CWP-3184-2021 (O&M) -1- 218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3184-2021 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.12.2025 SUNIL GODARA ... Petitioner Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 7. ******* HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing Clause 13(iv)(2) of Advertisement dated 04.12.2020 (Annexure P-1) awarding 20 marks under socio-economic criteria and experience as unconstitutional, arbitrary and contrary to Haryana Government notification dated 11.06.2019 ; the shortlist dated 30.01.2021 (Annexure P-7) calling only 2 times candidates and direct the respondents to call 3–5 times candidates as per the law laid down in State of Punjab vs. Manjit Singh (2003) 4 SCT 310; and the cancellation notice dated 21.01.2021 (Annexure P- 6) as arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. SHRUTI 2025.12.22 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of the document CWP-3184-2021 (O&M) -2- Further to Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s candidature for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) as he secured 84.28 marks, equal to the last shortlisted candidate; to prepare and publish a waiting list for all vacancies; and publish the result of selected and non-selected candidates showing merit and marks as per the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the award of 20 marks under socio-economic criteria is contrary to Haryana Government notification No. G.S.R. 25/Const./Art.309/2019 dated 11.06.2019 (Annexure P-4) which stipulates maximum 10 marks. He further submits that shortlisting only 2 times candidates violates the proposition laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Manjit Singh (2003) 4 SCT 310. The petitioner, having secured 84.28 marks in GATE-2020, equal to the last shortlisted candidate in general category, ought to have been called for verification. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-Haryana Power Utilities submits that the socio-economic criteria of 20 marks was duly approved by the State Government. The shortlisting of 2 times candidates was as per Clause 13(ix) of the advertisement. The petitioner, though having 84.28 marks, was placed at 16th position in general category due to tie-breaking rule (older candidate given preference) and only top 14 candidates were called as per advertised posts. The recruitment process has concluded subject to the outcome of pending writ petitions. SHRUTI 2025.12.22 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of the document CWP-3184-2021 (O&M) -3- 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 5. The core controversy revolves around the constitutional validity of awarding marks under socio-economic criteria. This issue is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court in CWP-16904-2021 titled Neeraj vs. State of Haryana and another, vide judgment dated 22.05.2025, struck down the socio-economic criteria and experience (SECE) framework as unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. The Division Bench directed the State and its recruiting agencies to revise and rectify all selection processes affected by SECE marks. 6. Reliance in this regard may also be placed on judgements rendered by this court in Puneet Sangwan & Kamal Singh Duhan vs. State of Haryana CWP-16983-2021 and Aashish Kumar & Pushpa Kumari Yadav vs. State of Haryana CWP-32977-2025. 7. The respondents' defense that the 20-mark criteria was approved by the State Government cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny in light of the Division Bench judgment in Neeraj's case (supra). Once the criteria itself is held unconstitutional, its application in any form, whether 10 marks or 20 marks, becomes illegal. 8. Regarding the petitioner's grievance about shortlisting only 2 times candidates, this court finds that the advertisement specifically provided for calling 2 times candidates for verification. In Amit Ahalawat vs. State of Haryana CWP-32117-2025, decided on 31.10.2025, this Court held that it is SHRUTI 2025.12.22 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of the document CWP-3184-2021 (O&M) -4- the prerogative of the recruiting agency to prescribe shortlisting criteria unless shown to be arbitrary. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate how the 2- times criteria is arbitrary per se. 9. However, since the entire selection is vitiated by the unconstitutional socio-economic criteria, the shortlisting process also requires re-examination. Once the merit list is recasted, excluding SECE marks, fresh shortlisting must follow as per advertisement terms. 10. On the issue of petitioners having the same marks (84.28) as last shortlisted candidate, the respondents have demonstrated through their written statement that due to tie-breaking rule (age), the petitioner being younger was placed at 16th position while only top 14 were called. This explanation appears reasonable and not arbitrary. 11. In view of the above the present petition is disposed of in terms of the judgement rendered by a coordinate bench of this court in Satish Kumar v State of Haryana CWP-15861-2025 and of this court in Sunil Dutt v Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited CWP-6021-2024. On the revision in the fresh list, if the petitioner is found to be entitled to the appointment the same shall be granted to him forthwith. 12. A copy of this order be sent to respondents for compliance. [ HARPREET SINGH BRAR ] 04.12.2025 JUDGE shruti Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SHRUTI 2025.12.22 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of the document