Dismissed¶10

Dayanand v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Aug 2025LPA/750/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

LPA Punjab & Haryana 2025 | EBPGC | PGT (Chemistry) recruitment 2015 Haryana | substitution/change of category after completion of selection impermissible | doctrine of equality | J&K Public Service Commission v. Israr Ahmad (2005) 12 SCC 498 followed | Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2013(4) SCT 543 relied on | Co-ordinate Bench LPA-320-2019 distinguished on facts (cyber cafe error; widow Anganwari Worker) | delay condonation allowed | appeals dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing/refiling the appeals condoned and the CM applications allowed; pending applications disposed of accordingly; no substantive relief to the appellants on merits as the Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed being devoid of merit. ¶10

Dayanand Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether a candidate who applied and competed unsuccessfully in the 'General' category in a completed selection process can, because 04 posts remain vacant under the EBPGC reserved category, be directed to be considered against those vacant reserved posts (i.e., substitute his category after selection). +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

After completion of the selection process, a candidate who failed to succeed in the 'General' category cannot be allowed to substitute his category or be considered against vacant posts of the reserved EBPGC category, even if he possesses the requisite eligibility qualifications; passing such directions only for the appellants would violate the doctrine of equality, since a large number of similarly placed candidates who considered themselves ineligible may not have applied under the relevant reserved category.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The Co-ordinate Bench judgment in LPA-320-2019 does not come to the aid of the appellants: the permission to change category there rested on peculiar facts (the candidate's form was wrongly filled by a cyber cafe operator, and she was a poor widow working as an Anganwari Worker), whereas the present appellans set up their claim solely because four seats remained vacant in the EBPGC category.

¶8

Key takeaways

There is no reason to deviate from the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J&K Public Service Commission v. Israr Ahmad, (2005) 12 SCC 498, which the learned Single Judge rightly relied upon; the Division Bench is in respectful agreement with the learned Single Judge.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Letters Patent Appeals (Punjab & Haryana) against a common order dated 25.07.2022 of the learned Single Judge refusing to consider unsuccessful 'General'-category candidates against 04 vacant posts of PGT (Chemistry) reserved for 'Economically Backward Persons in General Caste' (EBPGC) under an advertisement dated 28.06.2015 for 442 posts: Held, after completion of the selection process a candidate cannot be allowed to substitute his category against vacant posts even if he possesses the requisite qualifications, since confining such consideration to the appellants alone would violate the doctrine of equality vis-a-vis numerous similarly placed non-applicants; the Co-ordinate Bench decision in LPA-320-2019 (where a poor widow's form was mis-filled by a cyber cafe operator) was distinguished as resting on peculiar facts; the Court followed J&K Public Service Commission v. Israr Ahmad, (2005) 12 SCC 498, and drew strength from Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2013(4) SCT 543; delay in filing condoned; appeals dismissed.

¶1

LPA-750-2022 (O&M) and connected cases

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

202

¶5

(I) LPA-750-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision : August 01, 2025

¶6

DAYANAND -APPELLANT

¶7

V/S

¶8

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS

¶9

(II) LPA-753-2022 (O&M)

¶10

RATAN KUMAR -APPELLANT

¶11

V/S

¶12

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS

¶13

(III) LPA-999-2022 (O&M)

¶14

SEEMA SETHI -APPELLANT

¶15

V/S

¶16

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS

¶17

(IV) LPA-1086-2022 (O&M)

¶18

DEEPAK KUMAR -APPELLANT

¶19

V/S

¶20

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER -RESPONDENTS

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

¶22

Present: Mr. Shailender Mohan, Advocate for the appellant (in all cases).

¶23

Mr. Puneet Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

¶24

¶25

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

¶26

CM-1794-LPA-2022 IN LPA-750-2022 CM-1806-LPA-2022 IN LPA-753-2022

¶27

CM-2395-LPA-2022 IN LPA-999-2022 CM-2647-LPA-2022 & CM-2646-LPA-2022 IN LPA-1086-2022

¶28

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.08.08 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶29

LPA-750-2022 (O&M) and connected cases 2

¶30

Considering the valid and good reasons, as assigned in these applications, for condoning the delay of 7 days in filing LPA-750-2022, 8 days in filing LPA-753-2022, 39 days in refiling LPA-999-2022, 37 days in filing and 8 days in refiling LPA-1086-2022, therefore, these applications are allowed .

¶31

The above delay is condoned.

¶32

MAIN CASES

¶33

All these four intra court appeals are directed against a common order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, therefore, they are amenable for being decided through a common verdict. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are being extracted from LPA-1086-2022.

¶34

The appellant’s prayer for consideration of his claim against the 04 posts of PGT (Chemistry) lying vacant in the category of “Economically Backward Persons in General Caste” (hereinafter referred to as the ‘EBPGC’), after failing to succeed in the “General” category, was declined by the learned Single Judge through drawing the impugned order. Consequently, the legality of the impugned order has been challenged before this Court by filing this intra court appeal.

¶35

In the case at hand, 442 posts of PGT (Chemistry) were advertised for entire Haryana, except the district of Mewat, vide advertisement dated 28.06.2015 and the last date to apply was 21.09.2015. The appellant applied and competed for these posts in the “General” category, however, he remained unsuccessful on account of him being lower

¶36

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.08.08 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶37

¶38

LPA-750-2022 (O&M) and connected cases

¶39

in merit.

¶40

Subsequently, he filed a writ petition before this Court, seeking issuance of directions upon the respondent(s) to consider his claim in the reserved category of EBPGC, as 04 posts remained vacant in the said category. The learned Single Judge, by following the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “J&K Public Service Commission Vs. Israr Ahmad and others”, (2005) 12 SCC 498, dismissed the writ petition with the observations that, after completion of the selection process, candidate cannot be allowed to substitute his category against vacant posts, even if he possesses the requisite eligibility qualifications for that.

¶41

Although the learned counsel for the appellants does not contest the factual observations, he relies upon the judgment dated 22.02.2019 rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in LPA-320-2019 to assert parity with the candidate(s)/respondent(s) therein. He submits that a similar issue was adjudicated in that case and directions were issued upon the selection agency to consider the candidate(s)/ respondent(s)’ claim under the EBPGC category.

¶42

This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and finds that the judgment delivered by Coordinate Bench of this Court does not come to rescue of the appellants, inasmuch as the directions for considering the claim of the candidate(s) in the above case were issued while taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the said case. The candidate(s) in the above case was dependent upon cyber cafe operator for filling out her form, and it was on

¶43

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.08.08 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶44

LPA-750-2022 (O&M) and connected cases 4

¶45

account of mistake of the cyber cafe operator that her category was opted as “General” instead of “EBPGC”. Moreover, the candidate(s) was a poor widow lady, working as an Anganwari Worker. In these circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench had granted permission to the candidate(s) to change their category. However, in the instant case, the facts are entirely different, as the appellants set up their claim only on account of four seats remaining vacant in the reserved category of EBPGC.

¶46

There is no reason to deviate from the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J&K Public Service Commission’s case (supra), which has been rightly relied upon by the learned Single Judge. Moreover, if directions are passed to consider only the appellants’ cases under a different reserved category, after their failing to compete in “General” category, it would violate the doctrine of equality, inasmuch as there may be large number of such candidates who, by considering themselves to be ineligible, may not have applied for consideration of their cases under the relevant reserved category(ies). This view garners strength from the verdict drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.”, 2013(4) SCT 543. Relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:-

¶47

“7. It also needs to be noted that like the present appellant there could be large number of candidates who were not eligible as per the requirement of rules/advertisement since they did not possess the required eligibility on the last date of submission of the application forms. Granting any benefit to the appellant would be violative of the doctrine of equality, a backbone of the fundamental rights under our Constitution. A large number of such candidates may not have

¶48

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.08.08 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶49

LPA-750-2022 (O&M) and connected cases

¶50

¶51

applied considering themselves to be ineligible adhering to the statutory rules and the terms of the advertisement.

¶52

There is no obligation on the court to protect an illegal appointment. Extraordinary power of the court should be used only in an appropriate case to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat the rights of others or create arbitrariness. Usurpation of a post by an ineligible candidate in any circumstance is impermissible. The process of verification and notice of termination in the instant case followed within a very short proximity of the appointment and was not delayed at all so as to even remotely give rise to an expectancy of continuance.”

¶53