CWP-21918-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 140 CWP-21918-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.07.2026 Ram Mehar Lohan ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. J.P. Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the action of respondents for treating the petitioner as not-eligible on the ground that his diploma was issued in September 2006, after the last cut off date i.e. 21.08.2006, and for quashing condition No. ii & iii regarding fixing the cut off date qua qualification and eligibility. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as eligible for the post of Art & Crafts Teacher against advertisement No. 6/2006 and to issue appointment letter to him with all consequential benefits from the date other candidates have been appointed. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to issue appointment letter to the MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.21 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-21918-2026 2 petitioner as he has more marks than the last selected candidates in their respective categories and also having marks upto 124+ interview marks. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied if the representation (Annexure P-13) of the petitioner pending before respondents No.2 and 3 is considered by respondent No.3 by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner as the petitioner has qualified the written examination and also appeared in the interview. Further, the similarly situated candidates have already approached this Court by filing CWP-28475-2023 and other connected cases, titled as Pinki Devi and others vs State of Haryana and others, which was disposed of on 14.05.2026. 3. Learned State counsel, appearing on advance notice, submits that he has no objection, in case a direction is issued to the respondent No.3 for time-bound consideration and decision of the representation (Annexure P-13) of the petitioner by passing a speaking order. He, however, submits that the petitioner is a fence-sitter and has approached this Court only after a favourable decision was rendered in favour of other similarly situated candidates. The petitioners in Jagdip Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 2023 NCPHHC 151982, had approached this Court in the year 2022, whereas the petitioners in Pinki Devi’s case (supra) had approached this Court in the year 2023. 4. Keeping in view the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No.3 is directed to consider the representation (Annexure P-13) of the petitioner and pass a speaking MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.21 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-21918-2026 3 order in the light of the Jagdip’s case (supra) and Pinki Devi’s case (supra), after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 03 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent No.3. 5. Disposed of, accordingly. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 20.07.2026 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.21 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.