1 CWP-36701-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 114 CWP-36701-2025 Date of Decision: 09.07.2026 Preeti and another .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Mazlish Khan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Nain, DAG Haryana-State. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 08.11.2024 (Annexures P-6 & P-7) passed by respondent No.3 whereby the claim of petitioners for the appointment has been rejected for the post of Craft Stenography English Instructor (Practical) Cat. No.52 against advertisement No.12/2019. Further praying for directing the respondents to offer appointment letters to the petitioners. The impugned orders so passed on the ground that petitioners PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.13 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP-36701-2025 have not CITC/CITS in steno English, however one time relaxation has been granted in the ongoing process vide letter dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure P-8). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners had applied pursuant to Advertisement No.12/2019 dated 20.07.2019 (Annexure P-1) for appointment to the posts of Craft Instructor (English Practical) (Category No.52) and, having successfully participated in the entire selection process, their names were duly recommended by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. It is submitted that despite such recommendation, the respondents declined to issue appointment letters vide identical orders dated 08.11.2024 (Annexures P-6 and P-7) on the ground that the petitioners did not possess the requisite CITC/CITS qualification in Steno English. Learned counsel argues that the aforesaid action is arbitrary and unsustainable inasmuch as the Directorate General of Training, Government of India, had granted a one-time relaxation from the requirement of CITS qualification during the ongoing recruitment process vide communication dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure P-8). It is further contended that once the petitioners had been declared successful by the recruiting agency, the respondents could not have denied them appointment by raising objections regarding eligibility at the stage of document verification. The impugned orders (Annexures P-6 and P-7), therefore, deserve to be set aside. 3. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the present writ petition is wholly misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. It is contended that the recruitment in question is governed by the Industrial PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.13 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CWP-36701-2025 Training Department, Haryana Field Offices Group-'C' Service Rules, 2013 and the essential qualifications prescribed therein are binding upon all candidates. Learned State Counsel submits that for the post of Craft Instructor (English Practical) (Category No.52), advertised vide Advertisement No.12/2019 (Annexure P-1), a candidate was required to possess a Bachelor's Degree with a minimum of 60% marks in English as a subject, National Trade Certificate with a minimum of 70% marks along with CITC in Steno English, besides other qualifications prescribed under the advertisement. 3.1 It is further submitted that during scrutiny of the original documents, it transpired that petitioner No.1 did not possess the mandatory CITC in Steno English, which is an essential qualification prescribed for the post in question. So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, apart from not possessing CITC in Steno English, she had secured only 57% marks in the Bachelor's Degree with English as a subject, whereas the advertisement specifically required a minimum of 60% marks. It is further submitted that the certificate produced by petitioner No.2 also did not fulfil the eligibility conditions stipulated in the advertisement for the post in question. Consequently, both the petitioners were rightly declared ineligible and their candidature was rejected vide orders dated 08.11.2024 (Annexures P-6 and P-7). 3.2 Learned State Counsel further submits that the reliance placed by the petitioners upon the communication/instructions issued by the Directorate General of Training, Government of India (Annexure P-8), is PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.13 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CWP-36701-2025 wholly misconceived. It is contended that the Directorate General of Training, Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, has mandated CITS/CITC qualification for recruitment of Vocational Instructors in Industrial Training Institutes. The one-time relaxation relied upon by the petitioners was confined to those categories of posts where such relaxation could be extended to Degree/Diploma holders and was never intended to dilute the essential qualifications prescribed under the statutory Service Rules. The said relaxation is, therefore, not applicable either to the petitioners or to the post of Craft Instructor (English Practical) (Category No.52) for which they had applied. It is, thus, contended that the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance. It transpires that the petitioners had applied pursuant to Advertisement No.12/2019 dated 20.07.2019 (Annexure P-1), participated in the entire selection process and were recommended by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission for appointment. However, mere recommendation by the recruiting agency does not, by itself, vest any indefeasible right in favour of a candidate to seek appointment. Before issuance of appointment letters, it is always open to the appointing authority to verify whether the selected candidates fulfil the eligibility conditions prescribed under the relevant Service Rules and the advertisement. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.13 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 CWP-36701-2025 4.1 From the pleadings and the material placed on record, it emerges that at the stage of scrutiny of original documents, the petitioners were found not to possess the essential qualifications prescribed for the post of Craft Instructor (English Practical) (Category No.52). As per Advertisement No.12/2019 (Annexure P-1), read with the Industrial Training Department, Haryana Field Offices Group-'C' Service Rules, 2013, the post required a Bachelor's Degree with at least 60% marks in English as a subject, National Trade Certificate with minimum 70% marks along with CITC in Steno English and other prescribed qualifications. 4.2 The reasons assigned by the respondents in the impugned orders dated 08.11.2024 (Annexures P-6 and P-7) also find support from the record. Petitioner No.1 admittedly did not possess CITC in Steno English, which is an essential qualification for the post in question. Likewise, petitioner No.2 had secured only 57% marks in the Bachelor's Degree with English as a subject, whereas the minimum prescribed qualification under the advertisement was 60% marks. Besides this, the certificate relied upon by petitioner No.2 was also found not to be in conformity with the eligibility conditions stipulated in Advertisement No.12/2019 (Annexure P-1). In such circumstances, the respondents cannot be faulted for declaring the petitioners ineligible. 4.3 The principal plank of the petitioners' case is the communication dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure P-8) issued by the Directorate General of Training, Government of India, whereby one-time relaxation with regard to CITS qualification was granted. The said contention, PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.13 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 CWP-36701-2025 however, does not merit acceptance. A perusal of Annexure P-8 itself shows that the relaxation was not absolute but was made subject to the availability of sufficient CITS-qualified Degree/Diploma holders meeting the prescribed selection criteria and cut-off marks. It was only in the event of non- availability of such candidates that non-CITS qualified Degree/Diploma holders could be considered, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. Thus, Annexure P-8 cannot be construed as conferring an unconditional right upon every non-CITS qualified candidate to claim appointment. That apart, the said communication was issued by the Government of India and would not, ipso facto, bind the State Government unless the same was adopted by the competent authority. In the present case, no material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the aforesaid communication was ever adopted by the State Government so as to override the eligibility conditions prescribed under Advertisement No.12/2019 (Annexure P-1) read with the Industrial Training Department, Haryana Field Offices Group-'C' Service Rules, 2013. 4.4 Consequently, this Court is satisfied that the respondents rightly concluded that the petitioners did not possess the essential qualifications prescribed under Advertisement No.12/2019 (Annexure P-1) and the applicable Service Rules. The impugned orders dated 08.11.2024 (Annexures P-6 and P-7), therefore, do not suffer from any patent illegality, arbitrariness or perversity so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.13 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 CWP-36701-2025 5. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. 6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 09.07.2026 P.C Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.13 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document