Allowed¶30

Vikash and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Service/recruitment – additional marks for general test

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Sept 2025CWP/3409/2021

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab and Haryana High Court; CWP-3409-2021; Vikash and Others v. State of Haryana and Others; Jagmohan Bansal J.; decision dated 12.09.2025; benefit of Division Bench order dated 15.11.2021 in State of Haryana v. Anju Bala, LPA No.26 of 2021 (O&M); writ petition pending on date of LPA adjudication; fence-sitter rider inapplicable; Arvind Kumar Srivastava 2015 (1) SCC 347; additional marks general test; computer/training test benefit; consistent with order dated 01.08.2025 in CWP-25047-2021 Sanoj Kumar; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed in terms of the Division Bench order dated 15.11.2021 in 'State of Haryana Vs. Anju Bala', LPA No.26 of 2021 (O&M), extending the benefit of that order to the petitioners. ¶30

Vikash and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed in terms of the Division Bench order dated 15.11.2021 in 'State of Haryana Vs. Anju Bala', LPA No.26 of 2021 (O&M), extending the benefit of that order to the petitioners.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, who approached this Court on 03.02.2021 (after the Single Judge decision in Anju Bala dated 29.10.2020 but before the Division Bench decided the State's LPA on 15.11.2021), are entitled to the benefit of the Division Bench order dated 15.11.2021 in 'State of Haryana Vs. Anju Bala'. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

The rider (fence-sitter limitation) created by the Division Bench while deciding the Anju Bala LPA is not attracted to the instant case because the petitioners' writ petition was pending on the day the LPA was adjudicated.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The case of the petitioners on merit is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Anju Bala.

¶28

Key takeaways

In view of the aforesaid facts, the instant petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of the order dated 15.11.2021 passed by the Division Bench in 'State of Haryana Vs. Anju Bala', LPA No.26 of 2021 (O&M).ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service/recruitment — additional marks for general test — benefit of Division Bench order dated 15.11.2021 in 'State of Haryana Vs. Anju Bala', LPA No.26 of 2021 (O&M). Petitioners (Vikash and Others) filed CWP-3409-2021 on 03.02.2021, i.e., after the Single Judge decision in Anju Bala (29.10.2020) but before the Division Bench decided the State's LPA (15.11.2021). Held, following the consistent view taken in the order dated 01.08.2025 in CWP-25047-2021 (Sanoj Kumar): the fence-sitter rider in Anju Bala (which confined the benefit to those who agitated their claim at the initial point of time, per State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, 2015 (1) SCC 347) operates only against persons who approached the Court after adjudication of the LPA; since the petitioners' writ petition was pending on the day the LPA was adjudicated, the rider is not attracted. Petition allowed in terms of the Anju Bala order (under which the writ petitioners therein were given the benefit of the computer/training test). By Jagmohan Bansal J., orally, on 12.09.2025.

¶1

210-7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP-3409-2021 Date of Decision: 12.09.2025

Vikash and Others

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and Others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

¶10

Present:Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Suneel Ranga, DAG, Haryana.

¶12

¶13

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that case of petitioners is squarely covered by order dated 15.11.2021 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in ‘ State of Haryana Vs. Anju Bala’, LPA No.26 of 2021 (O&M).

¶15

Mr. Suneel Ranga, DAG, Haryana submits that writ petition of Anju Bala was decided on 29.10.2020 whereas petitioner approached this Court on 03.02.2021. He could seek tagging of his petition with pending LPA. He is not entitled to benefit of judgment of this Court in Anju Bala (Supra) .

¶16

This Court vide order dated 01.08.2025 passed in bunch of petitions including CWP-25047-2021 titled as ‘ Sanoj Kumar and Others Versus State of Haryana and Others’ has declined benefit of Anju Bala to those petitioners who approached this Court after adjudication of LPA of Anju Bala. The petitioners herein approached this Court prior to

¶17

PRINCE CHAWLA 2025.09.12 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CWP-3409-2021

¶19

-2-

¶20

adjudication of aforesaid LPA. The relevant extracts of order dated 15.11.2021 passed in Anju Bala (Supra) read as:

¶21

“9. Thus, from the above sequence of events it would be clear that the criteria as such for the additional marks which were to be given for the general test as per the amended rule and which can go up to 10 marks was denied to the dis-advantage of the petitioners. If this benefit was not to be granted, the criteria should have been fixed at the time when the process as such was initiated on 28.05.2018. Therefore, for the reasons above, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petitioners were justified for agitating their claim.

¶22

10. Counsel for the State has, however, contended that the said benefit as such be restricted only to the writ petitioners as it would open a Pandora's Box regarding similarly situated persons who had chosen not to approach this Court, though a period of 2 years has gone by.

¶23

11. Keeping in view the above, the present appeals are disposed of by holding that the benefit as such would apply to the writ petitioners only who were successful as such and had agitated for their claim at the initial point of time and had not been fence sitters as has been held in 'State of Uttar Pradesh & others Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & others' 2015 (1) SCC 347. The instructions which were issued, however, cannot be faulted with since they are to fill in the gaps in the statutory rules. They only laid down as to which of the tests could be recognized for the purpose of granting benefits as per the statutory rules and the said instructions would thus only operate from the date they were issued.

¶24

12. Accordingly, the present appeals are partly allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge is modified to the above extent that the writ petitioners be given the benefit of the computer/training test.”

¶25

PRINCE CHAWLA 2025.09.12 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CWP-3409-2021

¶27

-3-

¶28

The case of petitioners on merit is squarely covered by

¶29

judgment of this Court in Anju Bala (Supra) . The rider created by Division Bench of this Court while adjudicating LPA is not attracted to instant case because writ petition was pending on the day of adjudication of LPA.

¶30

In the wake of aforesaid facts, the instant petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed in terms of order dated 15.11.2021 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in ‘State of Haryana Vs. Anju Bala’, LPA No.26 of 2021 (O&M).

¶31

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE

¶32

12.09.2025

¶33

Prince Chawla

¶34

Whether Speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶35

PRINCE CHAWLA 2025.09.12 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Vikash and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikash and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Hazari Singh Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs Sardul Singh and Others

Paramraj Singh Dhaliwal Alias Umranangal Vs State of Punjab and Others

Shubham Vs Union of India and Another

Aditya Kaushik Vs State of Haryana and Others