Sachin vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission And Another

250 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-28167-2023
Date of decision: 03.09.2026
Sachin ....Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Staff Selection Commission and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Anurag Goyal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Nikhil Lather, Advocate and
Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ved Prakash, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the impugned email dated 09.05.2023 (Annexure P-13) objecting to
the appointment to the petitioner by considering him in service in Indian Navy
from March, 2020 and denying him marks under Socio Economic Criteria
though the cut off date for the posts in question was 26.09.2019. Further, for
quashing the objection raised by the department vide order dated 23.06.2023
(Annexure P-14), whereby, an objection is raised about 05 marks awarded to
the petitioner under Socio Economic Criteria in the selection for the post of
Fitter Instructor (Practical) Category No.29 (Annexure P-1) dated 20.07.2019.
Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Fitter Instructor (Practical)
in either of the categories by awarding 5 marks under Socio Economic Criteria
w.e.f. the date his counterparts are allowed to join with all notional benefits of
NEHA
2026.09.07 17:53
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh

CWP-28167-2023 -2-
fixation of pay and seniority along with arrears of pay, if any.
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that
the petitioner participated in the selection process pursuant to Advertisement
No.12 of 2019 published on 20.07.2019, for the post of Fitter Inspector under
Category No.29 in the EWS category. The closing date for submission of online
applications was 20.08.2019. The examination notice was issued on 18.11.2021
as discernible from Annexure P-5, thereafter, the written examination was
conducted on 11.12.2021 and the final result was declared on 27.10.2022
(Annexure P-12). It is further submitted that the petitioner secured 60 marks,
whereas, the cut-off marks were 59 marks in the General category and 53 marks
in the EWS category. After the examination, the candidates were advised to
upload their documents through the link available on the website of the
respondent-Commission from 01.03.2022 to 10.03.2022, as per the online
scrutiny notice (Annexure P-7). Upon declaration of the result on 27.10.2022,
the name of the petitioner was included in the list of successful candidates in
the General category as discernible from Annexure P-12.
2.1. Learned senior counsel further submits that subsequently, vide
email dated 09.05.2023 (Annexure P-13), the petitioner was informed that the
05 marks awarded to him under the 'No Government Job' category were liable
to be withdrawn, as he had joined the Indian Navy in March, 2020. In this
regard, reliance has been placed upon the appointment letter dated 22.05.2020
(Annexure P-17), whereby, the petitioner was appointed as Tradesman Mate in
the Indian Navy with effect from 20.03.2020. It is submitted that the petitioner
subsequently left the said employment on account of his medical condition.
NEHA
2026.09.07 17:53
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh

CWP-28167-2023 -3-
2.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasises that even if the 05
marks awarded under the 'No Government Job' category are excluded, the
petitioner would still have secured 60 marks in the written examination, which
is higher than the cut-off marks of 59 marks in the General category and 53
marks in the EWS category. Reference has also been made to para 04 of the
short reply filed on behalf of the respondent-Commission, wherein, it has been
acknowledged that even after exclusion of the aforesaid 05 marks, the
petitioner had secured 60 marks in the written examination and was above the
cut-off marks of the last selected candidate.
2.3. He further relies upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and others, (2007) 4 SCC 54
and Bhupinderpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, (2000) 5
SCC 262 and submits that it is a trite law that the eligibility of a candidate has
to be determined with reference to the cut-off date stipulated in the
advertisement, which in the present case, was 20.08.2019. It is submitted that
the petitioner had secured the requisite eligibility as on the said cut-off date,
whereas, his subsequent appointment in the Indian Navy was only on
22.05.2020 with effect from 20.03.2020. Thus, the subsequent acceptance of
employment by the petitioner could not operate to his prejudice for determining
his entitlement under the 'No Government Job' category as on the cut-off date.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner being more meritorious than
the last selected candidate is entitled to be considered for appointment. It is also
submitted that this Court, vide order dated 15.12.2023, had directed reservation
of one post of Fitter Inspector in the EWS category while issuing notice of
motion.
NEHA
2026.09.07 17:53
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh

CWP-28167-2023 -4-
3. Per contra , learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by
learned senior counsel for the petitioner on the ground that at the time of
scrutiny of the documents, the petitioner had already accepted employment in
the Indian Navy and, therefore, was rightly held ineligible for the benefit
claimed under the 'No Government Job' category. Learned State counsel
reiterates the grounds taken in the reply filed on behalf of the respondent-
Commission.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of
the record, it transpires that the petitioner participated in the selection process
pursuant to the issuance of the advertisement (supra) . The facts are not in
dispute. The petitioner was declared successful in the selection process vide
final result declared on 27.10.2022 as discernible from Annexure P-12. The
petitioner had secured 65 marks, out of which 05 marks were awarded under
the socio-economic criteria for 'No Government Job'. It is also not in dispute
that the petitioner had accepted appointment to the post of Tradesman Mate in
the Indian Navy with effect from 20.03.2020 as discernible from Annexure P-
17. The petitioner subsequently left the said employment. Moreover, even if
05 marks awarded under the socio-economic criteria for 'No Government Job'
are excluded, the petitioner would still have secured 60 marks, which is higher
than the cut-off marks of 59 in the General category and 53 in the EWS
category.
4.1. Further, it is no longer res integra that the eligibility of a candidate
has to be reckoned with reference to the cut-off date stipulated in the
advertisement. Perusal of the advertisement (supra) shows that the last date for
NEHA
2026.09.07 17:53
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh

CWP-28167-2023 -5-
submission of online applications was initially fixed as 20.08.2019 which was
subsequently extended upto 26.09.2019 vide public notice dated 11.09.2019
(Annexures P-3). Thus, as on the last date prescribed for submission of
applications, the petitioner had not entered into employment with the Indian
Navy. His appointment in the Indian Navy was subsequent thereto i.e. with
effect from 20.03.2020.
4.2. In view of the aforesaid facts, the subsequent appointment of the
petitioner in the Indian Navy could not, by itself, render him ineligible for
consideration on the basis of the cut-off date prescribed for the selection
process.
5. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for appointment by
excluding 05 marks from the total marks secured by him and pass an
appropriate order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential
benefits from the date his counterparts joined the service. However, he shall be
entitled to salary only from the date of his actual joining.
6. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
03.09.2026
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
NEHA
2026.09.07 17:53
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh