1 CWP-32150-2025 and CWP-29460-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 253(2 cases) Date of decision: 07.07.2026 1. CWP-32150-2025 SANJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS .....Petitioners VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....Respondents 2. CWP-29460-2025 UMESH AND OTHERS .....Petitioners VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Tejpal Singh Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP No.32150-2025. None for the petitioner(s) in CWP-29460-2025. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, DAG Haryana-State. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl. AG, Haryana with Mr. Nishtha Raghav & Ms. Manreet Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.3- Parishad. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.14 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP-32150-2025 and CWP-29460-2025 HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. Both the aforesaid writ petitions involve identical questions of law and arise out of a common set of facts. Upon the statement made by the learned State Counsel that the controversy involved in both the writ petitions is identical, the same are being taken up together for adjudication. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.32150 of 2025. 2. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Public Notice dated 02.09.2025, whereby respondent No.3-Parishad withdrew Advertisement dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure P-3), allegedly in violation of the judgment dated 28.10.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioners further seek quashing of the action of the respondents in not issuing appointment letters to the petitioners despite completion of the selection process in the year 2023 pursuant to Advertisement dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure P-3). A further writ in the nature of mandamus is sought directing the respondents to issue appointment letters to the petitioners on the posts of Special Educators, as they were duly selected pursuant to the selection process completed in the year 2023 under Advertisement dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure P-3). 2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 28.10.2021 passed in Writ PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.14 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CWP-32150-2025 and CWP-29460-2025 Petition (Civil) No.132 of 2016, Rajneesh Kumar Pandey and others versus Union of India and others (Annexure P-1), considered the issue concerning the educational needs of Children with Special Needs (CwSN) and the requirement of appointing duly qualified Special Educators in recognized schools. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued various directions to the Union of India and the State Governments to ensure effective implementation of inclusive education, including the appointment of Special Educators in accordance with the prescribed norms. 2.2 It is further submitted that in compliance with the aforesaid directions, respondent No.3-Parishad issued Advertisement dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure P-3) inviting applications for filling up 297 posts of Special Educators under Samagra Shiksha on a purely contractual basis on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.25,000/- per month. The petitioners, being fully eligible, applied pursuant to the said advertisement and appeared in the written examination held on 05.08.2022, as is evident from the admit card placed on record as Annexure P-4. It is contended that all the petitioners qualified the written examination and were thereafter called for verification of documents by respondent No.3-Haryana School Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad, whereupon their documents were found to be in order. Subsequently, the petitioners were also called for viva voce and participated therein. Thereafter, the consolidated result was declared by respondent No.3, as is discernible from Annexure P-5. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.14 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CWP-32150-2025 and CWP-29460-2025 2.3 Learned counsel submits that despite completion of the entire selection process in September, 2023, no appointment letters were issued to the selected candidates. The petitioners repeatedly approached the respondents and submitted various representations requesting issuance of appointment letters, as is evident from Annexures P-6 to P-9, but to no avail. 2.4 Learned counsel further refers to the proceedings before the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Haryana (Annexure P-13) and submits that respondent No.3 was directed to place on record the compliance report regarding allocation of the 297 posts and issuance of appointment letters, for which a last opportunity was granted. However, despite the aforesaid proceedings, no appointments were made. 2.5 It is further submitted that the petitioners were constrained to approach this Court by filing CWP No.6245 of 2025, Sanjay Kumar and others versus State of Haryana and others, wherein, for the first time, it was disclosed that respondent No.3 had withdrawn the advertisement dated 29.06.2022/01.07.2022 vide Public Notice dated 02.09.2025 (Annexure P- 12). Learned counsel contends that the impugned public notice withdraws the advertisement without assigning any reasons, despite the fact that the entire recruitment process had already been concluded, thereby rendering the entire exercise futile and resulting in wastage of valuable public time and public exchequer. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.14 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 CWP-32150-2025 and CWP-29460-2025 2.6 Learned counsel also places reliance upon paragraph 57(e) of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey (supra) and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically directed that until sufficient number of Special Educators becomes available in general and special schools, the services of specially trained teachers may be utilized as itinerant teachers under Samagra Shiksha. It is, therefore, contended that respondent No.3 has acted contrary to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, thereby adversely affecting the interests of Children with Special Needs. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1861 of 2018, Nidhi Sharma and others versus State of Haryana and others, decided on 11.05.2022, to contend that once the recruitment process has been completed, the employer cannot arbitrarily withdraw the advertisement without any justifiable reason. It is, thus, submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and submits that advertisement dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure P-3) was issued for engagement of 297 Special Educators purely on a contractual basis under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme. It is submitted that continuation of the said contractual engagement was entirely dependent upon financial assistance and budgetary allocation to be provided by the Ministry of Education, Government of India under the Scheme. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.14 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 CWP-32150-2025 and CWP-29460-2025 3.1 Learned counsel further submits that although the recruitment process was initiated, the Project Approval Board of the Ministry of Education, Government of India did not approve the requisite budget for payment of salary to the proposed 297 contractual Special Educators. Consequently, respondent No.3 was left with no option but to withdraw the advertisement by issuing the Public Notice dated 02.09.2025 (Annexure P- 12). 3.2 It is further submitted that respondent No.3 has not acted in violation of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey (supra). Rather, with a view to ensure effective compliance of the said judgment, the State Government has taken a policy decision to create 1093 regular posts of Special Teachers, in consonance with paragraph 57(b) of the judgment, which mandates creation of permanent posts of Special Educators. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the approval granted by the Finance Department for creation of 1093 posts of Special Teachers dated 07.02.2025 (Annexure R-4). It is, therefore, contended that instead of continuing contractual appointments under the Scheme, the State has taken steps for filling regular posts in the larger public interest and in faithful compliance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 3.3 Learned counsel further submits that the withdrawal of the contractual recruitment was necessitated solely on account of non- availability of financial approval from the Government of India and was not PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.14 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 CWP-32150-2025 and CWP-29460-2025 arbitrary or mala fide. It is lastly contended that mere participation in a recruitment process, or even inclusion of a candidate in the select list, does not confer any indefeasible or vested right to seek appointment. Consequently, the petitioners cannot claim appointment as a matter of right merely because they were declared successful in the selection process. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the paper book with their able assistance. The controversy involved in the present case revolves around the implementation of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey (supra), whereby the issue relating to appointment of Special Educators for Children with Special Needs (CwSN) was comprehensively considered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while emphasizing the constitutional and statutory obligation of the Governments to ensure inclusive education, issued the following directions:- "57. In view of the above, a multipronged approach needs to be adopted by the concerned Authorities with immediate effect, inter alia, as follows: A. The Central Government must forthwith notify the norms and standards of pupil-teacher ratio for special schools and also separate norms for special teachers who alone can impart education and training to CwSN in the general schools and until such time as a stop-gap arrangement adopt the recommendations made by the State Commissioner, NCT of Delhi in the case of Ms. Reshma Parveen reproduced in paragraph 51 above. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.14 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 CWP-32150-2025 and CWP-29460-2025 B. To create commensurate permanent posts as per the just ratio to be specified by the competent authority for the rehabilitation professionals/special teachers who can cater to the needs of CwSN. C. To initiate appointment process to fill in vacancies for the posts so created for rehabilitation professionals/special teachers for being appointed on regular basis. The same shall be completed within six months from the date of this order or before the commencement of academic year 2022-2023, whichever is earlier. D. To overcome the shortage of resource persons/rehabilitation professionals/special trained teachers, the training schools/institutions must take steps to augment the number whilst ensuring that the norms and standards specified under the governing laws and regulations including that of the Council for grant of recognition and registration are fulfilled. E. Until sufficient number of special teachers becomes available for general schools and special schools, the services of special trained teachers can be availed as itinerant teachers as per the SSS within the school/block cluster schools to optimize the resource persons and as a stop-gap arrangement. F. The other teachers and staff in the general schools be given training and sensitized to handle the CwSN in the general schools, if admitted. G. The authorities may also explore the feasibility of merging unviable special schools with relatively viable special schools so as to entail consolidation of assets and resources for better delivery to the CwSN." PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.14 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 CWP-32150-2025 and CWP-29460-2025 4.1 A perusal of the aforesaid directions leaves no manner of doubt that Hon'ble Supreme Court envisaged a two-fold mechanism. Firstly, the Central Government and the State Governments/Union Territories were directed to create adequate permanent posts of Special Educators and to fill the same on a regular basis within the stipulated period. Secondly, recognizing that creation and filling up of regular posts would require some time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by way of an interim arrangement under paragraph 57(E), permitted utilization of the services of specially trained teachers as itinerant teachers under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme till sufficient number of regular Special Educators became available. 4.2 In the present case, respondent No.3 issued advertisement dated 29.06.2022/01.07.2022 inviting applications for engagement of 297 Special Educators purely on contractual basis under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.25,000/- per month. The advertisement itself stipulated that the contractual engagement would remain subject to continuation of the Scheme and availability of financial assistance from the Ministry of Education, Government of India. Although the entire selection process was completed and the petitioners were declared successful, the material placed on record reveals that the Project Approval Board of the Ministry of Education, Government of India did not approve the requisite budget for payment of salary to the proposed 297 contractual Special Educators for the financial year 2025-26. Consequently, respondent PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.14 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10 CWP-32150-2025 and CWP-29460-2025 No.3 withdrew the advertisement vide Public Notice dated 02.09.2025 (Annexure P-12). 4.3 Simultaneously, it is evident from the record that the State Government, instead of proceeding with contractual engagements, took a policy decision to create 1093 regular posts of Special Educators, which stand duly approved by the Finance Department vide sanction dated 07.02.2025 (Annexure R-4), in purported compliance with the directions contained in paragraphs 57(B) and 57(C) of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the withdrawal of the contractual recruitment cannot be viewed in isolation, as the respondents have simultaneously undertaken the exercise of creating regular cadre posts for Special Educators in furtherance of the mandate issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4.4 Reliance placed by the petitioners upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Nidhi Sharma (supra) has been duly considered. There can be no dispute with the proposition laid down therein that the State cannot act arbitrarily in withdrawing a recruitment process which has substantially progressed. However, the facts of the present case stand on a different footing. The advertisement in question was issued purely for contractual engagement under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme and was specifically made subject to availability of financial assistance under the Scheme. The respondents have placed on record that the Project Approval Board of the Ministry of Education, Government of India did not approve the requisite budget for the said contractual posts and, simultaneously, the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.14 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11 CWP-32150-2025 and CWP-29460-2025 State has taken a policy decision to create 1093 regular posts in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey (supra). Consequently, the ratio of the judgment in Nidhi Sharma (supra) does not govern the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. 4.5 Nevertheless, having regard to the object sought to be achieved by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey (supra), particularly the mandate requiring creation and expeditious filling up of permanent posts of Special Educators for the benefit of Children with Special Needs, this Court is of the considered view that the recruitment process against the 1093 sanctioned regular posts should not be delayed any further. 5. Accordingly, without expressing further on the merits of the case, both the writ petitions are disposed of and respondent No.1/Competent authority is directed to initiate the recruitment process for filling up the 1093 sanctioned regular posts of Special Educators/Teachers by issuing the requisite advertisement within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and thereafter make all endeavour to conclude the selection process as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a further period of six months, strictly in accordance with law. 6. 6. The officer In-charge of the Department under the Administrative Control of the Additional Chief Secretary, School Education PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.14 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12 CWP-32150-2025 and CWP-29460-2025 Department, Haryana, shall ensure scrupulous compliance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar (supra) and shall file a compliance affidavit through a responsible officer before this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, indicating the progress made towards implementation of the aforesaid directions, including the status of recruitment against the sanctioned regular posts. 7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 8. Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 07.07.2026 Puneet Chawla Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.14 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document