Vijay Kumari Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 (Annexure P-13), whereby the candidature of the petitioner for the post of TGT English has been rejected. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of TGT English under the BCB-PwD (VH–

¶17

PARUL VERMA 2026.07.13 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶18

2

¶19

CWP-12178-2026

¶20

Low Vision) category pursuant to the recruitment process conducted by respondent No. 4. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to keep one post of TGT English reserved under the said category during the pendency of the present writ petition.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia , contends that pursuant to Advertisement No. 2/2023 dated 21.02.2023 (Annexure P-1), respondent No. 4 invited applications for 1751 posts of TGT English under Category No. 1 (ROH), including 18 posts reserved for the PwD (VH–Low Vision) category. The petitioner, possessing all the requisite qualifications and holding a valid BCB-PwD (VH–Low Vision) Certificate dated 09.01.2023 (Annexure P-2), applied under the said category. She was issued Admit Card dated 12.04.2023 (Annexure P-3), appeared in the written examination held on 14.05.2023 and successfully qualified the same. In the final result declared on 27.07.2024 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner secured the first position in the PH-VH (Women) category. It is submitted that although 18 posts were advertised under the PwD (VH–Low Vision) category, only four candidates, including the petitioner, were selected. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 issued a provisional appointment order dated 12.08.2024 (Annexure P-5), whereby the petitioner was offered appointment and posted at Government Senior Secondary School, Rajawas, District Mahendergarh.

¶22

PARUL VERMA 2026.07.13 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶23

3

¶24

CWP-12178-2026

¶25

2.1. Learned counsel further submits that even prior to issuance of the appointment order, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 29.07.2024 (Annexure P-6) requesting extension of time for joining, which was duly considered by the respondents. Thereafter, as respondent No. 3 declined to permit the petitioner to join, she submitted another representation dated 22.01.2025, pursuant to which respondent No. 2 issued a fresh appointment order dated 12.05.2025 (Annexure P-7), granting her one week's time to join.

¶26

2.2. It is further contended that the petitioner came to know of the fresh appointment order only in the last week of May, 2025. When she approached respondent No. 3 for joining, she was directed to furnish her resignation letter from the previous employment, proof of deposit of one month's salary and the relieving order. The petitioner immediately initiated the resignation process, deposited one month's salary, evidenced by challan dated 01.08.2025 (Annexure P-9), and submitted a representation dated 15.07.2025 (Annexure P-8) seeking extension of 20–25 days to complete the requisite formalities. She also submitted further representations dated 07.08.2025 and 31.10.2025 (Annexures P-10 and P-11, respectively), besides submitting her application for resignation dated 01.08.2025 (Annexure P-12). It is submitted that despite the petitioner having substantially complied with all the requirements and having continuously

¶27

PARUL VERMA 2026.07.13 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶28

4

¶29

CWP-12178-2026

¶30

pursued the matter with the respondents, her candidature came to be rejected vide the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 (Annexure P-13).

¶31

2.3. Learned counsel further contends that the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 (Annexure P-13) was never communicated to the petitioner, who came to know of the same only on 24.02.2026 when it was produced before this Court in CWP No. 5728 of 2026. It is, thus, submitted that the action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the petitioner stood first in the PH-VH (Women) category and several advertised posts under the PwD (VH–Low Vision) category remained unfilled.

¶32

2.4. He further drew the attention of this Court to the fact that, during the pendency of the present writ petition, the result of the selected candidates was revised, and even in the revised result, the petitioner was included in the list of successful candidates. As such, the petitioner's claim cannot be rejected on hyper-technical grounds. The petitioner is more meritorious than the last selected candidate in her category.

¶33

Notice of motion.

¶34

Mr. Harish Nain, learned DAG, Haryana, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He is not in a position to controvert the fact that, even in the revised result, the petitioner has secured marks

¶35

PARUL VERMA 2026.07.13 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶36

5

¶37

CWP-12178-2026

¶38

above the selection benchmark and is included in the list of successful candidates. On instructions from Mr. Rajesh Nehra, Assistant Director, Directorate of Elementary Education, Haryana, he submits that certain unsuccessful candidates have approached this Court by filing writ petitions, wherein interim stay orders have been granted.

¶39

Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record with their able assistance, this Court finds that there is no dispute with regard to the petitioner's selection. The petitioner was declared successful in the original result and continued to remain selected even in the revised result. It is also the categorical case of the petitioner that against 18 advertised posts under the PwD (VH–Low Vision) category, only four candidates, including the petitioner, were selected. Thus, there is no dispute regarding the petitioner's merit or eligibility for appointment.

¶40

5.1. The impugned order dated 06.11.2025 (Annexure P-13), whereby the candidature of the petitioner came to be rejected, proceeds on the premise that she failed to join within the stipulated period. However, there is no denial to the fact that the petitioner was required by the respondents to furnish (i) her resignation letter, (ii) proof of deposit of one month's salary, and (iii) the relieving order. The petitioner took immediate steps to comply with the said requirements by submitting the necessary

¶41

PARUL VERMA 2026.07.13 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶42

6

¶43

CWP-12178-2026

¶44

documents and representations seeking reasonable extension of time. In these circumstances, the respondents could not have denied appointment to the petitioner merely on the ground of delay in joining, particularly when such delay was occasioned by compliance with the formalities insisted upon by the respondents themselves. More importantly, the petitioner has continued to remain a selected candidate even in the revised result. Thus, rejection of her candidature on such hyper-technical grounds is arbitrary and unsustainable.

¶45

Consequently, in view of the foregoing discussion, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.11.2025 (Annexure P-13) is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to issue a fresh offer of appointment to the petitioner against the post of TGT English under the BCB-PwD (VH–Low Vision) category, pursuant to Advertisement No. 2/2023 dated 21.02.2023, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Upon issuance of the fresh offer of appointment, the petitioner shall be permitted to join her duties within two weeks thereafter.

¶46

The petitioner shall not be entitled to arrears of salary for the period during which she did not actually discharge her duties. However, she shall be entitled to all consequential notional benefits, including seniority and continuity of service, in accordance with her merit position and the

¶47

PARUL VERMA 2026.07.13 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶48

7

¶49

CWP-12178-2026

¶50

applicable rules, though without any monetary benefits for the intervening period.

¶51