CWP-5026-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 254 Date of decision: 21.07.2026 1. CWP-5026-2025 (O&M) Manjeet and another ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents 2. CWP-5014-2025 (O&M) Sanjay Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents 3. CWP-6474-2025 (O&M) Rachana Grover ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Garvit Mittal, Advocate Mr. Rishab Arora, Advocate and Mr. Viren Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in all the cases. Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1. With the consent of all the parties, the aforementioned writ petitions are taken up together and are being decided by this common MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.27 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-5026-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 2 judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CWP- 5026-2025. 2. Prayer in the writ petition (CWP-5026-2025) filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned order dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure P-9) vide which the claim of the petitioners for appointment to the post of PGT (Mathematics) has been rejected. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondent/Department to issue appointment letter to the petitioners on the post of PGT (Mathematics). Further prayer has been made to keep the posts, in question, reserved for the petitioner(s). 3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners participated in the selection process for the post of PGT (Mathematics) pursuant to Advertisement No.1/2012 dated 07.06.2012 (Annexure P-1). Subsequently, a Corrigendum dated 03.07.2012 (Annexure P-2) was issued by the Haryana School Teacher Selection Board, wherein it was provided that candidates who had worked as teachers for a minimum period of 04 years up to 11.04.2012 in privately managed Government-aided schools, recognized schools or Government schools and were in service on 11.04.2012, in addition to being in service on the date of submission of application for the post, were exempted from the requirement of passing HTET/STET and B.Ed. as a one-time measure. He further submits that the petitioners possessed MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.27 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-5026-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 3 the requisite experience of 04 years as on the cut-off date, as evident from Annexures P-3 and P-4. Thereafter, though the petitioners were successful in the selection process, they were not called for interview. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioners along with other similarly situated candidates approached this Court by filing CWP-17432-2012 titled as Manjeet and another vs State of Haryana and others, which was disposed of on 27.07.2022 (Annexure P-7) with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation submitted by the petitioners. In purported compliance thereof, the impugned order dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure P-9) was passed. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners refers to the impugned order dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure P-9) and submits that the same was passed in respect of 12 candidates, wherein the name of petitioner No.1-Manjeet finds mention at Sr. No.2 and that of petitioner No.2-Manju Rani at Sr. No.3. He submits that one of the candidates, namely Prem Parkash, whose name finds mention at Sr. No.7, along with other similarly situated candidates, challenged the said impugned order dated 20.02.2023 before this Court by filing CWP-8117-2023 and connected cases titled as Prem Parkash and others vs State of Haryana and others. The said writ petitions were allowed on 07.08.2024 and the respondents were directed to treat the teaching experience of the petitioners therein as valid for exemption from clearing HTET/STET and to offer them appointment to the posts of MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.27 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-5026-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 4 PGT Mathematics and Biology, as the case may be, subject to fulfillment of requisite conditions, from the date the other selected candidates were appointed. He submits that the said judgment has already been implemented by the respondents. 5. Learned Senior counsel further refers to the written statement filed by respondents No.1 and 2 and submits that the claim of the petitioners has been declined solely on the ground that the respondents are in the process of filing an intra-court appeal. However, till date, no such appeal has been filed and almost two years have elapsed since the decision in Prem Parkash’s case (supra) (CWP-8117- 2023). Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order dated 20.02.2023, which was passed against the present petitioners as well as Prem Parkash and others, has already been set- aside by this Court. Once the said judgment has been implemented and appointment has been offered to the petitioners therein, the present petitioners cannot be denied similar relief and are equally entitled to exemption from clearing HTET/STET in terms of corrigendum dated 03.07.2012 (Annexure P-2). 6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and submits that the respondent/department had sent requisitions for filling up the unconsumed vacancies of PGT posts in various streams in the year 2015, which were advertised vide Advertisement No.4/2015 issued by the respondent/Commission. He further submits that the MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.27 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-5026-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 5 recommendations were received and, after completing the requisite process, appointments were offered to all the eligible candidates. Subsequently, two recruitment drives were conducted by the Haryana Public Service Commission vide Advertisement No.29/2023 and Advertisement No.28/2024. Therefore, no vacancy for the post of PGT (Mathematics) is presently available against Advertisement No.1/2012. 7. It is not in dispute that the recruitment processes conducted in the years 2015, 2023 and 2024 have already been completed. Therefore, the situation of the petitioners in the present writ petitions is identical to that of the petitioners in Prem Parkash's case (supra) and they stand on the same footing. 8. Learned State counsel, however, could not controvert the fact that the petitioners (in CWP-5014-2025 and CWP-5026-2025) were permitted to appear provisionally in the interview process and, upon implementation of the judgment passed by the learned Single Bench in Prem Parkash's case (supra), the petitioners therein were offered appointment. Learned State counsel has disputed the claim of petitioner – Rachana Grover (in CWP-6474-2025) on the ground that she was not provisionally interviewed as no interim order was passed by this Court in her favour. 