1 CWP-20338-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 128 CWP-20338-2026 Date of Decision: 08.07.2026 DEEPIKA .....Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Amardeep Singh Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG Haryana. Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral) 1. This Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 25.04.2026 (Annexure P-3), whereby the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) English has been rejected, and for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's application for the said post by accepting and taking into consideration her PARUL VERMA 2026.07.13 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 2 CWP-20338-2026 Caste Certificate (Annexure P-2), notwithstanding the fact that the same was issued beyond the time period stipulated in the advertisement dated 23.07.2024 (Annexure P-1), along with all consequential benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to the Backward Class (BC) category and possesses all the requisite educational qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) English. It is contended that the respondent- Haryana Public Service Commission issued Advertisement dated 23.07.2024 (Annexure P-1) inviting online applications for various posts, including the post of PGT English, wherein the last date for submission of online applications was fixed as 14.08.2024. The advertisement further stipulated that candidates claiming reservation under the reserved categories were required to possess valid caste certificates issued on or before the closing date of 14.08.2024. 2.1. It is further submitted that the petitioner applied for the post of PGT English under the BC category in pursuance of Advertisement dated 23.07.2024 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner was issued a valid Backward Class Certificate by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Citizen Resources Information Officer, Hisar on 30.07.2023 (Annexure P-2). Thus, the petitioner was admittedly a member of the Backward Class category and fulfilled the eligibility requirement for claiming reservation. PARUL VERMA 2026.07.13 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 3 CWP-20338-2026 2.2. Learned counsel contends that, owing to administrative circumstances and unforeseen personal difficulties, the petitioner could not obtain and upload the physical copy of the caste certificate before the stipulated last date, i.e. 14.08.2024, despite the fact that the caste certificate itself had already been issued by the competent authority on 30.07.2023 (Annexure P-2). It is argued that the delay was merely procedural in nature and did not affect the petitioner's substantive eligibility for claiming reservation under the BC category. 2.3. It is further argued that the respondent-Commission, vide impugned order dated 25.04.2026 (Annexure P-3), rejected the candidature of the petitioner solely on the technical ground that the caste certificate did not satisfy the condition prescribed in the advertisement regarding the stipulated date. It is submitted that the impugned order completely overlooks the undisputed fact that the petitioner belongs to the BC category and was already in possession of a valid caste certificate issued by the competent authority. 2.4. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent- Commission thereafter declared the final result for the post of PGT English on 14.05.2026 (Annexure P-4) without considering the candidature of the petitioner. It is argued that the action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner's candidature on a mere technical ground, despite there being no PARUL VERMA 2026.07.13 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 4 CWP-20338-2026 dispute regarding the authenticity or validity of the caste certificate, is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to learned counsel, a procedural requirement cannot defeat the substantive right of an otherwise eligible reserved category candidate. 2.5. He further submits that the impugned order dated 25.04.2026 (Annexure P-3) is liable to be quashed and the respondents be directed to accept and consider the petitioner's Backward Class Certificate dated 30.07.2023 (Annexure P-2) and thereafter consider her candidature for appointment to the post of PGT English pursuant to Advertisement dated 23.07.2024 (Annexure P-1), notwithstanding the declaration of the result dated 14.05.2026 (Annexure P-4), along with all consequential benefits. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG Haryana appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Commission submits that there is a specific stipulation contained in Clause 11(ii) at page 15 of the advertisement, whereby candidates belonging to the BC-A/BC-B categories were required to obtain fresh/latest BC-A/BC-B certificates in terms of the Haryana Government Instructions No.22/132/2013-1GS-III PARUL VERMA 2026.07.13 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 5 CWP-20338-2026 dated 22.03.2022 and Government Notification No.40/13/2024-1SW dated 16.07.2024. It was further stipulated that such certificate should have been issued during the year 2024-2025. He submits that, as per the petitioner's own case, she was in possession of a Backward Class Certificate dated 30.07.2023 (Annexure P-2), which was not a certificate of the year 2024- 2025, as required under the advertisement governing the recruitment in question. It is further submitted that the certificate subsequently produced by the petitioner was issued after the prescribed cut-off date. Consequently, the petitioner has rightly been declared ineligible, as the terms and conditions of the advertisement are sacrosanct and every candidate participating in the selection process is required to strictly adhere to the same. Learned counsel further places reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Haryana Public Service Commission vs. Pardeep Kumar and others, LPA No.1397 of 2025, decided on 03.11.2025, wherein it has been held that the writ petitioners therein were not entitled to any relief as they had failed to furnish proof of their eligibility on or before the prescribed cut- off date. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record with their able assistance, this Court finds that the petitioner had applied under the BC-A category for the post of PGT English. A perusal of Clause 11(ii) of the advertisement (Annexure P-1), governing PARUL VERMA 2026.07.13 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 6 CWP-20338-2026 reservation for candidates belonging to the BC-A/BC-B categories, reads as under:- “11. RESERVATION (i) The benefit of reservation will be given only to those SC/BC-A/BC-B/EWS/PwBD/ESM category candidates who are domiciles of Haryana State. (ii) For BC-A & BC-B category candidates:- The candidates belonging to BC-A/BC-B categories are directed to obtain the fresh/latest BC-A or BC-B certificate, as the case may be, as per Haryana Government instructions No. 22/132/2013-1GS-III dated 22.03.2022, Government Notification No. 40/13/2024-1SW dated 16.07.2024 and as amended from time to time. This certificate should be issued in the year 2024-2025.” 6.1. Further, the conditions governing the reservation as well as the submission of certificates on or before the cut-off date i.e. 14.08.2024 are as under:- “NOTE 2:- (i) The eligibility of candidates with regard to educational qualifications shall be determined on the Closing Date i.c. 14.08.2024 fixed for submission of online application forms. (ii) All applicants must fulfill the essential requirements of the post and other conditions stipulated in the Advertisement on the Closing Date i.e. 14.08.2024. They are advised to satisfy themselves before applying that they possess at least the essential qualifications laid down for various posts. No enquiry asking for advice as to eligibility will be entertained. PARUL VERMA 2026.07.13 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 7 CWP-20338-2026 (iii) The certificates/ documents in support of the claim should be possessed by the candidates on or before the Closing Date i.e. 14.08.2024. The certificates issued after the Closing Date will not be accepted by the Commission. (iv) The improvement in marks obtained by a candidate after the Closing Date i.e. 14.08.2024 shall not be considered for any purpose in this recruitment. (v) The prescribed essential qualifications are the minimum and mere possession of the same does not entitle candidates to be called for interview. (vi) The candidate should, mention all her/his qualifications and experience in the relevant field over and above the minimum qualifications.” 7. Further, the issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohit Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 1125, has culled out that the terms and conditions of the advertisement are sacrosanct and every candidate seeking appointment in terms of the said judgments must scrupulously and strictly follow the terms and conditions of the advertisement regarding cut-off date of submission of certificates on the basis of which some reservation is being sought. Relying on Mohit Kumar (supra), a Division Bench of this Court in HPSC vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors., LPA-1397-2025, has held as follows:- PARUL VERMA 2026.07.13 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 8 CWP-20338-2026 “52. Recently, in Mohit Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others; 2025 SCC Online SC 1125, the issue came to be examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The certificate relied upon by the candidate was not on the format prescribed in the recruitment notification. The question before the Court was as to whether non- consideration of the candidate for such reason would be bad. 53. The issue came to be examined by the Court, and it was held that all aspirants in a recruitment drive are entitled for the equal treatment. Non-compliance with the terms of the advertisement/notification is bound to trigger adverse consequences on rejection of the aspirant’s claimed status. The Court went on to hold, as under in paragraph 19, which reads as under:- “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 PARUL VERMA 2026.07.13 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 9 CWP-20338-2026 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.” 54. The facts of the present LPAs are analyzed, and we find that the advertisement clearly required the candidates to submit BC(A)/BC(B) certificate. The advertisement was issued in June 2024 i.e. 21.06.2024. The candidates, who claimed reservation for BC(A)and BC(B), were required to belong to Non-Creamy Layer. The determination of Non- reamy Layer is with reference to the income and assets of a candidate. Certificate of BC(A)/BC(B)are, therefore, based on changing financial status of the applicant and therefore, it becomes necessary for the appellant- Commission to require the candidate to submit the certificate issued before the cut-off date. 55. We may note that under Section 5(1)(b) of the Haryana Backward Classes (Reservation in Services and Admission in Educational Institutions) Act, 2016 provides that ‘no person belonging to creamy layer or backward class, shall be entitled to claim reservation for PARUL VERMA 2026.07.13 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 10 CWP-20338-2026 appointment in services under the State against the post reserved for the Backwards classes specified in the schedule’. 56. The certificate of reservation is to be issued on the basis of income of the applicant during the previous financial year and as assessed during the last three financial years. The candidates, therefore, were directed to submit a certificate based on the income during the period 01.04.2024 to 31.03.2025 and assets of last three financial years i.e. 2022-2023, 2023-2024 and 2024- 2025. 57. It is undisputed that all the respondents- writ petitioners claimed reservation in BC(A)/BC(B)or EWS category but had not submitted their respective caste certificate of the relevant period. In the leading case, the respondent No.1-Pradeep Kumar submitted the BC(A) certificate dated 31.12.2019. Similarly, BC(A)/BC(B) certificates of all other candidates/respondents were not of the relevant period as per the advertisement. The candidates were required to be possessed of the certificates on the last date of making of application i.e. 12.07.2024. The certificates annexed by them since were not in terms of the advertisement, therefore, they were rightly ignored.” 8. In the present case, the advertisement dated 23.07.2024 (Annexure P-1) specifically mandated that candidates seeking reservation under the BC-A/BC-B category were required to possess a fresh/latest BC certificate issued during the year 2024-2025 in terms of the Haryana Government Instructions dated 22.03.2022 and Notification dated 16.07.2024. The advertisement further unequivocally stipulated that all PARUL VERMA 2026.07.13 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 11 CWP-20338-2026 supporting certificates were required to be possessed on or before the closing date, i.e. 14.08.2024, and that certificates issued after the cut-off date would not be accepted. 8.1. Admittedly, the petitioner relies upon a Backward Class Certificate dated 30.07.2023 (Annexure P-2), which was not a certificate of the relevant period as prescribed under Clause 11(ii) of the advertisement. Even otherwise, the certificate produced by the petitioner before the Commission was not in conformity with the mandatory conditions of the advertisement. Thus, the petitioner failed to satisfy an essential eligibility condition governing the claim for reservation. 9. The contention of the petitioner that the deficiency is merely procedural and ought to be ignored cannot be accepted. The requirement of furnishing a valid BC certificate of the prescribed period is not an empty formality but a substantive condition intended to determine the candidate's entitlement to reservation on the basis of the prevailing Non-Creamy Layer status. Such a mandatory condition cannot be diluted by judicial intervention, as doing so would amount to rewriting the terms of the advertisement, which is impermissible in law. 10. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in Haryana Public Service Commission v. Pardeep Kumar and others (supra) has also held that candidates who fail to furnish proof of eligibility in accordance with the PARUL VERMA 2026.07.13 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 12 CWP-20338-2026 terms of the advertisement on or before the prescribed cut-off date are not entitled to any relief. The ratio laid down therein squarely applies to the facts of the present case. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or arbitrariness in the impugned order dated 25.04.2026 (Annexure P-3) rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. The petitioner admittedly failed to comply with the mandatory conditions of the advertisement governing the submission of the requisite caste certificate. Since the terms of the advertisement are binding upon all candidates and cannot be relaxed in favour of an individual candidate, no ground is made out for exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. 13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 08.07.2026 parul verma Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PARUL VERMA 2026.07.13 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.