Suman Devi vs State Of Haryana And Others
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
IN TH
209
Suman Dev
State of Ha
CORAM: HON
Present:- Mr. A
Ms. R
for th
Mr. S
NIDHI GUPTA, J .
HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AN
D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-19549
Date of De
9-2022 (O&M)
ecision:- 11.11.2026
vi
… Petitioner
Versus
aryana and others
... Respondents
N'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
A
Ajit Singh Lamba, Advocate,
Rhea, Advocate
he petitioner.
Suneel Ranga, D.A.G., Haryana.
Prese
ent Civil Writ Petition und
er Articles 226/227 of the
e
Constitution of In
ndia has been filed by the petitio
oner for issuance of a writ in the
e
nature of Manda
mus or any other appropriate w
writ directing Respondents to re-
-
consider the cand
didature of the petitioner in vie
ew of the Letter No. 1/20/2013-
-
IGS-II dated 30.0
05.2014 (Annexure P-2) and P
Policy Instructions bearing No.
.
5/07/2017-GS-II
dated 28.09.2018 (Annexure
P-3) as per her educational
qualifications and
d grant consequent appointme
nt on any suitable vacant post
t
under "direct rec
cruitment" category in Class II
II or IV level services; and for
r
issuance of Writ o
of Certiorari to modify the letter
r dated 03.02.2020 (Annexure P-
-
9) and letter date
ed 17.12.2020 (Annexure P-12),t
to the extent that petitioner be
e
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-19549-2022
offered appointm
2 (O&M) - 2 -
ment on any suitable vacant
post as per her educational
l
qualifications und
der "direct recruitment" categor
ry in Class III or IV level services
s
instead of appoin
ntment offered on the post of Cle
erk in the "Feeder Cadre”.
2. Brief
f facts of the case in chronologic
al order are as follows: -
06.07.1999: Petit
tioner’s father, Nk Ram Phal (Ma
ahar Regt.), attained Martyrdom
m
in Operation Vijay
y (J&K); and was declared battle
casualty (Annexure P-1).
30.05.2014: Vide
e Policy dated 30.5.2014 (A
Annexure P-2), Compassionate
e
appointment was
s confined to feeder posts in Gro
oup C and Group D.
28.09.2018: Vide
Policy dated 28.9.2018(Annexu
ure P-3), feeder-cadre limit was
s
removed; and de
pendents were to be considered
d for direct recruitment in Class
s
II/III/IV as per edu
ucational qualifications (cl. 3(iv))
).
29.10.2019: As p
etitioner was eligible under the
e above said Policy of 2018, she
e
submitted Applic
cation dated 29.10.2019 (Annex
xure P-4) through her mother,
,
seeking appointm
ment for Group C post of Female
Supervisor, WCD Department.
23.12.2019: DSW
WO Jhajjar verified docume
ents and qualifications; and
d
recommended ca
ase of petitioner vide letter dated
d 23.12.2019 (Annexure P-8).
03.02.2020: Vide
letter dated 3.2.2020 (Annexur
re P-9), Chief Secretary decided
to give job of Cler
rk, District Employment Office, J
hajjar, to the petitioner.
25.06.2020: Vide
e Representation dated 25.6.20
020 (Annexure P-10), petitioner
r
requested for ap
pointment as Female Superviso
or; and requested to keep Clerk
k
offer pending.
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-19549-2022
21.10.2020: How
2 (O&M) - 3 -
wever, vide letter dated 21.10.20
20 (Annexure A-3), GS-II Branch
h
rejected proposal
l of Administrative Department w
without recording any reasons.
17.12.2020 : The
said Rejection was commun
nicated to the petitioner vide
e
communication d
dated 17.12.2020 (Annexure P-1
12); and petitioner was asked to
o
join as Clerk.
26.07.2021/08.02
2.2022: Petitioner made fu
urther representations dated
d
26.7.2021 and 8.2
2.2022 to Chief Secretary (Annex
xureP-11, P-14 respectively).
02.12.2021: Vide
e order dated 2.12.2021 (An
nnexure P-13), petitioner was
s
permitted to with
hdraw CWP 19944 of 2021 with
liberty after rejection letter was
s
supplied in Court
.
24.03.2022/08.06
6.2022: Vide RTI replies da
ated 24.3.2022 and 8.6.2022
2
(Annexures P-16,
P-17 respectively), respondent
admitted that appointments to
o
posts other than
Clerk were made under the 201
8 Policy (JE, ANM, etc.).
24.09.2024: This
s Court directed that a spec
cific affidavit be filed by the
e
respondent with
regard to parity with Sujeeta, Aa
akash and Virbala.
21.01.2026/26.02
2.2026: Pursuant to the above d
direction, respondents have filed
d
affidavit dated
18.3.2026. Wherein, it has
been admitted that these
e
appointments we
ere made " according to their ed
ducational qualifications as per
r
Administrative De
ecision " (AnnexureA-2). Despite
the above admission, Petitioner
r
is still being denie
ed appointment as per her educa
ational qualifications.
3. Ld. c
counsel for the petitioner inter
r alia submits that there is no
o
reason whatsoev
er not to appoint the petitioner
r as petitioner is also B.A., M.A.,
,
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-19549-2022
and B.Ed., as e
2 (O&M) - 4 -
vident from her certificates
(Annexures P-5, P-6, and P-7
7
respectively). Ld.
counsel submits that as per the
above qualifications, petitioner
r
is eligible for app
ointment to Class III post. Case
of the petitioner has even been
n
recommended by
y the Welfare Officer, Sainik Wel
fare Board vide Communication
n
dated 23.12.2019
9 (Annexure P-8). However, purs
suant thereto, vide letter dated
d
03.02.2020 (Anne
exure P-9), petitioner has only
y been offered appointment to
o
post of Clerk,
which is feeder cadre. Petit
tioner has submitted several
l
representations in
n this regard, however, to no ava
ail.
4. It is
submitted that a bare reading o
of Policy Instructions (Annexure
e
P-3) would estab
blish that the scope of appoi
intment under the scheme of
f
compassionate a
appointment has been extende
ed from the limited scope of
f
appointment onl
y to feeder cadre to that of t
the posts of direct recruitment
t
falling under Cla
ass III and IV and therefore th
he petitioner being an eligible
e
candidate be con
sidered for appointment in direc
ct recruitment.
5. It is
further submitted that the pet
titioner possesses the required
d
eligibility and min
nimum educational qualification
(i.e. MA and B.Ed.) required for
r
direct appointme
ent to such posts which are not
"feeder posts" and which are in
n
line with the po
olicy and therefore she ought
to have been considered for
r
appointment aga
inst the said posts. Some of the
e posts for which the petitioner
r
stands eligible as
per policy are reflected in a list
(Annexure P-15).
6. It is
submitted that being educatio
nally qualified and eligible, the
e
petitioner is entit
tled for the best possible job ava
ailable in Class III Category; and
d
non-consideratio
n of her candidature despite po
olicy instructions (AnnexureP-3)
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-19549-2022
and despite the r
2 (O&M) - 5 -
ecommendation (Annexure P-8)
) is violative of her Fundamental
l
Rights granted un
nder Article 19 (1) (g) of Constitu
ution of India and is prima facie
e
arbitrary and is an
n act prejudicial to her interests.
.
7. It is f
further submitted that the act o
of offering lower position to the
e
petitioner despite
e her being qualified for a bette
r position and being in line with
h
the policy Annex
xure P-3, through direct appoi
ntment appears to have been
n
made with extran
neous reasons. Moreover, it has
s come to the knowledge of the
e
petitioner that
direct recruitment under the
e compassionate appointment
t
scheme had bee
en granted to some other si
milarly situated candidates in
different governm
ment departments. Therefore,
denying of such right to the
e
petitioner, is vio
lative of her Fundamental Righ
ht to Equality enshrined under
r
Article 14 of the C
Constitution of India and is clea
rly an act of pick and choose as
s
per the whims an
nd fancies of the Respondents. T
The petitioner had got moved an
n
application under
r the RTI Act seeking such infor
rmation; and as per information
n
so received und
er the RTI vide letter dated 2
24.03.2022 (Annexure P-16) it
t
transpired that s
ince 28.09.2018 several other
similarly situated persons have
e
been appointed a
as per their qualifications while
e the Petitioner is being denied
d
the same and wh
ich is clear discrimination agains
st the Petitioner by the State.
8. It is s
submitted that there is a substa
ntial difference in the pay scale,
,
promotion oppo
rtunities and job benefits in
the 'feeder cadre' and 'direct
t
recruitment' and
d the petitioner being better q
qualified and falling within the
e
scope of the poli
cy granting right for direct recr
uitment, cannot be deprived of
f
better position du
ue to arbitrariness on the part th
he respondents.
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-19549-2022
9. Ld. c
2 (O&M) - 6 -
counsel for the petitioner also
o submits on instructions, that
t
petitioner does n
ot press her prayer that her serv
vice for purposes of benefit and
d
seniority be coun
ted from 29.10.2019 i.e. the dat
te of her application.
10. Acco
ordingly, prayed that the presen
nt writ petition be allowed and
that “ a writ in th
e nature of Mandamus or any o
other appropriate writ be issued
d
directing the Res
spondents to re-consider the ca
andidature of the petitioner in
n
view of the Lette
er No. 1/20/2013-IGS-II dated 3
30.05.2014 (Annexure P-2) and
d
policy instructions
s bearing No. 5/07/2017-GS-II d
dated 28.09.2018 (Annexure P-3)
)
as per her educat
tional qualifications and grant c
consequent appointment on any
y
suitable vacant p
post under "direct recruitment"
category in Class III or IV level
l
services; and pray
ys that a Writ of Certiorari be is
ssued to modify the letter dated
d
03.02.2020 (Anne
exure P-9) and as well as letter
dated 17.12.2020 (Annexure P-
-
12),, to the exten
t that the petitioner be offered a
an appointment on any suitable
e
vacant post as p
per her educational qualificatio
ons under "direct recruitment"
"
category in Class
s III or IV level services instead
of appointment offered on the
e
post of Clerk in th
he "Feeder Cadre"”.
11. Per c
contra , ld. State counsel has ve
hemently opposed submissions
s
of the petitioner
and has contended that petitio
oner is seeking appointment to
o
Class III post. Suc
h an appointment was duly offe
ered to the petitioner in the first
t
instance vide lett
ter dated 03.02.2020 (Annexure
e P-9), to post of Clerk, which is
s
Class III post. It is
s the petitioner herself who has
refused to accept the said post.
.
In this regard, l
d. counsel refers to paras 2
and 3 of the affidavit dated
d
18.03.2026 filed o
on behalf of respondent Nos. 1,
3, and 4 which reads as under:-
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-19549-2022
2 (O&M) - 7 -
“2. I
n the instant case, The Chief Se
ecretary, Haryana Government,
,
vide
its letter No. 05.02.2020-2.GS-II
I dated 03.02.2020 (Annexure P-
-
9 of
f Writ Petition), had directed
the Employment Department
t
Hary
yana Panchkula that after the m
martyrdom of Shri Ramphal, his
s
depe
endent daughter Smt. Suman De
evi be given a job as Clerk in the
e
Distr
rict Employment Office, Jhajj
jar as per the Government
t
instr
ructions No. 1/20/2013-1GS-II da
ated 30.05.2014 and 28.09.2018
8
and
instructions No. 42/164/2008-3
3GS-II dated 07.11.2013. As per
r
the d
directions of Chief Secretary, Har
ryana Government, Employment
t
Direc
ctorate Haryana, Panchkula, vid
de its letter No. A-1/5332, dated
d
26.02
2.2020 and reminder letter No
o. A-1/8142, dated 12.05.2020,
Smt.
Suman Devi was written to
o appear in the Employment
t
Direc
ctorate alongwith the documen
nts, but she did not appear and
d
gave
e representation dated 25.06.2
2020 (Annexure P-10 of Writ
t
Petit
tion) stating that she has appli
ied for Group C post of Female
e
Supe
ervisor in Women and Child Deve
elopment Department, Haryana
a
Gove
ernment as advertised by Harya
ana Staff Selection Commission
n
and
her name has also been verified
d and recommended for the said
d
post
by the District Sainik Board, Jh
ajjar. Therefore, her application
n
shou
uld be kept pending for appointm
ment to the post of clerk. As per
r
the r
request made by the applicant, t
the matter was sent to the Chief
f
Secre
etary, Haryana Government an
d the Chief Secretary, Haryana
a
Gove
ernment rejected the request of
f the applicant under its opinion
n
num
ber 5/02/2020-2GS-II, dated
21.10.2020, regarding which
h
appli
icant was informed by the Em
mployment Directorate vide its
s
lette
r number A-1/18309, dated 17
7.12.2020 and asked that if she
e
willin
ng to work as a clerk in the Emp
ployment Department, then she
e
shou
uld appear at the Employment D
Directorate Haryana, Panchkula
a
with
all her educational qualificatio
on certificates and documents.
But t
the applicant again gave applica
ation dated 12.01.2021 that her
r
case
of appointment to the post of
f clerk should be kept pending,
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-19549-2022
2 (O&M) - 8 -
after
r which the applicant was
again written to under the
e
Direc
ctorate's letter No. A-1/9281
dated 18.06.2021 that your
r
requ
uest to keep the case pending h
has been rejected by the Chief
f
Secre
etary, Haryana Government, he
ence you should appear in the
e
Emp
loyment Directorate Haryana
a, Panchkula with all the
e
docu
uments so that the appointmen
t letter to the post of clerk can
n
be is
ssued. But the applicant did no
t appear and Mrs. Suman Devi
i
has
not joined the post of clerk in
n the Employment Department.
Ther
reafter, a copy of the detailed re
eport made by the applicant to
o
the
Chief Secretary, Haryana Go
overnment on 26.07.2021 for
r
appo
ointment to the post of Women
n Supervisor in the Women and
d
Child
d Development Department, H
Haryana has been sent to the
e
Emp
loyment Department.
3. Since there is no amb
biguity in the compassionate
e
appointment policy, hence n
no other interpretation of the
e
same can be made. Thus
the petitioner is entitled for
r
appointment on compassiona
ate grounds in Class III and IV
V
posts, which has already been
offered.”
12. Acco
ordingly, prayed that the present
t writ petition be dismissed.
13. No o
other argument is made on be
ehalf of the ld. counsel for the
e
parties. I have h
eard the ld. counsel and perus
sed the case file and record in
n
detail. I find merit
t in the submissions advanced o
on behalf of the petitioner.
14. Fathe
er of the petitioner was killed
in Operation Vijay in Jammu &
&
Kashmir on 06.07
7.1999 and was subsequently d
declared battle casualty. At the
e
time of his death
h, there was no existing policy f
for compassionate appointment
t
of dependents of
f martyrs. Policy to this effect w
was for the first time floated on
n
30.05.2014, whic
ch was confined to feeder posts
s in Group C and Group D. Vide
e
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-19549-2022
Policy of 2018 (A
2 (O&M) - 9 -
nnexure P-3), feeder cadre limit
t was removed and dependents
s
were to be cons
sidered for direct recruitment
in Class II, III, and IV as per
r
educational quali
fications. The petitioner had no
ot applied under the 2014 Policy
y
as she was not c
covered under the said Policy.
However, keeping in view, the
e
educational qual
ifications of the petitioner, she
e is eligible for appointment to
o
Class III post unde
er the 2018 Policy.
15. Griev
vance of the petitioner is that d
despite these facts, petitioner is
s
being offered ap
ppointment under the 2014 P
Policy to feeder post of Clerk;
;
whereas the said
limit has already been done aw
way with under the 2018 policy
y
as follows:-
“3.(iv
v) As per policy dated 30
0.5.2014, the compassionate
e
appo
ointment was only in respect of
of feeder cadre in Class III & IV
V
posts
s. Government has now dec
cided that the eligible family
y
mem
mbers shall be considered for dir
rect recruitment in Class II, III or
r
IV po
osts, as the case may be, kee
eping in view their educational
l
quali
ifications, eligibility criteria and
d provisions as laid down in the
e
recru
uitment rules for the concerned
d post. However, the applicant
t
woul
ld be eligible for getting a Class
s II job only in such cases where
e
mart
tyr/battle casualty was Class I or
r Class II office.”
16. Thus
s, impugned action of the resp
pondents is in contravention of
f
their own Policy
. The 2018 policy governs and
d mandates qualification-based
d
direct recruitmen
nt. Clause 3(iv) of the policy da
ated 28.09.2018 (P-3) expressly
y
replaces the feed
er-cadre restriction of 30.05.20
14 (P-2) and directs that eligible
e
family members
" shall be considered for direct
recruitment in Class II, III or IV
V
posts ... keeping
in view their educational qualif
ifications, eligibility criteria and
d
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-19549-2022
provisions as la
2 (O&M) - 10 -
aid down in the recruitment
rules ". Given the education
n
qualifications of
the petitioner, her claim for c
compassionate appointment to
o
Class III post for d
direct recruitment, is legitimate.
17. More
eover, the application (29.
10.2019) and the decision
n
(03.02.2020) both
h post-date this policy. In this si
tuation, as per a 3-judge Bench
h
judgment of the H
Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.C.
Santhosh v. State of Karnataka
a
(SC): Law Finder
Doc Id# 1699880 2020 AIR Sup
preme Court 1401, the norms in
n
force on the date
of consideration apply. The rele
evant para reads as under:-
“20.
Applying the law governing com
mpassionate appointment culled
d
out f
from the above cited judgment
ts, our opinion on the point at
t
issue
e is that the norms, prevailing o
on the date of consideration of
f
the a
application, should be the basis
s for consideration of claim for
r
comp
passionate appointment. A d
dependent of a government
t
emp
loyee, in the absence of any ves
sted right accruing on the death
h
of th
he government employee, can
only demand consideration of
f
his/h
her application. He is however d
disentitled to seek consideration
n
in ac
ccordance with the norms as ap
pplicable, on the day of death of
f
the g
government employee.”
18. Refe
rence me also be made to a jud
gment of this Court in Hans Raj
j
v. State of Punjab
b and others (CWP No. 4844 of
f 2011, decided on 25.07.2013).
The relevant extra
act reads as under:-
“10.
Even otherwise, the respond
dent-authorities have erred in
n
havin
ng rejected the claim of the da
aughter of the petitioner on the
e
grou
und of "dependency". The objec
ctive as regards framing of the
e
Polic
cy dated 19.8.1999 was toward
ds giving due recognition of the
e
supre
eme sacrifice made by a 'war
hero' and, as such, to provide
e
appo
ointment as a mark of 'H
Honour and Gratitude'. Such
h
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-19549-2022
2 (O&M) - 11 -
appo
ointment could not be viewed o
only towards providing a source
e
of su
ustenance to the dependent fam
mily member(s). It is, in fact, an
n
expre
ession of gratitude of a thankf
ful Nation on account of a life
e
havin
ng been laid down by a 'war he
ro'. The element of dependency
y
in su
uch appointments could not have
e been a decisive factor to deny
y
appo
ointment to the daughter of th
he petitioner in the light of the
e
facts
s of the present case. The princ
ciples governing compassionate
e
appo
ointment towards implementati
ion of an ex-gratia Policy in the
e
case
of a Government employee w
who dies in harness cannot be
e
impo
orted and applied so as to gover
rn appointments of 'Honour and
d
Grat
titude'. In taking such view, I
would draw support from the
e
obse
ervations made by a Co-ordinate
e Bench while deciding Civil Writ
t
Petit
tion No.19503 of 2008 "Captain
n Janmej Singh State of Punjab
b
and
others" on 6.10.2010 to the follo
owing effect:
"In my considered view, the
e solitary object behind giving
g
appointment as a mark of 'h
honour and gratitude' to a War
r
Hero is not to provide a
source of sustenance to his
s
dependent family member(s)
as it generally happens in the
e
case of death of a Governm
ment employee. It is more an
n
expression of gratitude by a t
thankful Nation for the sacrifice
e
made by a War Hero. Such lik
ke measures lessen the psycho-
-
fear amongst the youth and f
further encourage them to join
n
the Army and fill the Army per
rsonnel with a sense of extreme
e
security. The factor or factu
m of dependency is alien and
d
irrelevant to such like e
extraordinary decisions taken
n
extraordinary situations. The
e action of the Department of
f
Personnel in applying the 'p
principle of dependency' in the
e
instant case is, thus, pe
er se arbitrary and wholly
y
misconceived.
The ex gratia policy or its crite
eria as applicable in the case of
f
a Government employee wh
ho dies in harness, cannot be
e
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-19549-2022
2 (O&M) - 12 -
applied in the present case as
the petitioner never sought the
e
appointment of his daughter
under any such Policy. He has
s
simply sought parity in the m
atter of 'honour and gratitude',
,
towards his son Lieutenant
Triveni Singh who made the
e
supreme sacrifice for his mo
otherland. The Department of
f
Personnel ought not to have
mixed up two different policies
s
while putting up the case of
f the petitioner's daughter for
r
appointment as an expressi
ion of 'honour and gratitude
'
towards Lieutenant Triveni Sin
ngh."
19. Thus
s, case of the petitioner deser
ves sympathetic consideration.
.
The petitioner's
father was a Class III sold
ier, and she is only seeking
g
appointment to a
a Class III/Group C post.
20. Ld. c
counsel for the petitioner has
also produced a copy of the
e
Notification date
ed 21.03.2022 issued by the G
overnment of Haryana, as per
r
which the upper
r age limit for entry into gover
rnment service/to compete for
r
regular recruitme
ent, and even for appointment
t to Group 'C' posts, has been
n
increased to max
ximum 42 years. The petitioner i
is presently 39 years old, as her
r
date of birth is 25
5.05.1988. Thus, petitioner
is eligible for appointment to
o
Class III direct rec
cruitment post in all aspects.
21. In th
ese circumstances, no grounds a
are made out for rejecting claim
m
of the petitioner.
The impugned order accords n
no reasons for rejecting claim of
f
the petitioner and
d is non-speaking, and is, theref
fore, arbitrary. The orders dated
d
21.10.2020 (A-3)
and 17.12.2020 (Annexure P-1
12) merely state " rejected " and
d
record no reaso
ons. Clearly, the policy manda
ate was never applied to the
e
petitioner's qualif
fications. The petitioner never a
accepted the Clerk post, and she
e
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-19549-2022
protested promp
2 (O&M) - 13 -
tly (Annexure P-10, P-11). The
time-limit plea in para 1 of the
e
affidavit is an af
fterthought and cannot defeat
t the claim as the State itself
f
entertained the c
laim under the 2018 policy and
offered her appointment.
22. It is r
relevant to note that the State i
tself processed the claim of the
e
petitioner and
decided to give her a Gove
ernment job (Annexure P-9).
Respondents 1, 3
3 and 4 concede in para 3 of t
their affidavit dated 18.03.2026
6
that the petition
er " is entitled for appointment
t on compassionate grounds in
n
Class III and IV p
osts ". Her documents and qual
ifications were verified and her
r
case recommend
ed by the DSWO, Jhajjar (Annex
ure P-8). The only dispute is the
e
post of Clerk, wh
ich is a feeder post. Which is pr
recisely the restriction removed
d
in 2018. Offering
it to a post-graduate with B.Ed.
. treats the petitioner as though
h
the 2014 regim
me still applied and ignores
mandatory consideration of
f
"educational qua
lifications" under cl. 3(iv).
23. More
eover, under the same policy of
f 2018, dependents of Sepoys –
–
Sujeeta (Female
Supervisor, WCD) on 28.09.201
18, Aakash (JE, PWD B&R, on
n
03.12.2020) and
Virbala (ANM, Health on 02.0
02.2022) – were appointed to
o
Group C, Level-6
6 posts under cl. 3(iv) itself
as evident from letter dated
d
27.11.2025 (Ann
nexure A-1) issued by responde
nt-State. The State now admits
s
that these app
pointments were made " acc
cording to their educational
l
qualifications as p
per Administrative Decision " (An
nnexure A-2). Having applied the
e
qualification yard
dstick to them, the State has
disclosed no rule, criterion or
r
material justifyin
ng its refusal to apply the sam
me yardstick to the petitioner,
,
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-19549-2022
despite the speci
2 (O&M) - 14 -
fic direction of 24.09.2024. Thu
us, the impugned action suffers
s
from vice of discr
rimination as well.
24. Cons
sequently, present writ pet
tition stands allowed . The
e
respondents are d
directed to consider the case of
f the petitioner for appointment
t
to post of Female
e Supervisor which is a Group C
C post under the Haryana WCD
D
Department Gro
up C Service Rules, 1997 (Ap
ppendix B), as pleaded in the
e
replication; and
the State's own letter date
d 27.11.2025 (Annexure A-1)
)
describes it as Gr
roup C, Level-6; or for appointm
ment to any of the Class III posts
s
mentioned in A
Annexure P-15 as per eligibil
ity of the petitioner, and in
accordance with l
law.
25. Pend
ding application(s), if any, also st
ands disposed of.
11.11.2026
Neelam
( N
NIDHI GUPTA )
JUDGE
Wheth
Wheth
her speaking /reasoned Yes / N
her Reportable Yes / N
No
No
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document