9. In rebuttal, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners controverts the aforesaid submission and reiterates the specific averments made in paragraphs No.11 and 12 of the writ petition (CWP- MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.27 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-5026-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 6 6474-2025), which, according to him, have not been controverted in the reply filed by the respondents. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 11. The controversy involved in the present writ petitions is no longer res integra. Admittedly, the petitioners herein and the petitioners in Prem Parkash's case (supra) (CWP-8117-2023) were part of the same selection process initiated vide Advertisement No.1/2012 dated 07.06.2012. Their representations against the impugned order dated 20.02.2023 were rejected through a common order. The relief sought by the petitioners herein is identical to the relief granted in Prem Parkash's case (supra). Since the respondents have already implemented the said judgment and granted appointment to the petitioners therein, the present petitioners cannot be discriminated and, thus, are entitled to similar relief. 12. Moreover, the issue regarding the interpretation of Note-2 of the advertisement and the eligibility for exemption from HTET/STET based on teaching experience has been squarely settled by this Court in Prem Parkash’s case (supra) (CWP-8117-2023). The relevant findings and the law laid down in the said judgment are reproduced hereunder: 7. The petitioners are candidates for the PGT posts in question for which relevant essential qualification is 'certificate of having qualified HTET/STET of respective subject for the post applied'. And to be entitled to exemption from HTET/STET one has to possess minimum four years' teaching experience till 11.04.2012, either in MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.27 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-5026-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 7 privately managed Government aided schools or recognized schools or Government schools. It has been held by this Court earlier, including in Ajit Kumar case, that the experience for seeking exemption has to be on the post of PGT in the respective subject. The petitioners herein possess teaching experience for the relevant subject by teaching standard 6 to 10 in the prescribed schools as Guest Masters/Teachers (TGTS). 7.1. It is an undisputed fact on record that prior to notification of the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group B) Service Rules, 2012, Junior Basic Training(JBT) teachers were teaching students of standard 1 to 6; Master/Mistress of standard 7 to 10; and lecturers of standard 11 and 12. After notification of the Rules, nomenclature of JBT teacher was changed to Primary Teacher (PRT) and they were to teach standard 1 to 5; that of Master/Mistress was changed to TGT for standard 6 to 8; and that of lecturer was changed to PGT for standard 9 to 12. Some of the petitioners, admittedly, have been teaching standard 6 to 10, and others, standard 9 to 12. 7.2. Since a PGT is required to teach from standard 9 to 12, and all the petitioners have been teaching these standards, some of them exclusively and others by simultaneously teaching lower standards as well, it cannot be said they do not have experience of teaching the classes meant for PGTs. To claim exemption from HTET/STET under Note-2, a candidate should 'have worked for minimum four years till 11.04.2012'. Apparently, it is not required that a candidate has to possess the experience by teaching the classes meant solely for PGTs, nor is it stipulated that a candidate simultaneously teaching classes meant for TGTs and PGTs cannot claim exemption. Resultantly, in case a candidate has taught PGT as well as lower classes concurrently, his/her experience as PGT cannot be discarded only on that score. It is illogical and unreasonable to do so, and would amount to wiping out a candidate's experience for PGT classes which cannot be countenanced. Teaching TGT and PGT classes at the same time, cannot be to a candidate's disadvantage. In Ajit Kumar case this Court was not concerned with a MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.27 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-5026-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 8 candidate's experience gained by teaching TGT as well as PGT classes simultaneously; therefore, its observation that requisite experience should be on the post of PGT has to be read in the context where a candidate's concurrent experience is not the issue. Accordingly, the petitioners' teaching experience of standard 9 and 10 (meant for PGTs) while working as Guest Master/TGT is required to be considered as PGT experience, for exemption from passing HTET/STET in terms of Note-2 of the advertisement. 8. In view of the discussion, the petitions are allowed and the impugned orders dated 20.02.2023 (in CWP-8117- 2023), 21.02.2023 (in CWP-8652-2023) and 02.05.2023 (in CWP-12458-2023) are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioners' teaching experience valid for exemption from clearing HTET/STET, and offer them appointment on the post of PGT Mathematics and Biology, as the case may be, subject to fulfilling the requisite conditions, from the date other selected candidates have been appointed. They shall be entitled to all notional benefits from the date of appointment and actual benefits from the date of joining service. The directions are to be carried out within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of this judgment. There should be no order as to costs. 13. The principles laid down in the aforementioned judgment are fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The petitioners herein are similarly situated to the petitioners in Prem Parkash's case (supra). Therefore, their claim for exemption from HTET/STET in terms of Note-2 of the advertisement is liable to be accepted. The impugned order dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure P-9), which is based on the same erroneous reasoning as rejected by this Court in Prem Parkash's case (supra), cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.27 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-5026-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 9 14. Consequently, all the captioned writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioners' teaching experience valid for exemption from clearing HTET/STET, and offer them appointment on the post of PGT (Mathematics), subject to fulfilling all other requisite conditions, from the date other selected candidates were appointed. The petitioners shall be entitled to all the notional benefits from the date of appointment and actual benefits from the date of joining the service. The directions shall be carried out within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 15. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of. 16. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected cases. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 21.07.2026 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.27 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.