form (Annexure P-3). It is the objecƟon of the ld. State counsel that peƟƟoner had not applied under the General Category. However, the said objecƟon is incorrect in view of the admiƩed fact that a common applicaƟon form was required to be submiƩed for applying to various posts. Ld. State counsel has been unable to dispute that a Common ApplicaƟon Form was required to be filled and submiƩed for all/ various posts such as Category 96 - Inspector, Category 348 - Storekeeper, Category 375 - Lower Divisional Clerk (Field), Category 351 – Supervisor et cetera. 14. Accordingly, peƟƟoner had applied for several posts under the category of BC(B) non-creamy layer by way of one Common ApplicaƟon Form as, peƟƟoner did not have the opƟon for applying to the post of Supervisor Category No. 351 in the General Category while at the same Ɵme applying for the post of Lower Divisional Clerk, Field Cadre, Category No. 366 in the BC(B) NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.28 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-20039-2024 (O&M) - 6 - non-creamy layer category. As such, objecƟon of the respondent that peƟƟoner had to fill under General Category and not under BC (B) for post of Category 351 – Supervisor, is untenable. 15. Further, ld. State counsel has referred to Clause 7.2 of the AdverƟsement No. 04/2024, which reads as under: - “7.2 The short-lisƟng of candidates shall be done on the basis of parƟculars filled in the online applicaƟon form for which supporƟng documents shall be uploaded. As candidates can update their parƟculars Ɵll closing date, thereaŌer, no change of parƟcular at any stage shall be entertained. In absence of documentary evidence or mismatch in claimed category and uploaded documents, candidature of candidate shall be considered under General category/Parent category, subject to his/her fulfilling eligibility in General category/Parent category." 16. A bare reading of the above shows that contenƟon of the learned State counsel is based on a piecemeal reading of the above condiƟon. It is clearly provided that in case of mismatch in claimed category, candidature will be considered under the General Category subject to merit. 17. Furthermore, there is no reserved post for BC(B) category in the Category 351 Supervisor. It is the contenƟon of the peƟƟoner that therefore, as per Clause 7.11 of the AdverƟsement (Annexure P-2), peƟƟoner was required to be considered as a General Category candidate. There is merit to the said contenƟon. It is specifically given in Clause 7.11 that if there is no vacancy for Reserve Category, the candidates of Reserve Category can apply under General Category. The same is being reproduced hereinbelow: - NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.28 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-20039-2024 (O&M) - 7 - “7.11. If for any post, there is no vacancy in reserved category, then the candidate of reserved category can apply under general category. However, such candidate will be considered as general category candidate and will be shortlisted as per merit of general category." 18. A bare reading of the said clause shows that in case there is no vacancy in the Reserved Category, then the candidate of the Reserved Category is at liberty to apply under the General Category. It is crystal clear that in the second condiƟon of Clause 7.11 it is sƟpulated that in case there is no vacancy in Reserved Category, then “such candidate will be considered as General Category candidate and will be shortlisted as per merit of General Category." 19. Clearly, therefore, in view of the admiƩed posiƟon that there is no vacancy in the Reserved Category, respondents were required to consider the peƟƟoner as a General Category candidate. Especially in view of the admiƩed fact that cut-off for the post of Supervisor Category 351 is 55.760007 as evident from the list of shortlisted candidates (Annexure P-4), whereas score of the peƟƟoner is 65.3155441. Thus, peƟƟoner is much higher placed in merit than the last chosen candidate for the post of Supervisor Category 351. 20. I am supported in my view by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in LPA No.180 of 2025 Ɵtled as Haryana Staff SelecƟon Commission Vs. Baljeet Singh and others wherein it is held as under:- “6. The peƟƟoner parƟcipated in the selecƟon process and he secured 144 marks. The last selected candidate in general category was put at cut-off 142 marks and the last wait-listed candidate was put at 140 marks. In Saurav Yadav and others Versus State of UƩar Pradesh and others, 2021(4) SCC 542, the Hon’ble Supreme Court NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.28 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-20039-2024 (O&M) - 8 - has laid down the method and manner in which appointments are to be made where there are reservaƟons available and it has specifically been menƟoned that a person, who is from any of the reserved category would have to be first considered against the general category and if he is found meritorious, he would be first appointed in the said open/general category and thereaŌer, the others who are leŌ out, would be then considered in their respecƟve categories. 7. In other words, all the candidates are enƟtled for consideraƟon for appointment in the general category. No specific prayer, therefore, is required to be made by any candidate to claim or consider him in general category on the basis of marks obtained by him. The specific prayers made, would be with respect to consideraƟon for ESM-General category which has not been accepted by the learned Single Judge. This would, however, not mean that his candidature would be completely ousted and would not be considered under the general category.” 21. Before parƟng, it may also be pointed out that while issuing noƟce of moƟon vide order dated 14.08.2024, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had also permiƩed the peƟƟoner to appear in the exam provisionally. 22. Therefore, the present peƟƟon is allowed. 23. Pending applicaƟon(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) 23.07.2026 JUDGE Neelam Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.28 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh