CM-3880-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1586-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (123) CM-3880-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1586-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.07.2026 MAHABIR SINGH ...APPELLANT VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the appellant. **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL) CM-3880-LPA-2026 Prayer in the present application is for condonation of delay of 200 days in re-filing the present appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 200 days in re-filing the present appeal is condoned. LPA-1586-2026 (O&M) The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.24975 of 2018, wherein the appellant has not been held eligible to compete for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) Political Science, as advertised on 28.06.2015. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group-B) Service Rules, 2012 provide for a good academic record, which was also defined in the advertisement itself under Note-2, and that the appellant duly qualifies the said definition but still, not HARSHA RANI 2026.07.21 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-3880-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1586-2026 (O&M) 2 only the State but even the learned Single Judge missed certain aspects while declaring that the appellant is not eligible to compete for the said post. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that in the present case, rather than considering the marks for 10+2, appellants’ marks in 10th should be considered. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that appellant’s marks in M.A and Matric is liable to be considered by ignoring all other marks obtained in other examination. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record with his able assistance. 5. It may be noticed that the eligibility prescribed for the post is as under:- “Eligibility:- (a) Matric with Hindi/Sanskrit or 10+2/B.A./M.A. with Hindi as one of the subject. (b) Certificate of having qualified Haryana Teacher Eligibility Test (HTET)/School Teachers Eligibility Test (STET) of respective subject for the post applied, conducted by Board of School Education Haryana, Bhiwani. Note- The candidates those who are having/passed HTET till the date of interview after advertisement will be allowed for interview on the basis of acquiring HTET (Test) till the date of interview. (c) Consistent good academic record (See Note-2) xxx xxx xxx Note 2. Consistent Good Academic Record implying that out of the lower qualification i.e. Matric/10+2/Graduation than requisite minimum qualification, one must secure at least 50% marks in HARSHA RANI 2026.07.21 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-3880-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1586-2026 (O&M) 3 two lower exams and 45% marks in third lower exam. If there are only two lower exams, than one must secure at least 50% marks in one exam and 45% marks in another.” 6. The marks which the appellant have secured in various examination starting from the Matric till Post Graduation is as under:- Sr. No. Qualifications Marks Percentage 1. Matric 281/600 46.83% 2. 10+2 184/500 36.8% 3. Graduation 572/1200 47.67% 4. Post Graduation 407/800 50.87% 7. A bare perusal of the Note-2 read with Rule 7 of Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group-B) Service Rules, 2012 describing the good academic record means that, apart from the minimum prescribed qualification which is M.A. in Political Science, the candidate should have atleast 50% marks in two lower qualifications and 45% marks in the third lower qualification. The prescribed minimum qualification is Post Graduation with 50% marks which the appellant has. The next three lower qualifications are B.A., 10+2 and 10th. In two immediate lower qualifications i.e. B.A. and 10+2, the appellant is required to have secured 50% marks, whereas in B.A., the appellant has secured 47.67% marks and in 10+2, he has only secured 36.8% marks. Though, in the third lower qualification, the eligibility is 45% whereas, the appellant fulfills the same by having 46.83% marks. Hence, in totality, in the two lower qualifications other than the one required for eligibility which is also the required qualification for such post, i.e. B.A. and 10+2, the appellant does not have 50% marks so as to be described as having a consistent good academic record to be eligible. The State as well as the learned Single Judge have rightly appreciated the same so as to declare the appellant ineligible. HARSHA RANI 2026.07.21 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-3880-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1586-2026 (O&M) 4 8. The argument of the learned counsel that there are only two lower qualifications and not three and, therefore, in one, the appellant is required to have 50% marks and in the other 45% marks, is not sustainable. It may be seen that even in that situation, the appellant will not be eligible for the reasons that the next lower qualification to the minimum qualification is B.A. wherein the appellant does not have 50% marks and has only 47.67% marks and, therefore, even on that account, the appellant cannot succeed. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, according to the appellant, out of the three lower qualifications, two qualifications can be chosen to seek eligibility. The said argument is incorrect. Apart from the minimum qualification of Post Graduation, out of the remaining three qualifications, in case any candidate has two qualifications, then in the second lower qualification after the eligibility qualification that is the requisite qualification, the candidate has to have 50% marks in Graduation and it is conceded position that in any of the two immediate lower qualifications, the appellant does not have 50% marks. 10. That being so, no ground is made out to interfere in the present appeal. 11. Dismissed. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 16.07.2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) smriti JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No HARSHA RANI 2026.07.21 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document