IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 230 PANDIT BHAGWAT DAYAL SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, ROHTAK AND ORS. PARMOD KUMAR CORAM: HON’BLE HON’BLE MR. Present : Mr Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Mr. Anhad Batta, Mr. Shrenik Jain and Mr. Dushyant Singh, Advocates None for the respondent. ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA 1. No one The matter was passed over in the first round. The position is not different even on the revised 2. Learned counsel for the appell behalf of the respondent. appeal for final hearing treating it to be 3. This appeal arises learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed by the respondent has been allowed and respondent-petitioner has also observed that the petitioner will only get notional benefits for the purpose of seniority, length of service etc. from the date his batchmates the advertisement IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. Date of decision: PANDIT BHAGWAT DAYAL SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, ROHTAK AND ORS. Versus PARMOD KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Mr. Anhad Batta, Mr. Shrenik Jain and Mr. Dushyant Singh, Advocates for the None for the respondent. **** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral) No one appeared on behalf of the respondent to pursue the appeal. he matter was passed over in the first round. The position is not different even on the revised call. Learned counsel for the appellant is present but none appears behalf of the respondent. In such view of the matter, we proceed to take up the appeal for final hearing treating it to be ex parte This appeal arises out of an order dated 02.06.2023 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed by the respondent has been allowed and a direction is issued to issue appointment letter to the petitioner within a period of two months. The learned has also observed that the petitioner will only get notional benefits for the purpose of seniority, length of service etc. from the date his batchmates the advertisement, but he will not be entitled to any actual monetary benefit. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH No.1115 of 2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.08.2025 PANDIT BHAGWAT DAYAL SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH …. Appellant …. Respondent ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA ROHIT KAPOOR with Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Mr. Anhad Batta, Mr. Shrenik Jain and for the appellant. respondent to pursue the appeal. he matter was passed over in the first round. The position is not different ant is present but none appears on In such view of the matter, we proceed to take up the ex parte against the respondent. order dated 02.06.2023 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed by the respondent has issued to issue appointment letter to the within a period of two months. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the petitioner will only get notional benefits for the purpose of seniority, length of service etc. from the date his batchmates, under but he will not be entitled to any actual monetary benefit. PANDIT BHAGWAT DAYAL SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH respondent to pursue the appeal. he matter was passed over in the first round. The position is not different on In such view of the matter, we proceed to take up the order dated 02.06.2023 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed by the respondent has issued to issue appointment letter to the Single Judge has also observed that the petitioner will only get notional benefits for the under Jyoti 2025.08.28 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1115 of 2023 4. Brief facts giving rise to filing of the respondent are as under: 4.1 Advertisement No.1/2008 was issued by the Appellant inviting applications for appointment to various posts including the post of Receptionist un participated in the selection process. On account of his low merit, he was not selected and was placed at Sr. No.2 The recruitment ultimately conclude candidates in the year 2014. One Babru Bhan appointment letter on the post of Receptionist on 02.07.2014. Babru Bhan Yadav did not join to a higher post. The person Rajender was also not offered the post. It is petitioner that he had made an application under informed that waiting list’s candidates 4.2 In the year 2016, the appellant posts of Receptionist under various categories. As per the appellant this advertisement included the post of Receptionist which was earlier included in advertisement No.1 of 2008 and had not been filled. The respondent petitioner, at this stage, made certain representations for considering his case for appointment but since nothing w by filing CWP No.15433 of 2017. The writ petition has been presented on 14.07.2017. LPA No.1115 of 2023 (O&M) Brief facts giving rise to filing of the respondent are as under:- Advertisement No.1/2008 was issued by the Appellant inviting applications for appointment to various posts including the post of Receptionist under BC-B category. The respondent participated in the selection process. On account of his low merit, he was not selected and was placed at Sr. No.2 in the waiting list drawn in the year 2014. The recruitment ultimately concluded with appointments offered to selected candidates in the year 2014. One Babru Bhan appointment letter on the post of Receptionist on 02.07.2014. Babru Bhan Yadav did not join, as he was already promoted by the University higher post. The person placed at Sr. No.1 in the waiting list namely, Rajender was also not offered the post. It is petitioner that he had made an application under informed that waiting list’s candidates have not been offered any appointment. In the year 2016, the appellant-University again advertised 17 posts of Receptionist under various categories. As per the appellant isement included the post of Receptionist which was earlier included in advertisement No.1 of 2008 and had not been filled. The respondent petitioner, at this stage, made certain representations for considering his case for appointment but since nothing was done, he ultimately came to this Court by filing CWP No.15433 of 2017. The writ petition has been presented on - 2- Brief facts giving rise to filing of the present writ petition by the Advertisement No.1/2008 was issued by the Appellant-University inviting applications for appointment to various posts including the post of B category. The respondent-petitioner was eligible and participated in the selection process. On account of his low merit, he was not the waiting list drawn in the year 2014. d with appointments offered to selected candidates in the year 2014. One Babru Bhan Yadav was issued an appointment letter on the post of Receptionist on 02.07.2014. It appears that as he was already promoted by the University placed at Sr. No.1 in the waiting list namely, Rajender was also not offered the post. It is alleged by the respondent- petitioner that he had made an application under the RTI Act, wherein, he was not been offered any appointment. University again advertised 17 posts of Receptionist under various categories. As per the appellant-University, isement included the post of Receptionist which was earlier included in advertisement No.1 of 2008 and had not been filled. The respondent- petitioner, at this stage, made certain representations for considering his case as done, he ultimately came to this Court by filing CWP No.15433 of 2017. The writ petition has been presented on writ petition by the University inviting applications for appointment to various posts including the post of petitioner was eligible and participated in the selection process. On account of his low merit, he was not the waiting list drawn in the year 2014. d with appointments offered to selected an It appears that as he was already promoted by the University placed at Sr. No.1 in the waiting list namely, - wherein, he was University again advertised 17 , isement included the post of Receptionist which was earlier included - petitioner, at this stage, made certain representations for considering his case as done, he ultimately came to this Court by filing CWP No.15433 of 2017. The writ petition has been presented on Jyoti 2025.08.28 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1115 of 2023 4.3 The writ petition was contested appellant-University on the ground that the respondent appointment at this belated stage 11.06.2014. It was issued by State Government, the validity of the months and even after further extension of 6 month waiting list expired on 10.06.2015. It was in this context that the matter came before the learned Single Judge. 4.4 The respondent Judge that though, he was placed in the waiting list and a post was available yet the appellant arbitrarily did not consider his case and therefore, writ be issued in his favour to command the appellant to appoint him. 4.5 Learned Single Judge has placed relianc Division Bench of this Court in Haryana and Others vs. Naresh Kumar, once the vacancy had waiting list was appointing the writ petitioner arbitrary and consequently, direction had respondent-petitioner. 5. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant contends that the facts of this case are quite distinct from therefore, learned Single Judge had erred in applying the ratio of the judgment in LPA No.1165 of 2017 LPA No.1115 of 2023 (O&M) The writ petition was contested, University on the ground that the respondent at this belated stage since the selection process h 11.06.2014. It was further urged that as per instructions dated 28.10.1993 issued by State Government, the validity of the even after further extension of 6 month waiting list expired on 10.06.2015. It was in this context that the matter came before the learned Single Judge. The respondent-petitioner contended before the learned Single at though, he was placed in the waiting list and a post was available yet the appellant arbitrarily did not consider his case and therefore, writ be issued in his favour to command the appellant to appoint him. Learned Single Judge has placed relianc Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1165 of 2017 Haryana and Others vs. Naresh Kumar, decided on 01.12.2022 t once the vacancy had arisen within a period of one year waiting list was in existence, any inaction on the part of the State in not appointing the writ petitioner, was to render the action of the appellant ary and consequently, direction had etitioner. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant contends that the facts of are quite distinct from the case of therefore, learned Single Judge had erred in applying the ratio of the judgment in LPA No.1165 of 2017 to grant the relief impugned in this appeal. It is - 3- , on notice of motion, by the University on the ground that the respondent had no right to claim the selection process had concluded on further urged that as per instructions dated 28.10.1993, issued by State Government, the validity of the select list was limited to 6 even after further extension of 6 months’ term, the validity of the waiting list expired on 10.06.2015. It was in this context that the matter came petitioner contended before the learned Single at though, he was placed in the waiting list and a post was available, yet the appellant arbitrarily did not consider his case and therefore, writ be issued in his favour to command the appellant to appoint him. Learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon the judgment of LPA No.1165 of 2017 titled as State of decided on 01.12.2022 to hold that arisen within a period of one year, during which the any inaction on the part of the State in not was to render the action of the appellant-State been issued to appoint the Learned Senior counsel for the appellant contends that the facts of the case of Naresh Kumar (Supra) and therefore, learned Single Judge had erred in applying the ratio of the judgment to grant the relief impugned in this appeal. It is by the ght to claim ad concluded on , 6 term, the validity of the waiting list expired on 10.06.2015. It was in this context that the matter came petitioner contended before the learned Single , yet the appellant arbitrarily did not consider his case and therefore, writ be e upon the judgment of State of o hold that during which the any inaction on the part of the State in not State been issued to appoint the Learned Senior counsel for the appellant contends that the facts of and therefore, learned Single Judge had erred in applying the ratio of the judgment to grant the relief impugned in this appeal. It is Jyoti 2025.08.28 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1115 of 2023 further urged that the validity of the waiting list had already expired on 10.06.2015, and the unfilled vacancy was included in fresh advertisement published by the employer on advertisement was never challenged and therefore, at this direction could have been issued to appoint the respondent 6. So far as of Naresh Kumar (Supra) somewhat distinct. In para facts of the case which are reproduced “8. 13.08.201 Masters were sought to be filled up. The result was declared on 31.05.2012 (Annexure P month of May, 2011 by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (H recommended the candidates for appointment to the post of Social Studies Masters, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the candidates selected in the waiting list were not to be considered against fresh vacancies as validity period of the waiting list was for one year from the date of issuance of letter. It was for the State Government to verify the documents pertaining to the qualifications, experience, age and caste/category etc and their a issuance of appointment orders LPA No.1115 of 2023 (O&M) further urged that the validity of the waiting list had already expired on and the unfilled vacancy was included in fresh advertisement published by the employer on 30.09.2016 advertisement was never challenged and therefore, at this direction could have been issued to appoint the respondent So far as the Division Bench’s judgment of this Court in the case Naresh Kumar (Supra) is concerned, the facts of the case apparently were somewhat distinct. In para No. 8 thereof, the Division Bench, had noticed the facts of the case which are reproduced as under 8. It is not disputed that the advertisement (Annexure P 13.08.2019 bearing No.4 of 2009, whereby 373 posts of Social Studies Masters were sought to be filled up. The result was declared on 31.05.2012 (Annexure P-3) on the basis of the interviews held in the month of May, 2011 by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC). Resultantly on 06.06.2012 (Annexure R recommended the candidates for appointment to the post of Social Studies Masters, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the candidates selected in the waiting list were not to be considered gainst fresh vacancies as validity period of the waiting list was for one year from the date of issuance of letter. It was for the State Government to verify the documents pertaining to the qualifications, experience, age and caste/category etc and their a issuance of appointment orders.” - 4- further urged that the validity of the waiting list had already expired on and the unfilled vacancy was included in fresh advertisement .2016. It is submitted that fresh advertisement was never challenged and therefore, at this belated stage, no direction could have been issued to appoint the respondent-petitioner. the Division Bench’s judgment of this Court in the case concerned, the facts of the case apparently were , the Division Bench, had noticed the as under:- It is not disputed that the advertisement (Annexure P-1) is dated 9 bearing No.4 of 2009, whereby 373 posts of Social Studies Masters were sought to be filled up. The result was declared on 3) on the basis of the interviews held in the month of May, 2011 by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission SSC). Resultantly on 06.06.2012 (Annexure R-1) the HSSC had recommended the candidates for appointment to the post of Social Studies Masters, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the candidates selected in the waiting list were not to be considered gainst fresh vacancies as validity period of the waiting list was for one year from the date of issuance of letter. It was for the State Government to verify the documents pertaining to the qualifications, experience, age and caste/category etc and their antecedents before further urged that the validity of the waiting list had already expired on and the unfilled vacancy was included in fresh advertisement that fresh stage, no the Division Bench’s judgment of this Court in the case concerned, the facts of the case apparently were , the Division Bench, had noticed the 1) is dated 9 bearing No.4 of 2009, whereby 373 posts of Social Studies Masters were sought to be filled up. The result was declared on 3) on the basis of the interviews held in the month of May, 2011 by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission 1) the HSSC had recommended the candidates for appointment to the post of Social Studies Masters, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the candidates selected in the waiting list were not to be considered gainst fresh vacancies as validity period of the waiting list was for one year from the date of issuance of letter. It was for the State Government to verify the documents pertaining to the qualifications, ntecedents before Jyoti 2025.08.28 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1115 of 2023 7. A perusal of the judgment in would further reveal that no appointments were offered to the candidates in the year 2012, but extensions were granted to such person posts. Though, the appointment letters indicated that non in appointment being offered to others yet the employer issued show cause notices on 12.08.2014 and the appointment against the select list were from time to time up to Bench helds in para Nos.13 to 15 “13. have now been given do not seem to be german was so at the first instance while passing the speaking order on 14.11.2014 the same officer would have reasoning as mentioned earlier. The reasoning is for the mere purpose that the State Government had to get over its lac inaction and deny appointments to the candidates who were higher in the wait list. It is to be noticed no justifiable reasons were given in the written statement as to why on account of the non period of 15 days as notice appointment orders were issued on 12.11.2012 the wait list was not operated, as the candidates did not join. It is on account of the negligence and inaction of the State Government/appellants which has led to Though the person on the wait list had been agitating and clamoring for their rights in as much as they filed representations and served legal notices which would be clear from communication dated 07.06.2012 (Annexure P wherein Naresh Kumar had put forth his case that he is at Sr. No.1 in the wait list and if candidates do not join he should be given a chance. Thus, the LPA No.1115 of 2023 (O&M) A perusal of the judgment in the case of would further reveal that no appointments were offered to the candidates in the but extensions were granted to such person . Though, the appointment letters indicated that non in appointment being offered to others yet the employer issued show cause notices on 12.08.2014 and the appointment against the select list were to time up to the year 2016. It was in this context that the Division in para Nos.13 to 15 thereof, which are reproduced as under: 13. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the reasons which have now been given do not seem to be german was so at the first instance while passing the speaking order on 14.11.2014 the same officer would have reasoning as mentioned earlier. The reasoning is for the mere purpose that the State Government had to get over its lac inaction and deny appointments to the candidates who were higher in the wait list. It is to be noticed no justifiable reasons were given in the written statement as to why on account of the non period of 15 days as noticed by the learned Single Judge when conditional appointment orders were issued on 12.11.2012 the wait list was not operated, as the candidates did not join. It is on account of the negligence and inaction of the State Government/appellants which has led to Though the person on the wait list had been agitating and clamoring for their rights in as much as they filed representations and served legal notices which would be clear from communication dated 07.06.2012 (Annexure P ein Naresh Kumar had put forth his case that he is at Sr. No.1 in the wait list and if candidates do not join he should be given a chance. Thus, the - 5- the case of Naresh Kumar (Supra) would further reveal that no appointments were offered to the candidates in the but extensions were granted to such persons to join against the . Though, the appointment letters indicated that non-joining would result in appointment being offered to others yet the employer issued show cause notices on 12.08.2014 and the appointment against the select list were made year 2016. It was in this context that the Division which are reproduced as under:- Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the reasons which have now been given do not seem to be germane to the controversy and if that was so at the first instance while passing the speaking order on 14.11.2014 the same officer would have reasoning as mentioned earlier. The reasoning is for the mere purpose that the State Government had to get over its lack of inaction and deny appointments to the candidates who were higher in the wait list. It is to be noticed no justifiable reasons were given in the written statement as to why on account of the non-joining within the prescribed d by the learned Single Judge when conditional appointment orders were issued on 12.11.2012 the wait list was not operated, as the candidates did not join. It is on account of the negligence and inaction of the State Government/appellants which has led to the expiry of the wait list. Though the person on the wait list had been agitating and clamoring for their rights in as much as they filed representations and served legal notices which would be clear from communication dated 07.06.2012 (Annexure P-7) ein Naresh Kumar had put forth his case that he is at Sr. No.1 in the wait list and if candidates do not join he should be given a chance. Thus, the Naresh Kumar (Supra) would further reveal that no appointments were offered to the candidates in the oin against the joining would result in appointment being offered to others yet the employer issued show cause made year 2016. It was in this context that the Division Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the reasons which e to the controversy and if that was so at the first instance while passing the speaking order on 14.11.2014 the same officer would have reasoning as mentioned earlier. The reasoning is k of inaction and deny appointments to the candidates who were higher in the wait list. It is to be noticed no justifiable reasons were given in the written joining within the prescribed d by the learned Single Judge when conditional appointment orders were issued on 12.11.2012 the wait list was not operated, as the candidates did not join. It is on account of the negligence and inaction the expiry of the wait list. Though the person on the wait list had been agitating and clamoring for their rights in as much as they filed representations and served legal notices which 7) ein Naresh Kumar had put forth his case that he is at Sr. No.1 in the wait list and if candidates do not join he should be given a chance. Thus, the Jyoti 2025.08.28 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1115 of 2023 observations made to show the arbitrary action of the 14. Another aspect which is to be noticed that one fails to understand why 35 candidates were being given the latitude to join after the stipulated period as per the appointment orders and show cause notice had been issued to them as The said l candidates who were standing in the waiting list and cancel their appointment reads as under: your candidature or appointment letter appointment can be offered to other candidates who were standing in wa cancellation heard is being provided to you all to show cause why appointment lett appear before Additional Director Administration Elementary at 10:30AM on 25.08.2014 in person and submit your version in writing if any failing which it will be presumed that you are not anything and your candidature/appointment order will be cancelled accordingly.” LPA No.1115 of 2023 (O&M) observations made in Shankarsan Dash (supra) to show the arbitrary action of the State has come forth. 