Writ petition seeking quashing of a memo and appointment as PGT Sanskrit against vacant ESM category posts from a 2015 recruitment, relying on later 2018 instructions and Balwan Singh. The court held the applicable 2014 instructions were unchallenged and the precedent inapplicable; the claim of higher marks was unsupported.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No.870 of 2024 1
2024:PHHC:010988
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.107 CWP No.870 of 2024 Date of Decision: 25.01.2024
Poonam Rani .... Petitioner Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra (Sirsa), Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl. A.G.Haryana. ***
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)
This petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the memo dated 23.12.2021, Annexure P-13; a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to consider and recommend the petitioner for appointment to the post of PGT Sanskrit against advertisement no.4 of 2015, category no.16, dated 28.06.2015, Annexure P-1 and, further, directing the second respondent to appoint her against the vacant post of PGT Sanskrit in ESM category, as per instructions dated 30.04.2018, Annexure P-8.
CWP No.870 of 2024 2
2024:PHHC:010988
included 27 posts for ESM category. The closing date for submission of online applications was 21.09.2015. The petitioner applied for the said posts as a general category candidate; appeared in the written test and qualified the same. But she was not shortlisted for interview. The final result of the selection was declared on 01.01.2018, Annexure P-6. It is claimed that on her own assessment she scored hundred marks, whereas, the cut-off marks for general category candidates to appear in the interview were sixty-six. It is also claimed that twenty-one posts of ESM category remained vacant due to non-availability of eligible candidates, as per the final result of selection. Relying upon the instructions, dated 30.04.2018, learned counsel has contended that the vacant posts of PGT Sanskrit in ESM general category need to be filled up from general category candidates, and the petitioner needs to be considered for the same. He has also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Balwan Singh and another v. State of Haryana and others , 2022(1) SLR 346, in this regard.
MANINDER 2024.02.05 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP No.870 of 2024 3
2024:PHHC:010988
However, the instructions dated 15.07.2014, based upon which the impugned memo, dated 23.12.2021, has been issued, are not on record, nor have the same been challenged in the petition. Besides, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to establish as to why the said instructions, which were applicable at the time of initiation of the process of selection, should not be followed, and the vacant ESM posts should not be carried forward for the next requisition giving opportunity of selection to all the suitable candidates who gained eligibility in the interregnum which is justifiable keeping in view the fact that the advertisement in question was issued in 2015, more than nine years back.
4.1. Further, the petition has been filed merely on the assumption that the petitioner has scored more marks than those of the last selected candidate in general category, though she was never interviewed. The cut-off marks of last shortlisted candidate of general category for interview were sixty-six, and the petitioner presumes, based upon her own assessment, to have scored hundred marks in the written test. There is no basis of such presumption, nor has any material been placed on record to even prima facie substantiate the claim. Even the written test result, based upon which the candidates were called for interview, was never challenged by the petitioner. 4.2. Still further, the judgment in Balwan Singh case ( supra ) has no application to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, as it only upholds instructions, dated 30.04.2018, wherein the government has allowed filling up of posts from amongst eligible candidates of the main open/Scheduled Caste/Backward Class category candidates in case suitable ESM category candidates are not available, and does not deal with the instructions dated 15.07.2014 or its effect. It has also not been established
MANINDER 2024.02.05 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP No.870 of 2024 4
2024:PHHC:010988
that instructions, dated 30.04.2018, were issued by superseding the earlier ones.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE
25.01.2024 Maninder Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
MANINDER 2024.02.05 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether vacant ESM category PGT Sanskrit posts from 2015 selection must be filled from general candidates under later 2018 instructions.
Whether the petitioner's unverified claim of scoring above the interview cut-off entitled her to appointment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Balwan Singh and another v. State of Haryana and othersDistinguished¶42
2022(1) SLR 346
Poonam Rani
State of Haryana
Tribhuvan Dahiya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
