Suman Devi and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Present:- M s. Anu Chatrath, Senior Advoc a te with M r. Ratik Kapur, Advocate and M s. Dhamanpreet Kaur, Advocat e ;(in CWP-9094-2025) M r. Anand Bhardwaj, Advocate ( in CWP-12612-2025) f o r the petitioners.

¶15

M s. Tanushree Gupta, Deputy A d vocate General, Haryana.

¶16

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral)

¶17

The aforementioned petitions a re based upon similar fact s involving co m mon issues; accordingly, the s a me are being decided together . For brevity, t h e facts have been taken from C W P-9094-2025, which has bee n filed, inter alia , seeking a writ of certio r ari quashing the order date d 21.10.2024, A nnexure P-27, whereby the pe t itioners’ claim for appointmen t as Art and C raft Teacher in response to advertisement 06/2006, date d 20.07.2006, h a s been rejected.

¶18

Aman Dua 2025.05.28 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document

¶19

CWP-9094-2025 (O&M) with connected matter

¶20

-2-

¶21

A s per details of the case, in bri e f, the petitioners are applicant s for the posts of Art and Craft Teacher in r esponse to the aforementione d advertisement . They were considered inelig i ble on the basis of two year s Diploma in A r t and Craft having been obtain e d from the deemed University , Janardhan Ra i Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, U daipur (hereinafter referred t o as ‘JRN Vidy a peeth’). The issue of their eligi b ility was finally decided by thi s Court, vide j u dgment dated 18.12.2023, rend e red in CWP-23467-2021 title d Reetu Devi a n d others v. State of Haryana a n d others , along with connecte d cases. The fol l owing directions were issued th e rein:

¶22

1 6 . In view of the discussion, a ll the petitions are allowed, an d t h e respondents are directed t o ; (1) consider the petitioner s e l igible for the posts of Art an d Craft Teacher advertised vid e a d vertisement no.6 of 2006, as already held by this Court i n K rishan Kumar case (supra); (i i ) declare the petitioners’ fina l s e lection result and consid e r them for selection an d a p pointment(s) as per merit. I n case marks secured by th e p e titioners are more than those o f the last selected candidate(s) i n t h eir respective categories, the y will be given appointment(s ) w ith effect from the date other s e lected candidates have been s o a p pointed, with all consequenti a l benefits except salary, whic h w ill be paid to them from the dat e of joining the service. 2.1. I n terms therewith, the respond e nts considered the petitioners’ case for appoi n tment on the basis of diploma from JRN Vidyapeeth, but the y could not be s elected on account of being lo w er in merit. And the impugne d order, dated 2 1.10.2024, has been passed rej e cting their case on the groun d that they had secured marks below the cu t -off under General and BC- B categories, i.e., 142 and 126, respectively.

¶23

Learned senior counsel, Ms. A n u Chatrath, contends that th e Aman Dua 2025.05.28 09:58I attest to the accuracy and petitioners co u ld not have been considered i n eligible for the post in the ligh t authenticity of this judicial document

¶24

CWP-9094-2025 (O&M) with connected matter

¶25

-3-

¶26

of directions i s sued by this Court in Reetu De v i case, and their claim has bee n wrongly rejected vide the impugned order. She also contends that cut-of f marks for the posts under General and BC- B categories were 110 and 108 , respectively, a s established by the announce m ent of revised final result date d 26.12.2022, A nnexure P-24. The petitioners u ndisputedly have secured mor e marks than th e cut-offs, still they have not bee n selected on baseless grounds. 4. Learned State counsel, Ms. Tan u shree, has received instruction s from the thir d respondent/Secretary, Harya n a Staff Selection Commission , dated 05.05.2 0 25, which are retained on cas e file as Annexure ‘A’. Relyin g upon instructi o ns she contends that cases chal l enging the selection in respons e to the advert i sement above mentioned, have been finally decided by th e Supreme Cou r t vide judgment rendered in Ne e raj Kumar and another v . Stat e of Haryana a n d others , 2023 AIR (SC) 3299, h olding as under:

¶27

1 2 . The above communication manifests that the Governmen t o f Haryana is now ready to acco m modate and appoint candidate s w ith Diplomas in Art & Craft fr o m Kurukshetra University, wh o w ere found meritorious and we r e included in the selection lis t d a ted 14.11.2021, without adver s ely affecting the 178 candidate s w ho were conditionally appoint e d pursuant to the directions o f t h e Punjab & Haryana High Cou r t. As it is no longer in issue tha t t h e Diplomas in Art & Craft secured from Kurukshetr a U niversity by the 667 candida t es in the selection list date d 1 4 .11.2021 stand on par with th e Diploma in Art & Craft fro m H aryana Industrial Training D e partment, there would be n o h i ndrance to their being consi d ered for appointment and thi s C ourt is not required to ventur e into the equivalence of thes e q u alifications. However, such a p pointments would now have t o b e made against the 663 notifi e d vacant posts that would b e a v ailable, as the 178 appointees a re being treated as distinct an d s e parate. These 178 appointees w ould have to be excluded fro m

¶28

Aman Dua 2025.05.28 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document

¶29

CWP-9094-2025 (O&M) with connected matter

¶30

-4-

¶31

t h e count of the notified posts u n der Advertisement No. 6/200 6 a s they were converted as Art & Craft Teachers (Diminishin g C adre). Appointments to be m a de pursuant to this judgmen t w ould have to be limited to t h e vacant posts notified unde r A dvertisement No.6/2006 and cannot be extended to late r v a cancies which have arisen th e reafter. Further, the appointin g a u thority would have to strictly go by the merit ranking in th e s e lection list dated 14.11.2021 while making appointments t o t h ese available notified vaca n cies without disturbing th e a p pointments already made or t h e seniority of such appointees , i r respective of whether or not such appointees found mention i n t h e selection list dated 14.11.2021 and if they did, their meri t r a nking therein. This is because t h e review petitioners and other s i d entically situated are now bein g accommodated and appointed , d e spite the long lapse of tim e since the inception of thi s r e cruitment process, and more p articularly, as those who wer e a p pointed have already put in sig n ificant length of regular servic e p r ior to the belated entry of t h e new appointees into regula r s e rvice at this stage. The en t ire exercise pursuant to thi s j u dgment shall be completed by the authorities concerne d e x peditiously and, in any event, not later than two months fro m t h e date of receipt of a copy of th i s judgment. In terms of t h e directions issued, selections for the posts in question wer e made strictly as per the selection list date d 14.11.2021, Annexure P-18 , wherein cut-o f f marks for General category c a ndidates are 142, and for BC- B category 126. None of the petitioners secure d higher marks, and accordingl y they did not fi n d place in the select list, dated 1 4.11.2021. 4.1. F u rther, 178 appointees, who were recruited in terms o f directions iss u ed by this Court vide judgment dated 09.11.2022, rendered i n CWP-24339- 2 021 titled Manoj Kumar and o thers v . State of Haryana an d Aman Dua others , have t o be excluded from the count o f notified posts, in terms of th e 2025.05.28 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document

¶32

CWP-9094-2025 (O&M) with connected matter

¶33

-5-

¶34

directions af o rementioned. Still further, some other employees earlie r approached t h is Court seeking appointment on account of being higher i n merit than those 178 candidates appointed on the basis of selection list/resul t dated 26.12.2 0 22, but their petitions were d ismissed vide judgment date d 19.02.2025, r e ndered in Neelam v . State o f Haryana and others , 202 5 NCPHHC 23855. Accordingly, the petiti o ners’ claim has been rightl y rejected.

¶35

S u bmissions made by learned c o unsel for the parties have bee n considered.

¶36

I t is apparent on record that purs u ant to directions issued by thi s Court in Reet u Devi case, the petitioners were considered eligible on the basi s of their diplo m as from JRN Vidyapeeth. Ho w ever, only on account of bein g lower in meri t they could not be selected. T h e marks secured by them wer e found much below the cut-off marks of their respective categories as per th e final result da t ed 14.11.2021, based upon whi c h the selection for the posts wa s required to b e made in terms of directions i s sued by the Supreme Court i n Neeraj Kuma r case; therefore, no exception c an be taken to rejection of thei r cases. The cl a im for selection/appointment r aised by the petitioners on th e basis of select i on result, dated 26.12.2022, is n ot sustainable since this revise d result was iss u ed in terms of directions give n by this Court in Manoj Kuma r case, and aft e r the decision in Neeraj Kum a r case, the said result was no t required to b e acted upon as specific direc t ions had been issued to mak e selections str i ctly as per merit ranking in the selection list/result date d 14.11.2021. I t remains undisputed that the petitioners have secured lesse r marks than t h e last selected candidates in t h eir respective categories as pe r Aman Dua 2025.05.28 09:58I attest to the accuracy and this result. Be s ides, claims by other candidate s based upon their higher mark s authenticity of this judicial document

¶37

CWP-9094-2025 (O&M) with connected matter

¶38

-6-

¶39

vis-à-vis the 1 7 8 candidates appointed on the b asis of result, dated 26.12.2022 , as per directio n s given by this Court in Mano j Kumar case, have already bee n rejected in Neelam Rani case. Therefore, the r e is no merit in the petitioners’ claim.