14. Another aspect which is to be noticed that one fails to understand why 35 candidates were being given the latitude to join after the stipulated period as per the appointment orders and show cause notice had been issued m as noticed on 12.08 2014 ever the validity has expired on 05.06.2013. The said letter mentioned that appointment candidates who were standing in the waiting list and cancel their appointment. Relevant portio reads as under:- “Now, it has been decided by competent A your candidature or appointment letter appointment can be offered to other candidates who were standing in waiting list according to their mark. Now office is in the process of cancellation/termination of your candidature/ But before cancellation of candidat heard is being provided to you all to show cause why appointment letter/candidature should not be cancelled. Hence, your are required to appear before Additional Director Administration Elementary at 10:30AM on 25.08.2014 in person and submit your version in writing if any failing which it will be presumed that you are not anything and your candidature/appointment order will be cancelled accordingly.” Sd/ Superintendent HRM O/o Director Elementary Education - 6- in Shankarsan Dash (supra) as reproduced above go on State has come forth. 14. Another aspect which is to be noticed that one fails to understand why 35 candidates were being given the latitude to join after the stipulated period as per the appointment orders and show cause notice had been issued ever the validity has expired on 05.06.2013. that appointment can be offered to the other candidates who were standing in the waiting list and there was a proposal to Relevant portion of the letter dated 12-09.2014 “Now, it has been decided by competent Authority to cancel your candidature or appointment letter immediately so that appointment can be offered to other candidates who were standing in rk. Now office is in the process of /termination of your candidature/ appointment letter. But before cancellation of candidature, an opportunity of being heard is being provided to you all to show cause why appointment er/candidature should not be cancelled. Hence, your are required to appear before Additional Director Administration Elementary at 10:30AM on 25.08.2014 in person and submit your version in writing if any failing which it will be presumed that you are not interested to say anything and your candidature/appointment order will be cancelled Sd/- Superintendent HRM-1 O/o Director Elementary Education as reproduced above go on 14. Another aspect which is to be noticed that one fails to understand why 35 candidates were being given the latitude to join after the stipulated period as per the appointment orders and show cause notice had been issued ever the validity has expired on 05.06.2013. offered to the other there was a proposal to 09.2014 to cancel so that appointment can be offered to other candidates who were standing in rk. Now office is in the process of opportunity of being heard is being provided to you all to show cause why appointment er/candidature should not be cancelled. Hence, your are required to appear before Additional Director Administration Elementary at 10:30AM on 25.08.2014 in person and submit your version in writing if interested to say anything and your candidature/appointment order will be cancelled Jyoti 2025.08.28 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1115 of 2023 15. It is also to be noticed that fo appointment order have been issued on 17.11.2016 to one Geeta Devi on account of the fact that order passed in State of Haryana and others' complied with. It is, thus, apparent that even on 17.11.2016 appointments were being made against the said advertisement No.4 of 2009 for the post of Social Studies Masters after the opinion had been given on 13.11.2014 by the office of the Chief Secreta reads as under "OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION HARYANA, PANCHKULA Order No. 17/173 In pursuance of judgment dated 21.01.2014 of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh in LPA No. 1563 of 2012 in CWP No. 16710 of 2012 titled as Geeta Devi V/S State of Haryana and others, the claim of the Appellant/Petitioner Ex-Serviceman (General) (Female) cate compliance of this Judgment (Supra) appointment letter is issued to petitioner i.e. Geeta Devi, on the basis of recommendations received from the Haryana Staff Selection Commission No. HSSC/Con 06.06.2012 against advt.4/2009 category no.5 for appointment in Haryana School Education (Group S.S. Mistress in the scale of 9300 LPA No.1115 of 2023 (O&M) Haryana, Panchkula Dated, Panchkula the 12.08.2014" 15. It is also to be noticed that for the same advertisement in question appointment order have been issued on 17.11.2016 to one Geeta Devi on account of the fact that order passed in LPA No.1563 of 2012 Geeta Devi Vs. State of Haryana and others' arising out of CWP No.16710 of 2012 had to b complied with. It is, thus, apparent that even on 17.11.2016 appointments were being made against the said advertisement No.4 of 2009 for the post of Social Studies Masters after the opinion had been given on 13.11.2014 by the office of the Chief Secretary Relevant portion of the order dated 17.11.2016 reads as under- OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION HARYANA, PANCHKULA Order No. 17/173-2012 HRM-1 (1) Dated, Panchkula 17.11.2016 In pursuance of judgment dated 21.01.2014 of Hon'ble Punjab & ana High Court, Chandigarh in LPA No. 1563 of 2012 in CWP No. 16710 of 2012 titled as Geeta Devi V/S State of Haryana and others, the claim of the Appellant/Petitioner i.e Geeta Devi for the post of S.S. Mistress under Serviceman (General) (Female) cate compliance of this Judgment (Supra) appointment letter is issued to petitioner Geeta Devi, on the basis of recommendations received from the Haryana election Commission No. HSSC/Con 06.06.2012 against advt.4/2009 category no.5 for appointment in Haryana School Education (Group-C) State Cadre Service Rules S.S. Mistress in the scale of 9300-34800+GP 4600/ - 7- Haryana, Panchkula Dated, Panchkula the 12.08.2014" r the same advertisement in question appointment order have been issued on 17.11.2016 to one Geeta Devi on LPA No.1563 of 2012 Geeta Devi Vs. arising out of CWP No.16710 of 2012 had to be complied with. It is, thus, apparent that even on 17.11.2016 appointments were being made against the said advertisement No.4 of 2009 for the post of Social Studies Masters after the opinion had been given on 13.11.2014 by the ry Relevant portion of the order dated 17.11.2016 OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION HARYANA, 1 (1) Dated, Panchkula 17.11.2016 In pursuance of judgment dated 21.01.2014 of Hon'ble Punjab & ana High Court, Chandigarh in LPA No. 1563 of 2012 in CWP No. 16710 of 2012 titled as Geeta Devi V/S State of Haryana and others, the claim Geeta Devi for the post of S.S. Mistress under Serviceman (General) (Female) category has been considered in compliance of this Judgment (Supra) appointment letter is issued to petitioner Geeta Devi, on the basis of recommendations received from the Haryana election Commission No. HSSC/Confd./Recomm./2012/332 dated 06.06.2012 against advt.4/2009 category no.5 for appointment in Haryana C) State Cadre Service Rules-2012 on the post of 34800+GP 4600/-plus other allowances as r the same advertisement in question appointment order have been issued on 17.11.2016 to one Geeta Devi on LPA No.1563 of 2012 Geeta Devi Vs. e complied with. e complied with. It is, thus, apparent that even on 17.11.2016 appointments were being made against the said advertisement No.4 of 2009 for the post of Social Studies Masters after the opinion had been given on 13.11.2014 by the ry Relevant portion of the order dated 17.11.2016 OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION HARYANA, In pursuance of judgment dated 21.01.2014 of Hon'ble Punjab & ana High Court, Chandigarh in LPA No. 1563 of 2012 in CWP No. 16710 of 2012 titled as Geeta Devi V/S State of Haryana and others, the claim Geeta Devi for the post of S.S. Mistress under gory has been considered in compliance of this Judgment (Supra) appointment letter is issued to petitioner Geeta Devi, on the basis of recommendations received from the Haryana /Recomm./2012/332 dated 06.06.2012 against advt.4/2009 category no.5 for appointment in Haryana 2012 on the post of plus other allowances as Jyoti 2025.08.28 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1115 of 2023 sanctioned b conditions Sr. No. 1 8. So far as the judgment in the case of concerned, we find substance in the appellant’s contention that the direction to appoint the respondent which cannot be treated to be lying down any binding precedent for case. In the case of found to be continuing up to the year 2016 was of the view that the validity of the waiting list stood extended. The matter was otherwise forwarded to the Chief Secretary for the extension of the term of waiting list. As against the facts of the case of that though a v one of the selected petitioner at that stage. The validity of the waiting list expired on 10.06.2015. The vacant post was included in fresh adv The fresh advertisement was not under challenge. The limited prayer made was to extend the last date Interestingly, writ petition came to be filed after expiry of more than a year of LPA No.1115 of 2023 (O&M) sanctioned by the Haryana Govt. from time to time on the following terms and conditions. Employee ID No. Merit No with category Name & Address 098397 143 (DFF, General) Geeta Devi d/o Sh. Ram Kumar Village Girawar, PO Jondhi, Distt. Jhajjar So far as the judgment in the case of concerned, we find substance in the appellant’s contention that the direction to appoint the respondent-petitioner was issued in the which cannot be treated to be lying down any binding precedent for the case of Naresh Kumar (Supra), found to be continuing up to the year 2016, and therefore, the Division Bench was of the view that the validity of the waiting list stood extended. The matter was otherwise forwarded to the Chief Secretary for the extension of the term of list. As against the facts of the case of Naresh Kumar (Supra) a vacancy had come into existence on account of non selected candidate, but no claim was lodged by the respondent petitioner at that stage. The validity of the waiting list expired on 10.06.2015. The vacant post was included in fresh advertisement published on The fresh advertisement was not under challenge. The limited prayer made was last date for submission of application in the Interestingly, writ petition came to be filed after expiry of more than a year of - 8- y the Haryana Govt. from time to time on the following terms and Name & Address Place of posting Remarks Geeta Devi d/o Sh. Ram Kumar Village Girawar, PO Jondhi, Distt. Jhajjar GHS Silothi (4667) Distt. Jhajjar A/V So far as the judgment in the case of Naresh Kumar (Supra ) is concerned, we find substance in the appellant’s contention that the direction to petitioner was issued in the peculiar facts of the case, which cannot be treated to be lying down any binding precedent for the present Naresh Kumar (Supra), the appointment process was and therefore, the Division Bench was of the view that the validity of the waiting list stood extended. The matter was otherwise forwarded to the Chief Secretary for the extension of the term of Naresh Kumar (Supra), we find acancy had come into existence on account of non-joining of but no claim was lodged by the respondent- petitioner at that stage. The validity of the waiting list expired on 10.06.2015. ertisement published on 30.09.2016. The fresh advertisement was not under challenge. The limited prayer made was application in the fresh advertisement. Interestingly, writ petition came to be filed after expiry of more than a year of y the Haryana Govt. from time to time on the following terms and is concerned, we find substance in the appellant’s contention that the direction to , the present the appointment process was and therefore, the Division Bench was of the view that the validity of the waiting list stood extended. The matter was otherwise forwarded to the Chief Secretary for the extension of the term of , we find joining of - petitioner at that stage. The validity of the waiting list expired on 10.06.2015. .2016. The fresh advertisement was not under challenge. The limited prayer made was fresh advertisement. Interestingly, writ petition came to be filed after expiry of more than a year of Jyoti 2025.08.28 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1115 of 2023 the fresh advertisement. The inordinate delay in approaching the Court as also the expiry of validity of waiting list has unfortunately not the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition. In such circumstances, we find that merely on the strength of Division Bench’s judgment in the case of based on facts of its own, the writ peti could not have been allowed. allowed. The impugned is hereby set aside. Writ petition in the respondent dismissed. 9. Pending application AUGUST 20, 2025 Jyoti-IV LPA No.1115 of 2023 (O&M) the fresh advertisement. The inordinate delay in approaching the Court as also the expiry of validity of waiting list has unfortunately not Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition. In such circumstances, we find that merely on the strength of Division Bench’s judgment in the case of Naresh Kumar (supra) based on facts of its own, the writ petition filed by the respondent could not have been allowed. Consequently, this impugned judgment and order passed by set aside. Writ petition in the respondent Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA (ROHIT KAPOOR , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No - 9- the fresh advertisement. The inordinate delay in approaching the Court as also the expiry of validity of waiting list has unfortunately not been considered by Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition. In such circumstances, we find that merely on the strength of Division Bench’s (supra), which we have found was tion filed by the respondent-petitioner Consequently, this appeal succeeds and is judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge set aside. Writ petition in the respondent-petitioner’s case is , if any, also stands disposed of. ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) JUDGE ROHIT KAPOOR) JUDGE Yes/No. Yes/No the fresh advertisement. The inordinate delay in approaching the Court as also by Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition. In such circumstances, we find that merely on the strength of Division Bench’s which we have found was petitioner appeal succeeds and is learned Single Judge e is ) Jyoti 2025.08.28 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document