Pankaj vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission

CWP-20144-2024 (O&M) 1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
st
258 (1 case)

CWP-20144-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 28.10.2026

Pankaj
....Petitioner
Versus

Haryana Staff Selection Commission
....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present: Mr. Aman Bansal, Ms. Anjali Bansal and Ms. Bhavna
Aggarwal, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Addl. AG, Haryana.


HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

CM-4556-2025

The prayer in the present application filed under Section 151
CPC is for placing on record the rejoinder to the reply filed by the

respondent, along with Annexures P-12 to P-14, in the interest of justice.
Allowed, as prayed for.
The rejoinder along with Annexures P-12 to P-14 is taken on
record, subject to all just exceptions. The Registry is directed to tag the
same at the appropriate place.
MAIN CASE

1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227
of the Constitution of India, seeking the issuance of an appropriate writ,
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.03 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-20144-2024 (O&M) 2


order or direction, especially a writ in the nature of certiorari , for
quashing the impugned public notice declaring the result dated
27.07.2024 (Annexure P-10), along with the impugned public notice
dated 28.07.2024, containing the reasons for non-selection qua the
petitioner, whereby he has been declared unsuccessful for the post of TGT
Social Studies on the ground that he has secured less than the requisite
47.5% marks in Graduation. The aforesaid finding is wholly erroneous
and reflects non-application of mind, as the petitioner has admittedly
secured 48% marks in Graduation, as evident from the Result-cum-
Detailed Marks Card of Bachelor of Arts, April 2018 (improvement
examination) (Annexure P-5).
1.1. The petitioner further seeks the issuance of an appropriate
writ, order or direction, especially a writ in the nature of mandamus ,
directing the respondents to appoint him to the post of TGT Social Studies,
for which he is fully eligible and has admittedly secured 48% marks in
Graduation, as reflected in the aforesaid Result-cum-Detailed Marks
Card (Annexure P-5). The respondents have failed to take into
consideration the petitioner's improved DMC, which was duly submitted
at the time of document verification, and have committed a gross
illegality by declaring him ineligible on the basis of his earlier DMC
(Annexure P-4). The petitioner further seeks a direction to the
respondents to consider and decide his representation dated 30.07.2024
(Annexure P-11), which has remained unaddressed till date, in the interest

of justice and equity.
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.03 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-20144-2024 (O&M) 3


CONTENTIONS
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner , inter alia , contends that
the petitioner participated in the selection process pursuant to the
advertisement dated 21.02.2023 (Annexure P-3), wherein the last date for
submission of online applications was stipulated as 15.03.2023. The
dispute revolves around the marks obtained by the petitioner in the
essential qualification prescribed under Category No. 17. In this regard,
Note-1 at page No. 26 of the paper-book provides for relaxation of 5% in
the qualifying marks, to which the petitioner claims entitlement. The
essential qualification prescribes a minimum of 50% marks. At the time
of submitting his application, the petitioner had attached his DMC,
reflecting 45.75% marks (Annexure P-4). However, learned counsel
submits that the petitioner had appeared in the improvement examination
for B.A. Part-III conducted in April 2018 and improved his total marks
from 549 to 584, as evident from Annexure P-5. Nevertheless, the
petitioner was declared ineligible on the ground that Annexure P-5 was
issued on 04.07.2023, i.e., after the cut-off date of 15.03.2023 stipulated
in the advertisement, and that the DMC attached to the application form
reflected only 45.75% marks. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that, at the time of scrutiny, the petitioner had produced the
provisional result issued by Kurukshetra University on 14.08.2018
(Annexure P-12), reflecting that he had obtained 584 marks out of a total
of 1200 marks in the B.A. Part-III examination held in April 2018.
Accordingly, placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.03 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-20144-2024 (O&M) 4


Supreme Court in Haryana Staff Selection Commission v. Priyanka and
others, Civil Appeal Nos. 5065–5095 of 2021 , decided on 01.09.2021,
and the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Harpreet
Kaur v. State of Haryana and others, LPA-612-2023 , decided on
09.08.2024, learned counsel contends that the petitioner is entitled to the
benefit of the aforesaid judgments, as he had acquired the requisite
qualification with 48.67% marks on 14.08.2018, much prior to the
stipulated cut-off date, and his candidature could not have been rejected
merely on the ground that the formal DMC was issued subsequently.
3. Per contra , learned State counsel opposes the prayer made
by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had
attached his marksheet (Annexure P-4) with the application form,
wherein he had secured marks below the prescribed qualifying threshold
of 47.5%. It is further contended that the petitioner's reliance on
Annexure P-5 is misplaced, as the same was issued on 04.07.2023,
whereas the last date for submission of the online application form was
15.03.2023, as stipulated in the advertisement (supra). Learned State
counsel further submits that the degree was issued on 31.01.2024
(Annexure P-6), and the petitioner had not submitted the requisite
documents within the prescribed cut-off date.
OBSERVATIONS & ANALYSIS
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the
controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.03 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-20144-2024 (O&M) 5


judgment rendered by a two-judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Priyanka (supra) and the Division Bench of this Court in Harpreet
Kaur (supra) . The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows in

Priyanka (supra) :
“7. The short question which was raised before the High
Court and also before us is as to whether the
provisional/confidential result declared by the Universities
would be a validly declared result or not. The question has
been considered by the High Court in detail and it has been
held in favour of the candidates. In our view also, as long as
the authenticity of the provisional/confidential result
declared by the Universities is not in doubt, which in the
present case has been confirmed by the Universities on the
request made by the appellant/commission, the view taken
by the High Court is perfectly justified. It cannot be said that
the respondents were not qualified as on the cut off date,
which was 12.10.2015, as the provisional/confidential result
had been declared by the respective Universities in favour of
the candidates prior to the said date and the applications
were filed by the respondents well within time, along with
such provisional/confidential result. As such, to this extent,
we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in
these appeals.”

5. Likewise, in Harpreet Kaur (supra) , the Division Bench
observed as follows in this regard:
“8. The question to be determined by this Court is as to
whether the date of passing of examination or the date of
issuance of certificate is required to be seen/taken into
consideration for the purposes of recruitment.
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.03 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-20144-2024 (O&M) 6


xx xx xx
12. A perusal of the certificate shows that the appellant
passed B.Ed examination in May, 2017. Since she did not
deposit the requisite fee because of the financial condition of
the family and deposited the same vide receipt dated
22.09.2022, the certificate of degree of B.Ed was issued on
10.10.2022. Once it is certified in the degree of Bachelor
Education for two years course, that the appellant passed
the examination in May, 2017, the recruitment agencies who
are presumed to be consisting of members of experts, who
read the certificates in its correct perspective, rather than
going into the date of issuance of certificate, should consider
the date of passing of the examination. These are all
procedural lapses/delays for which the students/candidates/
aspirants for job should not suffer. Apart from this, we have
observed in other matters also, some time there is
lapse/delay on the part of certain educational institutions, in
issuance of marks sheet/degrees. Therefore, the recruitment
agencies should take into consideration the date and year of
passing of the examination and not the date of issuance of
the certificate. It is further clarified that if in any exceptional
cases there is some doubt regarding authenticity of the marks
sheet/date of declaration of results, the candidate should be
issued appointment letter subject to the condition of their
being retained in the job as per the verification of the
educational qualification certificates with respect to the date
and authenticity of the document. It would reduce the
unnecessary litigation and would encourage all the
meritorious candidates. The recruitment agencies should be
prudent enough to select the best candidate by ignoring
procedural lapse(s) in the documents.”
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.03 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-20144-2024 (O&M) 7


6. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the petitioner
participated in the selection process for the post of TGT Social Studies
under Category No. 17. The essential qualifications prescribed for the
said post read as under:
“Cat. No. 17
83 posts of TGT Social Studies (MWT)
E.Q. i) Bachelor’s degree from a recognized university with
at least 50% marks in Social Science as elective or Honours
subject and as a Social Science teaching subject in
BTC/JBT/D.Ed. (Diploma in Education)/Diploma in
Elementary Education (D.El. Ed.);
OR
Bachelor’s degree from a recognized university with at least
50% marks in Social Science as elective or Honours subject
and Social Science as a teaching subject in Bachelor of
Education (B.Ed.)/ B.Ed. (Special Education) in accordance
with the National Council for Teacher Education
(Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued
from time to time in this regard; OR
Four years Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.)
with at least 50% marks in Social Science subject;
OR
Four years integrated BA.B.Ed. with at least 50% marks in
Social Science subject;
ii) In Bachelor degree any two subjects out of the following
with at least 50% marks in aggregate individually during all
three years of course:-
(1) History
(2) Political Science
(3) Economics
(4) Geography
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.03 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-20144-2024 (O&M) 8


(5) Sociology
(6) Psychology
Note: In the case of Hons. Degree, in any of the above
mentioned subjects, the candidate must have studied other
two subjects in the first and second year of course,.
iii) Certificate of having qualified Haryana Teacher
Eligibility Test (HTET)/School Teachers Eligibility Test
(STET) in Social Science subject; and
iv) Hindi/Sanskrit as one of the subject in Matriculation or
Higher.”

