121+125 1. NARENDER KUMAR HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TRHOUGH ITS SECRETARY 2. POOJA HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TRHOUGH ITS SECRETARY CORAM: Present: HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) 1. mentioned in the heading common set of facts and thus they are being decided by a common order. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 21 CWP NARENDER KUMAR VERSUS HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TRHOUGH ITS SECRETARY AND CWP VERSUS HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TRHOUGH ITS SECRETARY CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMR Mr. Vikram Singh Narwal, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate For respondent-HPSC. *** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) Present are the set of two writ petitions mentioned in the heading involve common question of law in the context of common set of facts and thus they are being decided by a common order. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 21-04-2025 CWP-10724-2025 (O&M) ........Petitioner VERSUS HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TRHOUGH ITS ........Respondent(s) AND CWP-10720-2025(O&M) ........Petitioner VERSUS HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TRHOUGH ITS ........Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Mr. Vikram Singh Narwal, Advocate Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) set of two writ petitions the details of which are involve common question of law in the context of common set of facts and thus they are being decided by a common order. ........Respondent(s) ........Respondent(s) AN SINGH SETHI the details of which are involve common question of law in the context of SAPNA GOYAL 2025.04.22 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10724-2025 and CWP-10720-2025 -2- 2. In the present set of two petitions, the prayer of the petitioner(s) is that they applied for the post of Assistant Professor (College Cadre) in the Subject of Geography in CWP No10724 of 2025 and in the subject of Commerce in the CWP No.10720 of 2025 under the Reserved Category of Scheduled Castes which was notified as OSC (Other Scheduled Caste). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in both the cases submits that though the application form was submitted online but due to the technical glitch, the Reserved Category Certificate was not uploaded and the petitioner in both the petitions claimed that they should be granted extension of time for submission of the said Certificate keeping in view the settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.6506 of 2004 arising out of SLP No.21153 of 2003 titled “Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chariman, JEE and ors.” , decided on 05.10.2004, but the request of the petitioner in both the petitions is not considered which is causing prejudice and the petitioner in both the cases and apprehends that they will be treated ineligible so as to compete for the post in question. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the grievance being raised in the present writ petitions has already been raised by the petitioner(s) in the e-mail dated 15.03.2025 (Annexure P-7), which is still pending consideration with the respondents and the interest of justice, will be served in case a time bound direction is issued to the respondents to decide the said the same by passing an appropriate speaking order. 5. Notice of motion. 6. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-HPSC and submits that in case the e-mail dated 15.03.2025 (Annexure P-7) has been received in the office SAPNA GOYAL 2025.04.22 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10724-2025 and CWP-10720-2025 -3- of the concerned authorities and the same is still pending consideration with the authorities concerned, the same will be decided by the competent authority within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this order by passing an appropriate speaking order and in case, after the decision any relief is to be extended to the petitioner(s), the same will be extended, otherwise due reasons will be mentioned in the speaking order to be passed for not accepting the claim of the petitioner(s) for their information and necessary action. 7. Keeping in view the statement of the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that no orders are required to be passed in the present writ petitions at this stage and the same may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further. 8. Ordered accordingly. 9. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case. 21-04-2025 Sapna Goyal (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking: YES Whether reportable: NO SAPNA GOYAL 2025.04.22 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document