CWP-19927-2026 -1- 138 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-19927-2026 Date of decision: 06.07.2026 Sunita Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Vishal Sharda, Advocate, Mr. D.S. Garcha, Advocate and Ms. Kimreet Kaur Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned announcement dated 12.05.2026 (Annexure P-10), the rejection order dated 13.05.2026 (Annexure P-11) and the final result dated 05.06.2026 (Annexure P-18) to the extent that the same reject and exclude the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Director (Technical)/ Senior Apprenticeship Supervisor/ Principal/ Vice Principal/ Principal (Footwear)/ Training Officer/ Apprenticeship and Placement Officer (Group-B) pursuant to advertisement No.15/2024 (Annexure P-1). It is further prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to count the teaching experience acquired by the petitioner while serving as Lecturer at Uklana Polytechnic and Engineering College from 01.09.2011 to 31.12.2014, declare the petitioner eligible under Advertisement No. 15/2024, and thereafter reassess the petitioner’s candidature after considering the said experience. NEHA 2026.07.13 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-19927-2026 -2- FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2. The factual matrix, as emerging from the pleadings, is that Advertisement No.15 of 2024 dated 18.05.2024 (Annexure P-1) was issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission inviting online applications for 91 posts of Assistant Director (Technical)/Senior Apprenticeship Supervisor/Principal/Vice Principal/Principal (Footwear)/Training Officer/Apprenticeship and Placement Officer (Group-B). Out of the said posts, 50 were earmarked for the General category and 18 for the SC category. The opening date for submission of online applications was 22.05.2024 and the closing date was 05.06.2024. The petitioner applied under the SC category pursuant to the said advertisement. 3. The petitioner, along with her online application form (Annexure P-2), uploaded, inter alia, her Haryana resident certificate dated 13.08.2007, matriculation examination certificate dated 05.05.2005, senior secondary examination certificate dated 05.05.2007 and Bachelor of Technology degree/result-cum-detailed marks card issued on 20.01.2012 by Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa, Haryana. She also relied upon an experience certificate issued by Uklana Polytechnic & Engineering College showing her service as Lecturer from 01.09.2011 to 31.12.2014. 4. The petitioner appeared in the Screening Test conducted on 15.09.2024 under Roll No.30795 and qualified the same upon declaration of the result dated 28.09.2024 (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, she appeared in the Subject Knowledge Test on 06.10.2024 and the result dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure P-5) declared her qualified for the next stage of recruitment. NEHA 2026.07.13 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-19927-2026 -3- 5. Subsequently, the respondent-Commission, issued an announcement dated 30.10.2025 (Annexure P-6) calling shortlisted candidates, including the petitioner, for document verification from 11.11.2025 to 14.11.2025. The relevant part of the said announcement required the candidates to bring all documents pertaining to qualifications and experience claimed in the online application form as per Annexure-I of the advertisement, along with proof of salary, namely copy of bank statement/pass book in which salary was deposited, copy of member pass book/statement of ESI contribution, copy of Form 26AS of the Income Tax Department and copy of NPS contribution statement for the relevant period, etc., to prove the genuineness of the experience certificate. The announcement also stated that in the absence of the documents mentioned above, candidature would be considered on the basis of the documents attached with the application form and that no further correspondence in this regard would be entertained by the Commission. 6. The petitioner appeared for document verification on 12.11.2025 along with supporting documents. However, during scrutiny of documents, she was orally informed that her experience from 01.09.2011 to 31.12.2014 as Lecturer in Uklana Polytechnic & Engineering College was liable to be rejected for want of salary proof in the form of bank statement/pass book, ESI contribution, Form 26AS or NPS records. The petitioner explained to the concerned authority that she had been receiving salary in cash and that she had produced the experience certificate, duly attested salary slips/pay records and attendance records, which were placed on record as Annexures P-7 to P-9. She also specifically requested the respondent-Commission to verify the service and salary record directly from the employer. NEHA 2026.07.13 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-19927-2026 -4- 7. Thereafter the respondent- commission issued the impugned announcement dated 12.05.2026 (Annexure P-10), notifying that upon scrutiny of documents for adjudging eligibility, the candidature of certain candidates stood finally rejected and the roll number of the petitioner, i.e. 30795, appeared in the said list. The petitioner received an e-mail dated 13.05.2026 (Annexure P-11), the relevant part whereof stated that her experience for having worked as Lecturer in Uklana Polytechnic and Engineering College from 01.09.2011 to 31.12.2014 was not as per Annexure-I of the advertisement and that she had not submitted proof of salary in the given format to prove the genuineness of her experience certificate. On that basis, her candidature was finally rejected and it was further informed that no representation/correspondence would be entertained in that regard. 8. Vide announcement dated 27.05.2026 (Annexure P-14), the list of candidates provisionally called for Interview/Viva-Voce was published, but the roll number of the petitioner was not included therein. The petitioner then submitted a representation dated 29.05.2026 (Annexure P-15) seeking verification of her service records and reconsideration of her candidature. However, the respondent-Commission proceeded with the interview/viva-voce process and the final result came to be declared on 05.06.2026 (Annexure P- 18). It was also pointed out that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition bearing CWP-18797-2026 titled as ‘Sunita Devi v. State of Haryana’ which was withdrawn on 05.06.2026 (Annexure P-19) with liberty to refile with better particulars CONTENTION 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the NEHA 2026.07.13 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-19927-2026 -5- petitioner possesses the requisite educational qualifications, had successfully qualified both the Screening Test and the Subject Knowledge Test, and had produced the experience certificate issued by Uklana Polytechnic & Engineering College along with attested pay slips/pay records and attendance records. It is argued that her candidature came to be rejected solely on the ground that salary was paid in cash and therefore, proof by way of banking documents or allied statutory records was not available. It is contended that payment of wages in cash was a legally recognized mode of payment and the respondents could not impose an additional condition not forming part of the recruitment rules or advertisement. Once the petitioner had produced the experience certificate and supporting material, the respondent-commission ought to have verified the same from the employer rather than rejecting her candidature. Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel on Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 which was made applicable to State of Haryana vide the Payment of Wages (Haryana Amendment) Act, 2016. The said amendment does not prohibit payment of wages in cash nor does it make bank transfer the exclusive mode of payment of salary in all establishments. 10. Learned counsel refers to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.785 of 2020 titled as ‘Haryana Staff Selection Commission v. Dusyant Sharma and ors’, decided on 03.12.2021 and submits that the failure of the candidate to upload the original certificate cannot be used to reject his candidature. 11. Furthermore, the learned counsel placed reliance on the interim order of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 15677 of 2026 titled as ‘Vinod Kumar v. Haryana Public Service Commission’ (Annexure P-16) NEHA 2026.07.13 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-19927-2026 -6- wherein a similar situated candidate against the same advertisement was allowed to appear provisionally for the interview. Moreover, similar relief has been granted by another Co-ordinate Bench in CWP No. 16030 of 2026, titled as ‘Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana and others’ (Annexure P-17). 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the reliance placed by the petitioner upon aforesaid interim orders passed is wholly misconceived, as the petitioner in these cases was initially held to be ineligible on account of non-fulfilment of the essential qualification for failure to upload his M.Tech. degree along with application form, though the said degree was later produced at the stage of document verification. Learned counsel further submits that experience has to be assessed by the employer and the recruitment agency. The petitioner claimed experience for the period from 01.09.2011 to 31.12.2014 regarding which neither any bank statements nor any ESI deposits or NPS record were made available despite granting sufficient opportunity. Moreover, it is settled law that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the issue involved in the present matter is no longer res integra. A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Mohit Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1125’, observed that the recruitment advertisement must be strictly and scrupulously followed and a candidate who participates in the selection process without questioning or seeking clarification regarding an express requirement NEHA 2026.07.13 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-19927-2026 -7- cannot, after being unsuccessful, contend that such requirement was merely procedural or capable of relaxation. The recruiting authority is the best judge of its own requirements and where the advertisement clearly prescribes the documents or format necessary to establish eligibility, non-compliance can validly result in rejection of candidature. Speaking through Justice Dipankar Datta, the following was held: “19. It is no longer res integra that terms of an advertisement issued in connection with a selection process are normally not open to challenge unless the challenge is founded on the ground of breach of Article 16 of the Constitution or, for that matter, Article 14. Once an advertisement is issued inviting applications for public employment, it is the responsibility, nay duty, of an aspirant to read and note the terms and understand what its requirements are. If any aspirant finds any of the terms ambiguous and there is scope for an inquiry inbuilt in the advertisement or is provided by any rule/regulation, an effort ought to be first made to obtain clarity for understanding the requirements accurately. If no such scope is available, nothing prevents the aspirant from seeking clarity by making a representation. Should such clarity be not provided, the aspirant may participate in the process without prejudice to his rights and may question the term even after he is not selected. However, if the aspirant does not make any such effort and takes a calculated chance of selection based on his own understanding of the disputed term in the advertisement and later, he emerges unsuccessful, ordinarily, it would not be open to him to challenge the selection on the ground that the disputed term is capable of being understood differently. In such cases, the courts should be loath to entertain such plea of ambiguity while preferring to accept the recruiting authority's understanding of the said term. This is for the simple reason that the recruiting authority is the best judge of what its requirements are and it is such understanding of the recruiting authority that would matter most in cases brought up before the courts; hence, after commencement of the process wherein aspirants have participated without raising any demur as to what a particular terms means, even if any of the terms be ambiguous, the courts should lean in favour of the recruiting authority. XXX XXX XXX 21. Be that as it may, clause 5.4(4) with which we are concerned is far from ambiguous. It is absolutely clear what UPPRPB required and what would be the consequence of non-adherence. In the wake of such requirement, no aspirant could possibly have any iota of doubt as to the format in which the certificate was to be issued. Even if Mohit and NEHA 2026.07.13 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-19927-2026 -8- Kiran had doubts as to whether the certificates that they had would suffice, nothing prevented them from seeking such clarification and, at the same time, approach the concerned tehsildars to issue certificates in the requisite format. It has not been shown that obtaining a second certificate in the format required by the State Government was barred by any law. Having regard thereto, both Mohit and Kiran cannot take shelter under the plea that insistence on the part of UPPRPB of certificates issued in the requisite format is a mere formality which could have been dispensed with since they had certificates issued in the other format XXX XXX XXX 23.We are conscious that aspirants similarly placed like Mohit and Kiran have been granted relief by the High Court earlier and coordinate Benches of this Court have not interfered with such decisions. However, in all such cases, the special leave petitions were dismissed at the admission stage and, therefore, do not operate as binding precedents.” 14. Furthermore, another two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rekha Sharma v. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr 2024 SCC Online 2109, speaking through Justice Bela M. Trivedi, opined as under: “16. As well settled, the candidates who consciously took part in the process of selection cannot be permitted to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the respondents for making selection, on their having been declared as unsuccessful in the Preliminary Examinations. The appellants after they having found that their names do not appear in the list of successful candidates of Preliminary Examination, could not have questioned the result on the ground that the respondents had not declared the cut off marks for the Persons with benchmark disabilities. As stated earlier, the respondents have declared the cut off marks for the persons falling under Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation and not for the Overall Horizontal Reservation under which the appellants fall. Such action could neither be said to be arbitrary nor violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” 15. Moreover, it is trite law that the terms and conditions of the advertisement are sacrosanct. The petitioner, knowing fully well that she was not in possession of the documents as set out in the experience certificate, cannot be permitted to seek relaxation of the prescribed eligibility criteria. NEHA 2026.07.13 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-19927-2026 -9- 16. Adverting to the facts of the present case, in Para 6 of the advertisement (Annexure P-1), the essential qualifications for the post in question have been prescribed which are reproduced as under: - “(ii) Three years Industrial/teaching experience in a technical institute recognized by National Council of Vocational Training/All India Council of Technical Education or supervisory experience in relevant field after passing Bachelor Degree, in a company/establishment covered/registered under the Companies Act, 2013 (Central Act 18 of 2013) Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Central Act 21 of 1860) Haryana Societies Registration Act, 2012 (1 of 2012)/Indian Trust Act, 1882 (Central Act 2 of 1882), Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Central Act 19 of 1952) and having annual turnover of more than ten crores rupees in last three financial years.” 17 Further, Annexure-I of the advertisement prescribes the proforma for the experience certificate, which is reproduced as under: - “Experience Certificate Letter Head of Institution/Issuing Authority Telephone No.... Name of Organization Address of the Organization This is to certify that Shri/Ms.......S/o, D/o, W/o Shri.... was/is an employee of this Organization/Department and duties performed by him/her during the period(s) are as under:- Name of post held From To Total period Y- M- D- Nature of Appointment- Permanent, Regular, Temporary, Part- Time, Contract, Guest, Honorary etc. Departmen t/ Specially/ Field of experience (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) NEHA 2026.07.13 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-19927-2026 -10- Pay scale and last salary drawn (Rs.) Duties performed/expe rience gained in brief in each post Place of posting Worked at supervisory level/middle management level/head of branch. (7) (8) (9) (10) Bank Account No. In which salary deposited. EPF Id No. ESI Employee Code No. NPS PRAM No. (11) (12) (13) (14) 2. It is certified that above facts and figures are true and based on service records available in our organization/Department. Signature Name of competent authority Stamp of Competent authority Note:In respect of the experience gained by the candidate from private organizations, the candidate should enclose the following documents, as relevant in his case, along with the above certificate to prove its genuineness:- 1.Copy of Bank Statement/Pass Book in which salary deposited for relevant period. 2.Copy of Member Pass Book/statement of EPF contribution for relevant period. 3.Copy of Member Pass Book/statement of ESI contribution for relevant period. 4. Copy of FORM 26AS of Income Tax Department for the relevant Financial year. 5.Copy of NPS contribution statement for relevant period.” 18. A perusal of the advertisement clearly indicates that the proforma of the experience certificate has been duly appended, wherein the details of all the relevant documents required to ascertain the experience gained by the NEHA 2026.07.13 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-19927-2026 -11- candidate have been specified. Admittedly, the petitioner has not provided copies of the bank statements, statements of EPF contribution, statements of ESI contribution, Form 26AS issued by the Income Tax Department, or the NPS contribution statements for the relevant period. As such, the respondents have duly assessed the experience of the petitioner in terms of the criteria and the framework set out in the advertisement. 19. Furthermore, this court is of the considered view that the reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Dusyant Sharma’s case (supra) is misconceived since in the said case the candidate possessed the requisite certificate before the cut-off date and the defect was merely procedural, namely its non-uploading. In the present case, the petitioner failed to produce the documents expressly required under Annexure-I of Advertisement No.15/2024 to authenticate the claimed experience. The deficiency, therefore, goes to the root and is not a curable procedural lapse. Hence, the said judgment is clearly distinguishable and has no application to the present case. Moreover, this Court finds the stand of the petitioner to be self-contradictory. While the petitioner seeks to justify the alleged payment of salary in cash by placing reliance upon the Payment of Wages Act, she has nevertheless failed to produce any contemporaneous documentary proof as required under the terms of the advertisement. It is not in dispute that none of the documents specifically contemplated under Annexure-I, Experience Certificate, have been furnished by the petitioner to substantiate the genuineness of the experience claimed. CONCLUSION 20. In view of the discussion above, this Court finds no merit in the NEHA 2026.07.13 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-19927-2026 -12- arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and, thus, the present petition is hereby dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 06.07.2026 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No NEHA 2026.07.13 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh