CM-4351-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1088-2025 [1] In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh [104] CM-4351-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1088-2025 Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 SACHIN KUMAR ..... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Gaurav Tyagi, Advocate for the applicant/appellant. Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ***** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL) CM-4351-LPA-2026 1. This application has been filed for preponement of the main appeal which is otherwise fixed for 15.09.2026. 2. With the consent of the parties, the present application is allowed and the main appeal is preponed for today itself and is taken up on board. LPA-1088-2025 1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.3584 of 2025, challenging the non-grant of the benefit to the appellant to be considered under 'Dependent of Ex-Servicemen' category. Wherein appellant filed his application in the General Category due to the alleged glitch in the web-portal while filing the application. 2. Certain facts need to be mentioned to properly appreciate the issues involved in the present case. 3. Respondent No.2 issued an advertisement on 21.02.2023 (Annexure P-1), advertising various posts of the Trained Graduate Teachers ANJAL GUPTA 2026.08.01 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-4351-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1088-2025 [2] (TGT) (Group-C-Services) and out of total 821 posts, 58 were to be filled from the category of Ex-Servicemen/Dependent of Ex-Servicemen' in the Rest of Haryana Cadre and Mewat Cadres. 4. It is assertion of the appellant that while applying for the said post, appellant being a Dependent of Ex-Servicemen, could not file his application in the said category due to the alleged glitch in the web-portal while filing the online application, as there was no category of Dependent of Ex-Servicemen was available to be filled up. Hence, the appellant had to fill the application form in the general category. Later on, the said glitch was removed and the candidate(s) tried to apply in Dependent of Ex-Servicemen category, but as the application had already been filled, there was no opportunity for filing the second application, appellant could not rectify the same. 5. After filing the application, the appellant claimed before respondent No.3 i.e. Haryana Staff Selection Commission that he should be treated under the Dependent of Ex-Servicemen category, but the said representation was not considered. Hence the appellant participated in the general category and secured 63.5 marks, however, the cut-off marks in TGT Physical Education (ROH) in the General Category was 67.45 and in Mewat cadre, same was 65.55 in general category, thus the appellant's name was not reflected in the final results and hence appellant raised a claim for being considered in the reserved category of Dependent of Ex-Servicemen, but appellant's claim was rejected, which was made subject matter of the writ petition. 6. The learned Single Judge held that as the appellant/petitioner had filed an application in the General category, but he could not be allowed to change his category later, as disputed facts regarding veracity of the ANJAL GUPTA 2026.08.01 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-4351-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1088-2025 [3] allegations which are disputed cannot be established in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court, hence the writ petition filed by the appellant was disposed off by the learned Single Judge with liberty to the appellant to approach the Civil Court, which led to filing of the present appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant argues that it is not disputed that the appellant belongs to the category of 'Dependent of Ex- Servicemen' and even after adjusting all the eligible qualified people under the category of Ex-Servicemen and Dependent of Ex-Servicemen, out of 58 posts, only 39 could be filled up and 19 remained vacant. Learned counsel submits that those 19 vacant posts were transferred to the general category and out of such 19 posts, one post was kept vacant against which claim of the appellant could have been considered in view of the extra ordinary facts and circumstances of the present case and the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the same 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the argument of the appellant that there was a glitch at the time of filing of the application under the category of Dependent of Ex-Servicemen, is incorrect as the application filed prior to the date when the application was filed by the appellant for the post in question, the category of Dependent of Ex- Servicemen was there and candidate(s) filled under the said category and, therefore, the circumstances being brought into operation for claiming that the applying of the post under the General category was forced one and not voluntary, is incorrect. With regard to the vacancy of such post, the learned State counsel concedes the fact and submits that keeping in view the interim order granted, as of now one post sought to be converted from the Dependent of Ex-Servicemen to the General Category is still vacant. ANJAL GUPTA 2026.08.01 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-4351-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1088-2025 [4] 9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the case file with their able assistance. 10. The question which arises in the present case is whether the appellant was forced to apply in the general category due to the fact that when he submitted the application form, the web-portal was not showing the option “Dependent of Ex-Servicemen”. The learned counsel for the appellant has attached certain application forms with the writ petition, where such option is not available. 11. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has brought certain application forms filled prior to the date of the application of the appellant where such option is available. Hence, the said issue is still disputed. 12. Keeping in view the said dispute, this Court is required to decide whether, any benefit to the appellant to be considered on such post can be given or not. 13. It is a conceded fact that the appellant belongs to the reserved category of Dependant of Ex-Servicemen. Further, it is also a conceded position that out of the total 58 posts to be filled from the said category, only 39 could be filled up and 19 remained vacant, which were transferred to the general category and out of the said posts, one is still lying vacant keeping in view the interim order granted as of now. Hence, if the benefit of such vacant post would be granted to the appellant, no candidate of higher merit than the appellant in the said category of Dependant of Ex-Servicemen would be harmed. 14. Hence, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, as the one post will go waste, which has been kept vacant under the orders of Court and appellant has secured more marks than the last selected candidates in the Dependent of Ex-Servicemen category, he be considered and appointed on ANJAL GUPTA 2026.08.01 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-4351-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1088-2025 [5] such vacant post in case appellant fulfills all the other requisites to be appointed on such post under the category of Dependant of Ex-Servicemen. 15. 15. Thus, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is accordingly set aside in view of the directions issued hereinabove. Let this order be complied with within a period of three months from today. However, it is undertaken by learned counsel for the appellant, on the instructions received from the appellant, who is present in Court today, that the appellant would accept the appointment if it is given prospectively in the cadre of the Rest of Haryana, subject to the condition that the same is made within the time frame mentioned hereinabove. 16. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed accordingly. 17. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed off. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE JULY 23, 2026 Anjal Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No ANJAL GUPTA 2026.08.01 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document