Suman Rani Pannu vs State Of Haryana & Ors

1
CWP-3564-2015


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

203
CWP-3564-2015
27.10.2026
Date of Decision:



Suman Rani Pannu
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR


Present: Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Aakash Singla, Addl. AG Haryana-State.

Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate for respondent No.4.
Mr. Sajjan Singh, Advocate for respondent No.5.




HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227
of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in
the nature of certiorari for quashing the selection of respondents No.5 to 7
on the post of Assistant Professor as per advertisement dated 17.07.2014 and
appointment thereof qua the post of Assistant Professor having been made
on extraneous consideration and same is liable to be set aside. Further
praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.03 17:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2
CWP-3564-2015


respondents No.1 to 4 to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of
Assistant Professor in Commerce being higher in merit than the private
respondents.
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that
respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement dated 17.07.2014 (Annexure P-1),
inviting applications for three posts of Assistant Professor in Commerce
under the General Category. As per the qualifications prescribed in the
advertisement, a candidate was required to possess a Master's degree in the
relevant subject from a recognised university with at least 55% marks and to
have qualified the National Eligibility Test (NET) in the relevant subject,
subject to the applicable exemptions. The petitioner, being fully eligible for
the post, applied for the same. Learned counsel further submits that the
selection criteria, as reflected in Annexure P-3, provided for allocation of
marks for academic qualifications and other relevant achievements,
including teaching experience, publications, participation in seminars and
other prescribed activities, besides marks for the interview. It is contended
that the selection process was required to be conducted strictly in accordance
with the prescribed criteria to ensure fairness and transparency in the
selection.
3. Learned counsel argues that the petitioner was awarded 36
marks out of 50 under the prescribed criteria, whereas respondent No. 5,
Anil Kumar, was awarded 23 marks, as discernible from Annexure P-4. On
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.03 17:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3
CWP-3564-2015


this basis, learned counsel contends that the petitioner had secured more
marks under the prescribed criteria than the selected candidates and that the
award of marks during the interview materially altered the relative merit
position of the candidates. Learned counsel further emphasises that there are
discrepancies between the marks reflected in Annexure P-4 and those
appearing in Annexure R-3/2 filed by respondent No. 3. It is contended that
the variation between the two sets of marks raises serious questions
regarding the manner in which the marks were assessed and awarded to the
candidates. Learned counsel particularly alleges that respondent No. 5 was
awarded marks for publications and seminars despite, not possessing
publications or participation particulars warranting the award of such marks.
It is, therefore, argued that the marks awarded under these heads were
unjustified and that the selection process was not conducted in accordance
with the prescribed criteria.
4. Learned counsel also places reliance upon the communication
dated 18.06.2014 issued by the Director General, Higher Education,
Haryana, annexed as Annexure P-8. The said communication prescribed the
permissible range of marks to be awarded in interviews for the posts in
question and stipulated that marks below 5 or above 15 could be awarded
only in exceptional cases where the candidate was found to be exceptionally
good or poor, with reasons for awarding such marks duly recorded in the
proceedings signed by all members of the Selection Committee. Learned
counsel submits that the petitioner was awarded only 6 marks in the
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.03 17:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4
CWP-3564-2015


interview, whereas the selected candidates were awarded substantially
higher marks. It is contended that the disparity in the interview marks,
particularly when considered alongside the alleged discrepancies in the
marks awarded under the other heads, gives rise to a serious apprehension
regarding the fairness of the selection process.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner sought
information under the Right to Information Act regarding the candidates
who had appeared for the interview, the marks awarded to them, the
constitution of the Selection Committee and the approval granted to the
selected candidates. It is contended that the information received did not
satisfactorily explain the discrepancies alleged by the petitioner. Further the
award of interview marks substantially affected the final merit position,
resulting in the selection of candidates who had allegedly secured fewer
marks than the petitioner under the other prescribed criteria.
6. On the aforesaid basis, learned counsel contends that the
selection and appointment of the private respondents are vitiated by
arbitrariness and deviation from the prescribed selection criteria. It is
accordingly prayed that the selection of the private respondents be set aside
and appropriate consequential directions be issued in favour of the petitioner
in accordance with law.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT’S
7. Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5, while making
their submissions jointly, contends that the petitioner has not placed the
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.03 17:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5
CWP-3564-2015


complete record on the writ petition file. It is submitted that the record was
summoned by this Court vide order dated 12.03.2020 and was subsequently
produced before the Court. Learned counsel, therefore, contends that the
petitioner has raised disputed questions of fact which cannot appropriately
be adjudicated in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand,
submits that the original record was produced before this Court on earlier
occasions and is also available in Court today. Referring to the original
record, learned counsel contends that the petitioner’s assertion that she
secured 36 marks under the prescribed criteria, whereas respondent No.5
secured 23 marks, is factually incorrect. It is further submitted that the
petitioner does not figure amongst the first nine candidates. Learned counsel
further submits that respondent No.5 was awarded 10 marks for publications
and 5 marks for seminars, as reflected in the marks awarded under the
prescribed selection criteria. It is contended that the relevant supporting
documents were placed before the Selection Committee. Learned counsel
further submits that photocopies of the said documents are in the possession
of the inspecting officials and have been produced before the Court today.
OBSERVATIONS
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the record of the case with their able assistance. The principal grievance of
the petitioner is that, under the prescribed selection criteria, she had secured
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.03 17:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6
CWP-3564-2015


36 marks under the heads of Academic Record and Assessment of Domain
Knowledge and Teaching Skills, whereas respondent No.5 had allegedly
secured only 23 marks, thereby leaving a difference of 13 marks in her
favour. The petitioner contends that such a difference could not have been
overcome by respondent No.5 except by awarding him disproportionately
high marks in the interview and by awarding her an artificially low score.
10. It is relevant to notice that, while considering the matter at the
initial stage, this Court, vide order dated 19.03.2015, recorded the aforesaid
submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Taking note of the nature
of the grievance raised, the Court dismissed the writ petition qua
respondents No. 6 and 7, observing that the marks obtained by them were
not as low as those obtained by respondent No. 5, and issued notice of
motion qua the remaining respondents. The aforesaid order, however,
recorded the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner at that stage.
The correctness of the comparative marks, therefore, falls to be examined in
the light of the complete record subsequently produced before the Court.
11. A perusal of the selection criteria prescribed for the post in
question, as reflected in Annexure P-3, read with the comparative statement
of marks furnished by respondent No. 3 and the material produced before
this Court, reveals that the petitioner secured 37 marks, whereas respondent
No. 5 secured 38 marks under the heads of Academic Record and
Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills, taken together, out
of 80 marks. Thus, the petitioner’s assertion that she had secured 36 marks,
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.03 17:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7
CWP-3564-2015


whereas respondent No. 5 had secured only 23 marks, resulting in a
difference of 13 marks in her favour, is not borne out by the aforesaid
comparative statement. Rather, respondent No. 5 secured one mark more
than the petitioner under the aforesaid heads. The relevant selection criteria
and distribution of marks prescribed under Annexure P-3 read as under:
“CRITERIA DISTRIBUTION — MARKS DISTRIBUTION
(A) Academic Record — 50%
(B) Assessment of Domain Knowledge & Teaching Skills —
30%
(C) Interview Performance — 20%
Total: 100 Marks
(A) Academic Record — 50 Marks
(B) Assessment of Domain Knowledge & Teaching Skills — 30
Marks
I. Publications — Maximum 10 Marks
II. Research Performance — Maximum 5 Marks
III. Co-curricular Activities — Maximum 5 Marks
IV. Sports — Maximum 5 Marks
V. Teaching Experience — Maximum 5 Marks
(C) Interview — 20 Marks
(i) Subject Knowledge & Concept Clarity — 10 Marks
(ii) Communication Skills & ICT Knowledge — 5 Marks
(iii) Overall Personality — 5 Marks
Grand Total: (A) 50 + (B) 30 + (C) 20 = 100 Marks.”

PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.03 17:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

8
CWP-3564-2015


12. The aforesaid criteria has to be read alongside the comparative
statement of marks furnished by respondent No.3 in its written statement.
The said statement records the following position:
Sr. Marks as per
Name of candidate
No.
Marks in
interview
Total
marks
1. Gourav Bareja 33 15 48
criteria
Anil Kumar (respondent No.
2.
38 15 53
5)
3. Dr. Rakhi 38 14 52
Suman Rani Pannu
4.
37 6 43
(petitioner)
13. A perusal of the aforesaid statement reveals that the petitioner
was awarded 37 marks under the prescribed criteria, as against 38 marks
awarded to respondent No. 5. Thus, the assertion that the petitioner had
secured 36 marks whereas respondent No. 5 had secured only 23 marks
under the first two heads is not borne out by the comparative statement
relied upon by respondent No. 3. Rather, the said statement reflects that
respondent No.5 secured one mark more than the petitioner under the
prescribed criteria.
14. It is further evident from the comparative statement that
respondent No. 5 was awarded 15 marks in the interview, whereas the
petitioner was awarded 6 marks. Consequently, respondent No.5 secured 53
marks in all, while the petitioner secured 43 marks. The difference in the
interview marks is, therefore, apparent from the record. However, the mere
fact that one candidate secured higher marks in the interview than another
does not, by itself, establish that the selection process was arbitrary or that
the marks were deliberately manipulated. The legality of the selection has to
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.03 17:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

9
CWP-3564-2015


be assessed with reference to the prescribed criteria, the material available
on record and the specific allegations raised by the petitioner.
15. The petitioner has also questioned the award of marks to
respondent No. 5 under the heads of publications and seminar participation,
alleging that he did not possess the requisite supporting credentials to justify
the award of such marks. The said contention was noticed by this Court vide
order dated 12.03.2020, pursuant to which respondent No. 3 was directed to
produce the record. In response thereto, the comparative statement of marks
and photocopies of the supporting documents have been produced before
this Court. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the marks
under the aforesaid heads were awarded on the basis of the material placed
before the Selection Committee. The petitioner, on the other hand, has
questioned the correctness of the assessment made by the Selection
Committee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the mere allegation
that respondent No. 5 was not entitled to the marks awarded to him, in the
absence of sufficient material establishing that the assessment was contrary
to the prescribed criteria, does not, by itself, warrant interference with the
selection.
16. The petitioner’s challenge to the selection must, therefore, be
considered on the basis of the material available on record and not merely on
the numerical comparison pleaded in the writ petition. The comparative
statement furnished by respondent No. 3 contradicts the petitioner’s
assertion that respondent No.5 had secured only 23 marks under the
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.03 17:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

10
CWP-3564-2015


prescribed criteria. The petitioner has, thus, failed to substantiate her
principal contention that respondent No. 5 overcame an alleged shortfall of
13 marks solely through the award of interview marks. The difference in the
interview scores, by itself, is insufficient to establish arbitrariness in the
selection.
17. Furthermore, it is settled law that where disputed questions of
facts are involved, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
not the proper remedy. A two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
S.P.S. Rathore v. State of Haryana, (2005) 10 SCC 1 , speaking through
Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, has held as follows:
"16. In Chairman, Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) v. Sukamani
Das [(1999) 7 SCC 298] the question which arose for consideration
was, can the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution award
compensation for death caused due to electrocution on account of
negligence, when the liability was emphatically denied on the ground
that the death had not occurred as a result of negligence, but because
of an act of God or of acts of some other persons. The Court held that
it is the settled legal position that where disputed questions of facts
are involved, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a
proper remedy. Therefore, questions as to whether death occurred
due to negligence or due to act of God or of some third person could
not be decided properly on the basis of affidavits only, but should be
decided by the civil court after appreciating the evidence adduced by
the parties. In T.N. Electricity Board v. Sumathi [(2000) 4 SCC 543]
it was held that when a disputed question of fact arises and there is
clear denial of any tortious liability, remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution may not be proper. The Court carved out exception to
this general rule by observing that, it should not be understood that in
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.03 17:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

11
CWP-3564-2015


every case of tortious liability, recourse must be had to a suit. When
there is negligence on the face of it and infringement of Article 21 is
there, it cannot be said that there will be any bar to proceed under
Article 226 of the Constitution."

18. Further a two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Orissa Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. Bharati Industries 2005 (12)

725 while speaking through Justice Arijit Pasayat, observed that as follows:

“9. A bare perusal of the High Court's judgment
shows that there was clear non-application of mind. On one
hand the High Court observed that the disputed questions
cannot be gone into a writ petition. It was also noticed that
essence of dispute was breach of contract. After coming to the
above conclusions the High Court should have dismissed the
writ petition. Surprisingly, the High Court proceeded to
examine the case solely on the writ petitioner's assertion and on
a very curious reasoning that though the appellant-Corporation
claimed that the value of articles lifted was nearly rupees 14.90
lakhs no details were specifically given. From the counter-
affidavit filed before the High Court it is crystal clear that
relevant details disputing claim of the writ petitioner were
given. Value of articles lifted by the writ petitioner is a disputed
factual question. Where a complicated question of fact is
involved and the matter requires thorough proof on factual
aspects, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition.
Whether or not the High Court should exercise jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution would largely depend
upon the nature of dispute and if the dispute cannot be
resolved without going into the factual controversy, the High
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.03 17:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

12
CWP-3564-2015


Court should not entertain the writ petition. As noted above,
the writ petition was primarily founded on allegation of breach
of contract. Question whether the action of the opposite party
in the writ petition amounted to breach of contractual
obligation ultimately depends on facts and would require
material evidence to be scrutinised and in such a case writ
jurisdiction should not be exercised. (See : State of Bihar v.
Jain Plastic & Chemicals Ltd., 2002(1) SCC 216).
10. In a catena of cases this Court has held that where
dispute revolves round questions of fact, the matter ought not
be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution”


CONCLUSION
19. In the absence of sufficient material establishing that the
prescribed selection criteria were violated or that the marks were awarded
arbitrarily, no ground is made out for interference by this Court in the
exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
20. The original record, after examination by the Court, is returned to
the person concerned.
21. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed
of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE

27.10.2026
Puneet Chawla
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.03 17:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document