119 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-22942-2026 Date of decision: 27.07.2026 Seema Rani and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Mazlish Khan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl.A.G., Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal condition No.2, 5 & 24 of the letter dated 12.01.2022 (Annexure P-11) issued by the respondents. Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date their case was approved by the Board of Governors of the Mewat Model Schools Society in its meeting dated 22.02.2017 (Annexure P-2) against the sanctioned vacant posts at par with the similar candidates (Annexures P-4 & P- 9) along with all consequential benefits and also directing the respondents to not discontinue the service of the petitioner and not to be converted/registered with the Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam limited. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners were appointed on various non-teaching posts, including Clerk, NEHA 2026.07.28 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-22942-2026 -2- Peon, Sweeper, Mali and Library Attendant, in the Mewat Model Schools Society on contractual basis during the years 2003-2012, against sanctioned posts and they have been rendering continuous service with unblemished records for more than 10 to 15 years. The State Government/respondent- Society framed comprehensive regularization policies for teaching and non- teaching staff in the years 2010, 2011 and 2017, pursuant to which the Governing Body of the respondent-Society, in its meeting held on 16.02.2017, resolved to regularize the services of all the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, although the respondent-Society issued regularization orders dated 22.03.2017 in favour of 2-3 candidates from the approved list, the petitioners were denied similar benefit without any justification. He further submits that the draft regularization orders in respect of the petitioners had also been prepared and approved by the Chairman and Vice Chairman but the same were never signed or issued by the competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that perennial work is being extracted from the petitioners at par with their regular counterparts. The the claim of the petitioners is further supported by the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.15778 of 2015 filed by similarly situated employee Mahesh Kumar, which was allowed vide order dated 18.07.2018 and the LPA-1704- 2018 preferred by the respondent-Society against the said judgment was dismissed on 30.10.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the claim of the petitioners is also covered by the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh and others vs State of Haryana and others, 2026 SCC Online (SC) 628 (Annexure P-18) and Jaggo vs Union NEHA 2026.07.28 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-22942-2026 -3- of India and others, 2024 SCC Online (SC) 3826, the judgments passed by this Court in CWP-13015-2021 and connected cases, titled as Manak Singh and others vs State of Punjab and others, decided on 19.01.2026 (Annexure P- 19), CWP-4436-2026, titled as Poonam and another vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 13.02.2026 (Annexure P-20), CWP-6174-2026, titled as Manoj Kadian and others vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 27.02.2026 (Annexure P-21), and CWP-31304-2025 and connected cases, titled as Joginder vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 31.12.2025 (Annexure P-22). He further submits that the claim of of regularization of the petitioners was earlier considered and approved by the Board of Governors in its meeting held on 16.02.2017 and 22.07.2017 (Annexures P-1 & P-2) and the impugned order issued on 12.01.2022 denying the regularisation to the petitioners, cannot be applied retrospectively. 2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he would be satisfied if the instant writ petition of the petitioners is treated as a comprehensive representation and the same be decided by respondent No.2 by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner. 3. Learned State counsel, appearing on advance notice, submits that he has no objection, in case a direction is issued to respondent No.2 for time- bound consideration and decision thereof by passing a speaking order. 4. Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent No.2 is directed to treat this writ petition as a comprehensive representation and consider the case of the petitioners and pass a speaking order in the light of the judgments referred hereinabove (Annexures NEHA 2026.07.28 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-22942-2026 -4- P-18 to P-23, respectively), after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, 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 petitioners. Needless to say, if the petitioners are found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent No.2. 5. Disposed of, accordingly (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 27.07.2026 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No NEHA 2026.07.28 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh