CWP-22306- 2026 (O&M) 1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 120 CWP-22306-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.07.2026 Amit Kumar and another ...Petitioner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sunil Kumar Dhanda, Advocate and Ms. Bhumika Khatri, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl.A.G., Haryana. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the impugned speaking order dated 08.08.2024 (Annexure P-14) passed by the respondent no.2, whereby claim of the petitioners has been rejected; And/Or further issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned letter dated 12.01.2024 (Annexure P-12) vide which exclusive priority has been granted to persons engaged under Outsourcing Policy Part-I for deployment of Conductors through Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam and no priority has been granted to Outsourcing Policy Part-II; further issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioners for engagement as DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22306- 2026 (O&M) 2 of 7 Multi-Tasking Transport Personnel (Conductors) by granting them equal and fair consideration in view of the fact that all of the petitioners were duly selected and are eligible as per the policy dated 26.10.2023 (Annexure P-11). 2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that due to the statewide strike called by Haryana Roadways employees in the month of October 2018, the respondent No.2 - Director, State Transport, Haryana had published 905 posts of Conductors vide advertisement dated 25.10.2018 (Annexure P-1). The Department had published the said advertisement for Conductors to be recruited under the Outsourcing Policy Part-II dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure P-2). Both the petitioners have applied for the post under the said Policy; and, thereafter, were recommended for selection and appointment. However, instead of giving joining to the petitioners and others under Outsourcing Policy Part- II, respondent No.2 had selected candidates under the Outsourcing Policy Part-I without following proper procedure of selection. Thereafter, the said candidates selected under the Outsourcing Policy Part-I were given experience certificates for the period worked. Whereas, the petitioners, although selected, were never appointed. Accordingly, petitioners had submitted Representation dated 25.01.2022 (Annexure P-5) regarding publication of Merit List of Outsourcing Policy Part-II and for granting them employment as per the merit. 3. Even respondent No.2 had written a letter dated 10.04.2023 (Annexure P-6) to the Finance Department and sought approval for DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22306- 2026 (O&M) 3 of 7 engagement of 1190 Conductors through HKRNL due to shortage of Conductors. Respondent No.2 wrote another letter dated 01.05.2023 (Annexure P-7) to respondent No.3/HKRNL regarding hiring of 487 Conductors through HKRNL for a period of 6 months. It is submitted that therefore it is clear that the work is available. 4. Ld. counsel submits that without issuing any advertisement and without prescribing any criteria, all those candidates who were selected under Outsourcing Policy Part-I were considered to be eligible and recommended for selection. It is contended that the petitioners fulfill the eligibility criteria and therefore, they have every right to compete. 5. Thereafter, vide letter dated 12.01.2024 (Annexure P-12), respondent No.2 had written to respondent No.3 recommending giving priority to candidates who have worked during the strike period. As case of petitioners was still not considered, petitioners had filed CWP-2828- 2024 titled as Amit Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others, on 06.02.2024. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 08.02.2024 (Annexure P-13) with direction to the respondents that in case any grievance qua the decision has been received in the office, the same has to be decided by the competent authority within a period of 8 weeks. However, vide the impugned order dated 08.08.2024 (Annexure P-14), respondent No.2 has rejected the claim of the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel argues that given the above facts, petitioners were entitled to be deployed. Respondents have themselves DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22306- 2026 (O&M) 4 of 7 admitted in the impugned order that applications were invited under Outsourcing Policy Part-II and that the petitioners have been shortlisted. It is contended that once respondents have admitted this fact, they cannot subsequently treat the petitioners as strangers to the recruitment process. It is submitted that non-issuance of appointment letters to the petitioners, is not the fault of the petitioners and the petitioners cannot be made to suffer the same. Learned counsel further refers to the Merit List (Annexure P-3) to submit that names of the petitioners are borne at Sr. Nos. 45 and 89 respectively. 7. He accordingly prays that the present Writ Petition be allowed; and prays for: - “issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the impugned speaking order dated 08.08.2024 (Annexure P-14) passed by the respondent no.2, whereby the claim of the petitioners has been rejected, which is absolutely illegal, arbitrary, mischievous, unreasonable and unsustainable in the eyes of law; And/Or further issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned letter dated 12.01.2024 (Annexure P-12) vide which exclusive priority has been granted to persons engaged under Outsourcing Policy Part-I for deployment of Conductors through Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam and no priority has been granted to outsourcing policy part II, further issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioners for engagement as Multi-Tasking Transport Personnel (Conductors) by granting them equal and fair consideration in view of the fact that all of the petitioners DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22306- 2026 (O&M) 5 of 7 were duly selected and are eligible as per the policy dated 26.10.2023 (Annexure P-11).” 8. Per contra, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that in the impugned order dated 08.08.2024 (Annexure P-14), specific reasons have been assigned as to why the petitioners cannot be deployed. It is submitted that petitioners can take no benefit from Merit List (Annexure P-3) as the said selection process was never concluded. It is further pointed out that petitioners are duly registered on HKRNL but are not deployed. She accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ Petition. 9. No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find merit in the submissions of the respondent-State. 10. It is the own case of the petitioners that advertisement dated 25.10.2018 (Annexure P-1) was issued and appointments were sought to be made, in pursuance to a strike which had afflicted in the respondent- Department in the month of October 2018. A perusal of the said advertisement clearly shows that conductors were sought to be engaged by the respondent-department “In view of the emergent situation arising out of the illegal strike of some of the employees of Haryana Roadways, The Department requires 905 conductors purely on contractual/daily wages basis for a period of three months or till the joining of the regular conductors, whichever is earlier.” As such, DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22306- 2026 (O&M) 6 of 7 engagement of persons such as the petitioners was sought to be made purely on contractual basis for three months or till their regular employees join the services, whichever is earlier. Admittedly, the strike had come to an end on 3.11.2018, and the regular employees had joined. Consequentially, the selection process undertaken by the respondent vide Advertisement dated 25.10.2018 (Annexure P-1) was shelved and was never carried forward. As a result, petitioners were in fact, never engaged during the strike period. As such, question of granting them experience certificate does not arise as petitioners have never actually worked on the said post. 11. It is reiterated that the proposal to engage Drivers and Conductors was initiated by the respondent-Department vide Advertisement dated 25.10.2018 (Annexure P-1) in pursuance to which applications were invited and names were shortlisted as per Merit List (Annexure P-3). However, the said process was never carried forward let alone concluded by the respondent-Department as, in the meantime, the strike was called off, and all employees had returned to their jobs. In pursuance to the said process, admittedly, petitioners were never engaged/deployed in the Department. Admittedly, petitioners have never worked during the strike period. In these circumstances, no right accrues to the petitioners; and therefore, where is the question of issuing experience certificate. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to controvert or dispute the above said facts and findings. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22306- 2026 (O&M) 7 of 7 13. Keeping in view the above factual and legal position, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed. 14. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 22.07.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document