CWP-28761-2024 113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT AJMER SINGH HARYANA STAFF SELECTION CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR Present: Mr. for the petitioner Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G., Haryana. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioner assails the provisions of qualifications as laid down under Appendix B Haryana, Field Offices (Group C) Service Rules, 2013 Rules’) possess a full time regular mode bachelor degree in Business Administration or Commerce or bachelor degree in Arts with Maths/Economics subject, passed with minimum 55% marks from any recognized U 2. We notice that challenge to the aforesaid Rule petitioner after he had participated in the selection process initiated vide advertisement No.12/2019 2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AJMER SINGH Vs. HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND OTHERS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA **** Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) The petitioner assails the provisions of qualifications as laid down under Appendix B to Rule 7 of the Industrial Training Department Haryana, Field Offices (Group C) Service Rules, 2013 Rules’) for the post of Store Keeper which requires a candidate to possess a full time regular mode bachelor degree in Business Administration or Commerce or bachelor degree in Arts with Maths/Economics subject, passed with minimum 55% marks from any recognized University. We notice that challenge to the aforesaid Rule petitioner after he had participated in the selection process initiated vide advertisement No.12/2019. The result thereof was declared on IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-28761-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.05.2025 . . . . Petitioner COMMISSION AND OTHERS . . . . Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA , Advocate Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G., Haryana. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) The petitioner assails the provisions of qualifications as laid down to Rule 7 of the Industrial Training Department, Haryana, Field Offices (Group C) Service Rules, 2013 (for short ‘the for the post of Store Keeper which requires a candidate to possess a full time regular mode bachelor degree in Business Administration or Commerce or bachelor degree in Arts with Maths/Economics subject, passed with minimum 55% marks from any We notice that challenge to the aforesaid Rules has been set up by the petitioner after he had participated in the selection process initiated The result thereof was declared on (O&M) .2025 Petitioner s The petitioner assails the provisions of qualifications as laid down , (for short ‘the for the post of Store Keeper which requires a candidate to possess a full time regular mode bachelor degree in Business Administration or Commerce or bachelor degree in Arts with Maths/Economics subject, passed with minimum 55% marks from any has been set up by the petitioner after he had participated in the selection process initiated The result thereof was declared on MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.23 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-28761-2024 31.01.2023, and the petitioner was h dated 24.01.202 3. The petitioner while challenging the said provision also prays to be considered for appointment and treat him as eligible. 4. We find that once the petitioner had participated in the selection process, knowing fully Rules, he cannot turn around the impugned order advertisement. 5. Law in this regard is well settled D.Sarojakumari vs. R. Helen Thilakom and others, 2017 INSC 900, decided on 13.09.2017 Kumar, 2022 SCC Online SC 1706 6. In view thereto, present writ petition stands dismissed. 7. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. 21.05.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? 2024 (O&M) 31.01.2023, and the petitioner was held to be ineligible vide order dated 24.01.2024. The petitioner while challenging the said provision also prays to be considered for appointment and treat him as eligible. We find that once the petitioner had participated in the selection process, knowing fully well that he was not eligible in terms of the he cannot turn around after he is declared impugned order and claim appointment under the said advertisement. Law in this regard is well settled as laid down D.Sarojakumari vs. R. Helen Thilakom and others, 2017 INSC 900, decided on 13.09.2017 and State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Karunesh Kumar, 2022 SCC Online SC 1706. In view thereto, present writ petition stands dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No eld to be ineligible vide order The petitioner while challenging the said provision also prays to be considered for appointment and treat him as eligible. We find that once the petitioner had participated in the selection that he was not eligible in terms of the after he is declared ineligible to challenge and claim appointment under the said as laid down by the Supreme Court in D.Sarojakumari vs. R. Helen Thilakom and others, 2017 INSC 900, State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Karunesh In view thereto, present writ petition stands dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No eld to be ineligible vide order The petitioner while challenging the said provision also prays to be We find that once the petitioner had participated in the selection that he was not eligible in terms of the ineligible to challenge and claim appointment under the said by the Supreme Court in D.Sarojakumari vs. R. Helen Thilakom and others, 2017 INSC 900, State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Karunesh MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.23 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document