Deepak Vaisoha Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Present Civil Writ Pe��on under Ar�cles 226 of the Cons�tu�on of India has been filed by the pe��oner for issuance of a writ in the nature of Cer�orari quashing the impugned Merit List/Result dated 12.08.2024 (Annexure P-4) for the post of Supervisor Hospitality Organiza�on, Haryana in Group No.56, Category No.351 under Adver�sement No.4/2024 whereby the pe��oner has not been allowed to appear in the Main Examina�on for the posts, despite having more marks than the last qualified candidate (cut off marks), under General Category who is having only 55.76 marks, whereas the pe��oner is having 65.31 marks, which is illegal, arbitrarily and against the provision of Ar�cles 14 & 16 of the Cons�tu�on of India and issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus direc�ng the respondents to consider and allow the pe��oner to appear in the Main Examina�on which is going to be held on 17.08.2024 for the

¶12

NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.28 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶13

CWP-20039-2024 (O&M)

¶14

- 2 -

¶15

post of Supervisor Hospitality Organiza�on, Haryana in Group No.56, Category No.351 under Adver�sement No.4/2024 dated 28.06.2024 (Annexure P-2).

¶16

It is inter alia submi�ed by ld. counsel for the pe��oner that vide no�fica�on dated 05.05.2022, State of Haryana had declared a policy for recruitment to Group C and D posts through CET 2022. Vide Adver�sement No. CET-01/2022 dated 17.06.2022, applica�ons were issued for 453 categories of posts of various departments. On 5/6 November 2022, CET (Pre) Examina�on was held. Result of the said examina�on was declared on 10.01.2023. Pe��oner had applied in the BC(B) category and had scored 65.31 marks, as evident from the score card of the pe��oner (Annexure P-1).

¶17

Therea�er, Adver�sement No.3/2023 dated 07.03.2023 was published by respondent No. 2 for 376 categories in 58 groups (later on increased to 401 categories in 63 groups). Subsequently, the said adver�sement was dropped due to li�ga�on; and re-adver�sed Group-1, Group-2, Group-56 and Group-57 posts vide Adver�sement No. 4/2024 dated 28.06.2024 (Annexure P-2), invi�ng applica�ons for direct recruitment to Group C posts from CET Group C qualified candidates.

¶18

Ld. counsel submits that in the said Adver�sement No. 4/2024 it is specifically stated that candidates who had applied against Adver�sement No.3/2023 have to apply afresh for these posts. Accordingly, Pe��oner had submi�ed his applica�on form (Annexure P-3) under the BC(B) non-creamy layer and had applied for different posts of different departments in Group No. 56 as well as other adver�sed posts. On 12.08.2024, respondent No.2 had published a list (Annexure P-4) of candidates shortlisted for various posts in Groups 56 and

¶19

NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.28 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶20

CWP-20039-2024 (O&M)

¶21

- 3 -

¶22

57 as adver�sed under Adver�sement No.4/2024 for appearing in the Skill-cumMains Wri�en Examina�on scheduled to be held on 17.08.2024 (for Group No.56) and 18.08.2024 (for Group No.57). Cut-off marks for General Category for the post of Supervisor (Category 351) were 55.760007. Pe��oner had secured 65.31 marks in BC(B) category. However, as there was no post for BC(B) under Category 351, therefore, roll number of the pe��oner was not men�oned in the result.

¶23

Ld. counsel contends that as per Clause 7.11 given in Adver�sement No. 4/2024, it was s�pulated that in case there is no vacancy in a Reserved Category, then candidates of the Reserved Category can apply under the General Category. Accordingly, pe��oner had sent an email dated 12.08.2024, (Annexure P-5) to the official website of respondent No.2. Pe��oner had also sent a representa�on dated 13.08.2024 (Annexure P-6), to the respondent Commission reques�ng to consider the pe��oner's category as General for Category 351 in Group 56. However, as no response was received from the respondents, pe��oner was constrained to file the present writ pe��on.

¶24

Ld. counsel submits that in view of the fact that pe��oner has qualified the examina�on and has secured more marks than the cut-off candidate for the General Category, pe��oner is bound to be considered against the General Category. Ld. Counsel reiterates that the pe��oner belongs to BC (B) Category and there was no vacancy for BC (B) in Category No.351, accordingly the pe��oner was to be considered as General Category Candidate for short lis�ng of candidates under Category No.351. It is contended that the ac�on of

¶25

the respondent for not considering the pe��oner as General Candidate under NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.28 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶26

CWP-20039-2024 (O&M)

¶27

- 4 -

¶28

Category No.351 is illegal, arbitrary and against their own adver�sement and policy. It is submi�ed that the pe��oner has fundamental right to appear and compete for the post under Category 351, as General Category Candidate as he is having more marks than the last candidate short listed for the si�ng in the examina�on.

¶29

It is accordingly prayed that the present writ pe��on be allowed.

¶30

Per contra, ld. State counsel has opposed the submissions of the pe��oner and contended that admi�edly, the pe��oner has applied in the BC(B) Category. As such, pe��oner cannot be considered in the General Category. In this regard, learned State Counsel refers to Clause 7.2 of the adver�sement.

¶31

Furthermore, it is clearly men�oned in announcement/shortlis�ng of candidates dated 12.08.2024 (Annexure P-4), that the list of candidates 03 �mes the number of adver�sed posts in various categories of Group 56 and 57 is given in the said announcement. The remaining list of shortlisted candidates 1 �me of the number of adver�sed posts in various categories of Group 56 & 57 shall be published in the mean�me.

¶32

10. In view of the aforemen�oned facts, the pe��oner was not supposed to apply for BC(B) category as it was clearly men�oned in Appendix-B (Clause 2) of the Advt. No. 04/2024 that, there exists no vacancy in the BC(B) category under Category No. 351. It is also pointed out that the pe��oner was not shortlisted for Category No. 351, as there was no post under BC(B) category. Whereas pe��oner has applied under BC(B) category, so it is

¶33

NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.28 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶34

CWP-20039-2024 (O&M)

¶35

- 5 -

¶36

own fault of the pe��oner for not being shortlisted for category No. 351. It is lastly submi�ed that the adver�sement is a magna carta for the selec�on process and the Instruc�ons men�oned therein cannot be deviated from for conduc�ng the recruitment fairly.

¶37

In view of the above, prays for dismissal of the writ pe��on.

¶38

No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the par�es. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent-State.

¶39

It is an undisputed fact on record that the pe��oner had applied under the BC(B) non-creamy layer category for various posts vide his Applica�on Form (Annexure P-3). It is the objec�on of the ld. State counsel that pe��oner had not applied under the General Category. However, the said objec�on is incorrect in view of the admi�ed fact that a common applica�on form was required to be submi�ed for applying to various posts. Ld. State counsel has been unable to dispute that a Common Applica�on Form was required to be filled and submi�ed for all/ various posts such as Category 96 - Inspector, Category 348 - Storekeeper, Category 375 - Lower Divisional Clerk (Field), Category 351 – Supervisor et cetera.

¶40

Accordingly, pe��oner had applied for several posts under the category of BC(B) non-creamy layer by way of one Common Applica�on Form as, pe��oner did not have the op�on for applying to the post of Supervisor Category No. 351 in the General Category while at the same �me applying for the post of Lower Divisional Clerk, Field Cadre, Category No. 366 in the BC(B)

¶41

NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.28 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶42

CWP-20039-2024 (O&M)

¶43

- 6 -

¶44

non-creamy layer category. As such, objec�on of the respondent that pe��oner had to fill under General Category and not under BC (B) for post of Category 351 – Supervisor, is untenable.

¶45

Further, ld. State counsel has referred to Clause 7.2 of the Adver�sement No. 04/2024, which reads as under: -

¶46

“7.2 The short-lis�ng of candidates shall be done on the basis of par�culars filled in the online applica�on form for which suppor�ng documents shall be uploaded. As candidates can update their par�culars �ll closing date, therea�er, no change of par�cular at any stage shall be entertained. In absence of documentary evidence or mismatch in claimed category and uploaded documents, candidature of candidate shall be considered under General category/Parent category, subject to his/her fulfilling eligibility in General category/Parent category."

¶47

A bare reading of the above shows that conten�on of the learned

¶48

State counsel is based on a piecemeal reading of the above condi�on. It is clearly provided that in case of mismatch in claimed category, candidature will be considered under the General Category subject to merit.

¶49

Furthermore, there is no reserved post for BC(B) category in the Category 351 Supervisor. It is the conten�on of the pe��oner that therefore, as per Clause 7.11 of the Adver�sement (Annexure P-2), pe��oner was required to be considered as a General Category candidate. There is merit to the said conten�on. It is specifically given in Clause 7.11 that if there is no vacancy for Reserve Category, the candidates of Reserve Category can apply under General Category. The same is being reproduced hereinbelow: -

¶50

NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.28 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶51

CWP-20039-2024 (O&M)

¶52

- 7 -

¶53

“7.11. If for any post, there is no vacancy in reserved category, then the candidate of reserved category can apply under general category. However, such candidate will be considered as general category candidate and will be shortlisted as per merit of general category."

¶54

A bare reading of the said clause shows that in case there is no vacancy in the Reserved Category, then the candidate of the Reserved Category is at liberty to apply under the General Category. It is crystal clear that in the second condi�on of Clause 7.11 it is s�pulated that in case there is no vacancy in Reserved Category, then “such candidate will be considered as General Category candidate and will be shortlisted as per merit of General Category."

¶55

Clearly, therefore, in view of the admi�ed posi�on that there is no vacancy in the Reserved Category, respondents were required to consider the pe��oner as a General Category candidate. Especially in view of the admi�ed fact that cut-off for the post of Supervisor Category 351 is 55.760007 as evident from the list of shortlisted candidates (Annexure P-4), whereas score of the pe��oner is 65.3155441. Thus, pe��oner is much higher placed in merit than the last chosen candidate for the post of Supervisor Category 351.

¶56

I am supported in my view by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in LPA No.180 of 2025 �tled as Haryana Staff Selec�on Commission Vs. Baljeet Singh and others wherein it is held as under:-

¶57

“6. The pe��oner par�cipated in the selec�on process and he secured 144 marks. The last selected candidate in general category was put at cut-off 142 marks and the last wait-listed candidate was put at 140 marks. In Saurav Yadav and others Versus State of U�ar Pradesh and others, 2021(4) SCC 542, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

¶58

NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.28 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶59

CWP-20039-2024 (O&M)

¶60

- 8 -

¶61

has laid down the method and manner in which appointments are to be made where there are reserva�ons available and it has specifically been men�oned that a person, who is from any of the reserved category would have to be first considered against the general category and if he is found meritorious, he would be first appointed in the said open/general category and therea�er, the others who are le� out, would be then considered in their respec�ve categories.

¶62

7. In other words, all the candidates are en�tled for considera�on for appointment in the general category. No specific prayer, therefore, is required to be made by any candidate to claim or consider him in general category on the basis of marks obtained by him. The specific prayers made, would be with respect to considera�on for ESM-General category which has not been accepted by the learned Single Judge. This would, however, not mean that his candidature would be completely ousted and would not be considered under the general category.”

¶63