6.1. Further, Note-1 of the aforesaid advertisement provides for
relaxation of 5% in the qualifying marks for candidates belonging to the
Scheduled Caste, Backward Class and differently abled categories. The
relevant portion reads as under:
“ Note:-1. Relaxation upto 5% qualifying marks shall be
allowed to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste
(SC), Backward Class and differently abled (PwD)
candidates. This 5% relaxation in marks shall be on
qualifying marks fixed for General category candidate and
not on the aggregate marks in accordance with the Supreme
Court Judgment dated 18.08.2011 in civil appeal no. 7084
of 2011 (rising out of SLP (C) No. 27965/2010) titled as P.V.
Indiresan vs. Union of India and others. This is further

clarified as under:-
If the minimum qualifying marks are 50% for general
category, then the qualifying marks for SC/BC/Differently
abled candidates, as the case may be, shall be 47.5% i.e. 50
less 5% of 50.
2. 33% posts in each category i.e. General, Scheduled Caste
(SC), Backward Class (A) & Backward Class (B), EWS, Ex-
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.03 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-20144-2024 (O&M) 9


serviceman (ESM) and differently abled (PwD) candidates
shall be reserved for women and this reservation shall be
horizontal. If women candidate in a particular category are
not available then only the post may be filled from men
candidates.
3. Professional Training Diploma or Certificate awarded by
any State, Board or University other than Haryana
Education Department will be recognized only if this Degree
or Diploma or Certificate has been recognized by the
Haryana Government; and
A Diploma / Degree course in teacher education recognized
by the National Council Teacher Education (NCTE) only
shall be considered. However, in case of diploma in
education (Special Education) and B.Ed. (Special
Education), a course recognized by the Rehabilitation
Council of India (RCI) only shall be considered.”

7. Admittedly, the petitioner appeared in the improvement
examination for B.A. Part-III conducted by Kurukshetra University in
April 2018 and secured 584 marks out of a total of 1200 marks, i.e.
48.67%, as evident from Annexure P-12 dated 14.08.2018. The said
qualification was acquired much prior to the cut-off date stipulated in the
advertisement ( supra ), i.e. 15.03.2023. Thus, the petitioner had duly
acquired the requisite educational qualification within the prescribed time
and fulfilled the eligibility criteria, having obtained 48.67% marks in his
Bachelor of Arts degree from a recognized University. The petitioner's
claim is, therefore, squarely covered by the principles laid down by the
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.03 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-20144-2024 (O&M) 10


Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka ‘s case (supra) and by the Division
Bench of this Court in Harpreet Kaur’s case (supra) .
CONCLUSION
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present
writ petition is allowed . The impugned public notice declaring the result
dated 27.07.2024 (Annexure P-10), along with the public notice dated
28.07.2024, to the extent it declares the petitioner ineligible for the post
of TGT Social Studies on the ground of having secured less than the
requisite qualifying marks in Graduation, is hereby set aside. The
respondents are directed to consider the petitioner eligible for the post in
question by taking into consideration his improved result reflecting 584
marks out of 1200 marks, as evidenced by the provisional result dated
14.08.2018 (Annexure P-12), and to reassess his merit accordingly. In the
event the petitioner falls within the zone of selection on the basis of the
revised merit, the respondents shall take appropriate steps for his

appointment in accordance with law.
9. Needless to say, in the event the petitioner falls within the
zone of consideration on the basis of his revised merit position, he shall
be entitled to the benefit of notional pay fixation and seniority at par with
their counterparts who were appointed in the same selection process.
However, he shall not be entitled to actual salary for the period during
which he did not discharge his duties, and salary shall be payable from
the date of his actual joining pursuant to the appointment so issued.
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.03 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-20144-2024 (O&M) 11


10. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the
respondents/competent authority, preferably within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
11. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)

JUDGE

28.10.2026
parul verma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.03 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment