Suchitra vs State Of Haryana And Others

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. CWP-24359-2026 (O&M)
Pradeep
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CONNECTED CASES:
Sr.
No.
Case No. Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)
2 CWP-25383-2026 REETA STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHRS
3 CWP-25703-2026 RAJESH KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
4 CWP-25737-2026 DEEPAK KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
5 CWP-25359-2026 PRADYUMN
STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
6 CWP-24394-2026 ARUN KUMAR
JANGRA
STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
7 CWP-24560-2026 MEENU STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
8 CWP-7082-2026 KARISHMA STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER
9 CWP-25156-2026 RITU STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
10 CWP-25158-2026 ANUPMA STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
11 CWP-25160-2026 MANJU STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
12 CWP-25162-2026 RAVISHA STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
13 CWP-25186-2026 SUNITA STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
14 CWP-25209-2026 AARTI STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
15 CWP-25243-2026 NISHA YADAV STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
16 CWP-25283-2026 ATUL GIRI STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
AND ORS
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 2
17 CWP-30153-2026 SONIA SAINI STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
18 CWP-30099-2026 PARAMJEET KAUR STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
19 CWP-33205-2024
(O&M)
PREM SINGH AND
ORS
STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
20 CWP-14004-2026 AJAY KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
21 CWP-14101-2026 MOHINDER WATI STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
22 CWP-25712-2026 MUNISH KUMAR
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
23 CWP-26185-2026 PRIYANKA AND
AND ANOTHER
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
24 CWP-26190-2026 ANNU JANGRA STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
25 CWP-26191-2026 AYUSH SINGH STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
26 CWP-26328-2026 KAMALJEET AND
OTHERS
STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
27 CWP-27334-2026 REENA DEVI STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
28 CWP-27646-2026 ANUPAM STATE OF HARYANA
AND OYHERS
29 CWP-27648-2026 POONAM STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
30 CWP-28683-2026 SNEHA STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
31 CWP-28786-2026 KAVITA STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
32 CWP-31674-2018
(O&M)
ORS
ARUN KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
33 CWP-29927-2024 ANU JOGI STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANR
34 CWP-29934-2024 SUSHMITA STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
35 CWP-30793-2024 USHA KUMARI STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
36 CWP-30797-2024 SUCHITRA STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
37 CWP-30971-2024
(O&M)
SMT USHA STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER
38 CWP-31005-2024 ASHOK KUMAR
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
AND OTHERS
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 3
39 CWP-31025-2024
(O&M)
RANJAN KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
40 CWP-31043-2024
(O&M)
HARPREET KAUR STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER
41 CWP-31044-2024 POONAM KUMARI
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
42 CWP-31124-2024 SUMAN BAI STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
43 CWP-31132-2024 SUMAN STATE OF HARYANA
44 CWP-31243-2024 NEHA CHOUDHRY THE STATE OF
AND OTHERS
HARYANA AND
OTHERS
45 CWP-31407-2024 NARENDER
STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER
46 CWP-31422-2024
(O&M)
KUMAR
RISHITA STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
47 CWP-31552-2024 KARAMJEET
HARYANA PUBLIC
SERVICE
COMMISSION
THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY
48 CWP-31715-2024 RAMESH STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
49 CWP-31982-2024
(O&M)
KAUR
NAMEETA THE STATE OF
HARYANA AND
OTHERS
50 CWP-32308-2024 ROHIT KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
51 CWP-32344-2024
(O&M)
RENU DHARRA STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
52 CWP-32396-2024 VIKASH STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
53 CWP-32404-2024 YOGITA YADAV STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
54 CWP-32498-2024 HEERA LAL STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
55 CWP-32514-2024 SUNIL KUMAR
HARYANA PUBLIC
SERVICE
COMMISSION
THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY
56 CWP-32517-2024 PRATIBHA RAO STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
57 CWP-32531-2024 VISHESH KAMBOJ
YADAV SON OF
HANSRAJ YADAV
STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
AND ORS
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 4
58 CWP-32532-2024 ROHIT SONI STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
59 CWP-32547-2024 VIKAS STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
60 CWP-32665-2024 ANISHA SAINI STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
61 CWP-32673-2024 SARBJIT KAUR STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
62 CWP-32685-2024 SUNANDA STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
63 CWP-32748-2024 ABHIMANU STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER
64 CWP-32776-2024 SUSHILA RANI STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
65 CWP-32868-2024 HARDEV SINGH STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER
66 CWP-33074-2024 POOJA VERMA STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
67 CWP-33131-2024 SAVITA
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
68 CWP-33160-2024 AMANDEEP AND
BHARDWAJ
STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
69 CWP-33172-2024 NEERU STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
70 CWP-33185-2024 NEETU YADAV HARYANA PUBLIC
SERVICE
COMMISSION AND
AND OTHERS
71 CWP-33244-2024 KUSHAL SHARMA STATE OF HARYANA
ANR
AND ANOTHER
72 CWP-33279-2024 AMIT KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
73 CWP-33297-2024 MONIKA STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
74 CWP-33320-2024 ASHOK AND
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
75 CWP-33337-2024 SHARMILA STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
76 CWP-33416-2024 GURPREET KAUR STATE OF HARYANA
ANOTHER
AND OTHERS
77 CWP-33505-2024 NARESH STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
78 CWP-33508-2024 ARUN KUMAR
STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
AND ORS
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 5
79 CWP-33524-2024 SONAM YADAV STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
80 CWP-33531-2024 RAJENDER AND
STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
81 CWP-33598-2024 KIRTI AND
ORS
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
82 C CWP-33635-
2024
ANOTHER
PREETI STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER
83 CWP-33726-2024 YOGESH STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
84 CWP-33916-2024 POONAM RANI STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
85 CWP-34021-2024 SAHIL STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
86 CWP-34572-2024 MOHD NAEEM STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
87 CWP-34685-2024 RAMBIR STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER
88 CWP-142-2025 HIMANSHI
KATHRI
STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
89 CWP-15348-2025 BABLI STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
90 CWP-15366-2025 SUNIL KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
91 CWP-15389-2025 RENU BALA AND
STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
92 CWP-15487-2025 KANCHAN YADAV
ORS
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
93 CWP-15934-2025 ANU STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
94 CWP-16020-2025 SARITA HARYANA PUBLIC
SERVICE
COMMISSION
95 CWP-16063-2025 POOJA STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
96 CWP-17849-2025 GOPAL SINGH
AND ANOTHER
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
97 CWP-17852-2025 SAQIB HUSAIN STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
98 CWP-19750-2025 PARDEEP KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER
AND OTHERS
99 CWP-19770-2025 POONAM AND
HARYANA PUBLIC
SERVICE
COMMISSION
ANOTHER
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 6
100 CWP-19967-2025 SANTOSH AND
STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
101 CWP-20488-2025 SHALU SONI STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
102 CWP-20884-2025 DEEPAK RAWAL HARYANA PUBLIC
SERVICE
COMMISSION AND
ANOTHER
103 CWP-20931-2025 SEEMA AND ANR STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
104 CWP-22202-2025 DIVYA STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER
105 CWP-22257-2025 POONAM RAO STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
106 CWP-2438-2025 DINESH KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
107 CWP-25685-2025 BHARTI HARYANA PUBLIC
SERVICE
COMMISSION
108 CWP-270-2025 EKTA YADAV STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
109 CWP-27803-2025 MUSKAN HARYANA PUBLIC
SERVICE
COMMISSION
110 CWP-2786-2025 DHARAMVIR AND
ORS
ANR
STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
111 CWP-2795-2025 SUSHIL KUMAR
AND ORS
STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
112 CWP-28574-2025
ANJU SHARMA STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
113 CWP-28614-2025 MANJU HARYANA PUBLIC
SERVICE
COMMISSION
114 CWP-29621-2025
(O&M)
VITESH
DHANKHAR
STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
115 CWP-3207-2025 CHESHTA ARORA
AND ANR
(O&M)
STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
116 CWP-3212-2025
SONU KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER
117 CWP-3237-2025 KAJAL STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
118 CWP-3693-2025
(O&M)
EKTA STATE OF HARYANA
& ANR
119 CWP-3718-2025 PUSHPA AND
ANOTHER
(O&M)
STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 7
120 CWP-3909-2025
POOJA
BUDHIRAJA
STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER
121 CWP-393-2025 JAI VIR STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
122 CWP-4009-2025 VED PARKASH STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
123 CWP-4510-2025 KRISHNA STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
124 CWP-5044-2025 PAYAL SAINI STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
125 CWP-5056-2025 RAHUL KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
126 CWP-5629-2025 SNEHA STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER
127 CWP-632-2025 SNEH LATA STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
128 CWP-747-2025 SANJAY SHARMA
AND ORS
(O&M)
STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
129 CWP-873-2025 JAGBIR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
130 CWP-924-2025 KAVITA AND
OTHERS
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
131 CWP-925-2025 SOMBIR STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
132 CWP-13420-2026 POOJA NARDIA HARYANA PUBLIC
SERVICE
COMMISSION AND
ANOTHER
133 CWP-21745-2026 MAMTA RANI STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
134 CWP-22977-2026 RAKESH AND
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
135 CWP-24639-2026 PARAMVEER
ANOTHER
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
136 CWP-25718-2026 SEEMA AND
SINGH
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
137 CWP-26693-2026 ANJALI STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
138 CWP-27943-2026 DEEPAK STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
139 CWP-27972-2026 MONTY STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
140 CWP-28445-2026 AVNI AND
OTHERS
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
OTHERS
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 8
141 CWP-28454-2026 SHALU AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
142 CWP-3873-2026 SUNIL KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
143 CWP-4138-2026 DIVYA SAINI STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
144 CWP-489-2026 JYOTI DEVI HARYANA PUBLIC
SERVICE
COMMISSION
145 CWP-7902-2026 POOJA HARYANA PUBLIC
SERVICE
COMMISSION
1. Dates when judgment was
reserved
14.08.2026,
09.10.2026 and
04.11.2026
2. Date of pronouncement of
judgment
05.11.2026
3. Date of uploading judgment 05.11.2026
4. Whether operative part or full
judgment is pronounced
Full
5. Delay, if any, in pronouncing of
full judgment and reasons thereof
Not Applicable
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
APPEARANCE OF LEARNED COUNSEL(S) IN CWP-24359-2026
AND CONNECTED MATTERS
Present: Mr. Ankur Sidhar, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos.24359 & 24394 of 2026.
Mr. Jasbir Singh Mor, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-25383-2026.
Mr. Parambir Singh, Advocate
and Mr. Bhawanjit Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-25737-2026.
Mr. R.S. Dhull, Advocate (through V.C.)
for the petitioner(s)
in CWP Nos.25156, 25186, 25209, 25243, 25283 of 2026.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 9
Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-25160-2026.
Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Addl. A.G., Haryana
with Mr. Akshit Pathania, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate
for respondent in CWP-27803-2025.
APPEARANCE OF LEARNED COUNSEL(S) IN CWP-33205-2024
AND CONNECTED MATTERS
Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Rahul Dhanda, Advocate
Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Archit Garg, Advocate
and Mr. Gurinder Sandhu, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-33205-2024
CWP-30099-2026 and CWP-14101-2026.
Ms. Anshika, Advocate ( amicus curiae )
for the petitioner in CWP-14004-2026.
Ms. Anshika, Advocate
for Mr. Jasbir Singh Mor, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-30153-2026.
Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate General Haryana
with Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate
with Ms. Sheena Dahiya, Advocate
for the respondent/HPSC
in CWP-33205-2024.
Ms. Harpriya Khaneka, Advocate
for the respondent/HPSC in CWP-14004-2026.
Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No.3 in CWP-14101-2026.
APPEARANCE OF LEARNED COUNSEL(S) IN CWP-29927-2024
AND CONNECTED MATTERS
Present: Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, Advocate
and Mr. Sajjan Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-31124-2024.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 10
Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate
with Mr. Shivam Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-31243-2024.
Mr. Balraj Singh Dhull, Advocate
and Mr. Pardeep Dhull, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-33244-2024.
Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate
and Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-20884-872-2025.
Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-24560-2026.
Ms. Nikita Goel, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-22202-2025.
Mr. Prashant Singh Chauhan, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-22257-2025.
Mr. Vikram Sheoran, Advocate
and Ms. Alka Sheoran, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-27803-2025.
Mr. Ankur Kaushik, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-30971-2024.
Mr. Manuj Nagrath, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-4009-2025.
Mr. Rajiv Saini, Advocate
with Mr. Tarun K. Parashar, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-33185-2024.
Mr. Mandeep Singh Lamba, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-33337-2024.
Mr. Suryakant Gautam, Advocate
and Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-30971-2024.
Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-28786-2026.
Dr. Mohammad Arshad, Advocate
with Mohd. Aadil Hussain, Advocate
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 11
and Ms. Ramandeep, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-17852-2025.
Mr. Divyam Singh, Advocate
and Mr. Yuvraj Garg, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-29927-31043-2024.
Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos. 32532, 32531, 33160,
33508, 33531, 34572, 32514, 32776 of 2024
and CWP Nos.2795, 2786, 747, 3212, 15389, 15366,
15934, 16063, 3207, 3237, 142, 5044, 5056, 19967, 20931,
29621 of 2025, CWP Nos.3873, 4138 of 2026.
Mr. Devender Arya, Advocate
with Mr. Gourav Jangra, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-16020-19770-25685-2025
and CWP-7902-2026.
Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate
with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-873-2025.
Mr. Parambir Singh Ghatra, Advocate
and Ms. Parminder Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-25712-2026.
Mr. Kuldeep Sheoran, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-33279-33297-29927-2024.
Mr. Navin Daryal, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-32748-2024.
Ms. Amarjit Kaur, Advocate (through V.C.)
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-3909-2025.
Mr. Mazlish Khan, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos.21745, 25718,
22977 of 2026 and 33131 of 2024.
Mr. Jasbir Singh Mor, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-17849-28574-2025
and CWP-27646-27648-2026.
Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate
and Mr. Dharamjit, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 12
Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate
with Mr. Raman K. Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-33505-2024.
Mr. Anil Ghanghas, Advocate
with Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Rahil, Advocate
and Mr. Sahib Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-31132-2024.
Mr. Ankur Malik, Advocate
with Mr. Y.P. Malik, Advocate
and Mr. Monu Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-31982-29927-2024
Mr. Ankur Sidhar, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-2438-2025
and CWP-32547-31025-2024
and CWP-26328-28683-28454-26693-27972-2026.
Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate
and Ms. Malika Sethi Sobti, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-32673-2024.
Ms. Amrita Nagpal, Advocate
and Ms. Archana Chauhan, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-33146-29927-2024
CWP-747-2025.
Mr. Manoj Kumar Taya, Advocate
for the petitioners No.3, 4, 5, 9, 12, 15, 17, 19, 21 and 23
in CWP-3212-2015.
Mr. Jitender Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-13420-2026.
Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos.30797-32308-28934-2024
and CWP-15348-4510-2025, CWP-29927, 20397,
32308 of 2024, CWP-4510-15348-2025.
Mr. Mohan Singla, Advocate
with Mr. Yashpal Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-32514-2024.
Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate
with Mr. Hitesh Chauhan, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-31715-2024.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 13
Mr. Pardeep Solath, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-33074-2024.
Mr. Shokeen Singh Verma, Advocate
with Mr. Mayank Jangra, Advocate
for the petitioner(s)
in CWP-31005-32685-32665-4703-2024.
Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate
with Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-33635-2024.
Mr. Keshav Gupta, Advocate
and Ms. Anna Bansal, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-31674-2018.
Mr. Sant Lal Barwala, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-33320-2024.
Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-17852-2025.
Mr. Ravinder Singh Dhull, Advocate
with Mr. Navnit Sharma, Advocate
and Ms. Neelam Yadav, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-924-925-15487-2025
CWP-33598-2024, CWP Nos.26185, 26190, 26191,
7334, 27943 of 2026.
Mr. B.S. Bajwa, Advocate
and Mr. B.S. Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-31422-2024.
Mr. Rahul Singh, Advocate
with Mr. D.P.S. Bajwa, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-3718-2025.
Mr. Lalit Rishi, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-393-2025.
Mr. Sukhdev Singh, Advocate
for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-31043-2024.
Mr. Arjun Atri, Advocate
and Mr. Sukhdev Singh, Advocate
Mr. Yuvraj Garg, Advocate
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 14
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-34685-2024.
Mr. Sajjan Singh, Advocate
and Mr. Vishal Punia, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-31044-31124-32498-2024.
Mr. Sanjeev Majra, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-632-2025.
Mr. Harinder Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-16020-2025.
Mr. Prabhat Sharma, Advocate
and Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-28614-2025.
Mr. Devender Arya, Advocate
and Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-19770-25685-16020-2025
CWP-7902-2026.
Ms. Harmanpreet Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-27803-2025.
Mr. Hitesh Kaliraman, Advocate
for Mr. Suresh Kumar Kaushik, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-33726-31715-2024.
Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate
and Mr. Arvind Galav, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate
and Mr. Hement Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-270-2025.
Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate
and Mr. Vishesh Dhaka, Advocate
for the petitioner(s)
in CWP-32396-32404-33172-34021-2024.
Mr. Lalit Kumar Narang, Advocate
with Mr. Karam Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-20488-2025.
Mr. Amit Dhanda, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-32344-2024
and CWP-17849-28574-925-2025.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 15
Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate
with Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-3693-2025.
Mr. Harinder Malik, Advocate
for Mr. Parveen Moudgil, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-489-2026.
Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate
and Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-32868-2024.
Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl. A.G., Haryana
Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Addl. A.G., Haryana
Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Addl. A.G., Haryana
and Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate
with Ms. Sheena Dahiya, Advocate
for respondent/HPSC in CWP Nos.29927, 29934, 30797,
31025, 31422, 31132, 31044, 31005, 31243, 31407, 31715,
31982, 32308, 32517, 32344, 32404, 32514, 32532, 32396,
32531, 32498, 32547, 32665, 32685, 32748, 33074, 33160,
33205, 33244, 33185, 33416, 33337, 33279, 33531, 33505,
33508, 33524, 33598, 33635, 33916, 34685, 32673, 30793
of 2024 and CWP Nos.270, 632, 747, 872, 873, 924, 2795,
2786, 3212, 3718, 4510, 12502, 15389, 15366, 15487,
16063, 15934 of 2025.
Ms. Harpriya Khaneka, Advocate
for respondent/HPSC in CWP Nos.15348, 15934 of 2025
and CWP Nos.13420, 3873, 4138 of 2026
and for respondent/HPSC in CWP Nos.17852, 19770,
19967, 32145 of 2025 and CWP Nos.611, 7902 of 2026.
Mr. Balvinder Sangwan, Advocate
for respondent/HPSC
in CWP-34021,34572-2024 & 16020-2025.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate
and Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Advocate
for respondent No.3 in CWP-31407-2024
and for respondent No.4 in CWP-31243-2024.
Ms. Jyoti Kaur, Advocate
for Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate
for respondent No.3 in CWP-31407-2024
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 16
and for respondent No.4 in CWP-31243-2024.
Mr. Gurnoor Singh Sandhu, Advocate
for respondent/HPSC in CWP Nos.27803, 29621, 25685,
20488, 28614, 28574, 17849 of 2025, CWP-489-2026
and CWP-24639-2026.
Mr. Vikram Sheoran, Advocate
and Ms. Alka Sheoran, Advocate
for respondent No.10 in CWP-30971-2024.
Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocate
for the respondent/HPSC in CWP-21745-2026.
Mr. Mohit Vashisht, Advocate
for the applicant/respondent No.4 in CM-16661-CWP-2025
filed in CWP-29621-2025.
Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate
for applicant/respondent No.2 in CM-15993-CWP-2025
filed in CWP-27803-2025
and for respondents No.3 to 9 in CM-13631-CWP-2025
filed in CWP-30971-2024.
Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advocate
for the applicant in CM-12683-CWP-2025
filed in CWP-31043-2024.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J.
1. With the consent of parties, this common order shall dispose
of the aforementioned civil writ petitions as they arise from a similar
factual matrix and involve identical questions of law. All the petitions
concern recruitments conducted by the Haryana Staff Selection
Commission (for short, ‘HSSC’) and the Haryana Public Service
Commission (for short, ‘HPSC’), in which candidates who had cleared
the written stages of the selection were excluded on account of a defect
in the online application form, or in the documents uploaded along with
it. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 17
24359-2026 , titled as ‘ Pradeep v. State of Haryana and others ’. The
facts of the other petitions are referred to only to the extent necessary.
2. The present writ petition ( CWP-24359-2026) has been filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in
the nature of certiorari for quashing the final result dated 24.07.2026
(Annexure P-4) for the post of Primary Teacher (PRT), Mewat Cadre,
advertised vide Advertisement No.05/2024 dated 09.08.2024 (Annexure
P-1), to the extent that the candidature of the petitioner has not been
considered in the Backward Class-B (BC-B) category. Further a writ of
mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to consider the
candidature of the petitioner on the basis of his BC-B certificate dated
21.08.2024 (Annexure P-3), and to adopt a mechanism of provisional
rejection, as followed by HPSC (Annexure P-8), whereby candidates are
afforded an opportunity to rectify such defects.
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in CWP-24359-2026
( Pradeep ) , inter alia , contended that HSSC issued Advertisement
No.05/2024 dated 09.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) for recruitment to the
post of Primary Teacher (PRT) in the Mewat Cadre, and the last date for
submission of online applications was 21.08.2024. It was submitted that
the petitioner belongs to the Gujjar caste, which falls in the BC-B
category, and a BC-B certificate dated 21.08.2024 (Annexure P-3) was
issued to him in terms of the notification dated 16.07.2024. He
submitted his online application form (Annexure P-2) on 21.08.2024
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 18
through a cyber cafe at Hansi, and the reference number and date of
issue of the said certificate were duly entered therein. However, the
cyber cafe operator uploaded his earlier BC-B certificate dated
18.03.2024 (Annexure P-7), issued under the notification dated
17.11.2021, in place of the certificate dated 21.08.2024. Learned
counsel pointed out that, in terms of the notice dated 27.04.2026, the
scrutiny of documents was confined to the documents uploaded with the
application form, and the candidates were not called upon to appear in
person. The petitioner secured 72.2 marks (Annexure P-5), as against
the cut-off of 70.30 marks for the BC-B category, and came to know of
his exclusion only upon the declaration of the final result dated
24.07.2026 (Annexure P-4). His representation dated 27.07.2026
(Annexure P-6) followed immediately thereafter.
3.1. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that
eligibility and its proof are two distinct concepts, and a certificate
merely evidences a status which the candidate already holds. Reliance
was placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew, (1980) 2 SCC 752 , Dolly
Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE, (2005) 9 SCC 779 and Ram Kumar
Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC
754 . Reliance was also placed upon the judgments of the Division
Bench of this Court in CWP-23835-2024 , titled as ‘ Divya Kalia v. State
of Haryana and others ’, decided on 20.03.2025, and LPA-612-2023 ,
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 19
titled as ‘ Harpreet Kaur v. State of Haryana and others ’, decided on
09.08.2024.
3.2. It was further argued that an error committed by a cyber
cafe or Common Service Centre operator, which confers no advantage
upon the candidate, cannot be permitted to defeat his merit. Learned
senior counsel emphasized that the digital divide is a matter of
constitutional concern, and placed reliance upon Vashist Narayan
Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2024 INSC 2 , Prince Jaibir Singh v. Union
of India, (2024) 11 SCC 793 and Pragya Prasun v. Union of India,
2025 INSC 599 . Reliance was also placed upon the judgments of the
Division Benches of this Court in CWP-23185-2014 , titled as ‘ Usha
Dhillon v. State of Haryana and others ’, decided on 15.12.2014, LPA-
320-2019 , titled as ‘ Haryana Staff Selection Commission v. Sarla ’,
decided on 22.02.2019, LPA-385-2017 titled as ‘ Kiran Bala v. State of
Haryana and others ’, decided on 23.01.2023, and LPA-13-2023 , titled
as ‘ Haryana Staff Selection Commission v. Vishvajeet Singh ’, decided
on 01.02.2024.
3.3. It was pointed out that Advertisement No.05/2024 in CWP-
24359-2026 (Pradeep) itself empowers HSSC to seek additional
documents in support of the documents already uploaded. Clause 9.5
provides that HSSC “may ask an additional paper in support of already
submitted document for more clarity if so desired”, and Clause 10.1 is
to the same effect. Clause 9.9 provides that the Commission does not
carry out physical scrutiny of the documents at the time of submission
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 20
of the online application, and “the same is done only at the time of
Scrutiny of documents” . Moreover, Clause 12.14 stipulates that a
candidate who claims vertical reservation but cannot furnish
documentary proof thereof at the time of scrutiny “shall be considered
as a General category candidate”, rather than having his candidature
cancelled. The grievance of the petitioners, as urged, was that HSSC
had given effect only to those clauses of the advertisement which suited
it, and had ignored the rest.
3.4. It was submitted that HPSC, when it finds a defect in the
documents of a candidate, issues a notice of provisional rejection and
affords the candidate a fixed period to respond, as is evident from its
notices dated 08.11.2024 and 26.12.2024 (Annexure P-8). The
respondent-HSSC, on the other hand, followed no such practice.
Learned senior counsel argued that two recruiting agencies of the same
State cannot apply different yardsticks to similarly situated candidates
without offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3.5. Reliance was placed upon the instructions dated 22.03.2022
(Annexure P-13 in CWP-31124-2024 ) issued by the General
Administration Department, Haryana, under which no department shall
oblige a resident of Haryana to submit caste-related proof documents
where he furnishes his Parivar Pehchan Number and his caste and caste
category are marked as verified in the Family Information Data
Repository.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 21
3.6. It was further contended that the State has not followed a
consistent approach. Learned senior counsel referred to the decision of
the Council of Ministers dated 18.05.2026 (Mark ‘Y’ in CWP-30971-
2024 ), which validated BC-A and BC-B (Non-Creamy Layer)
certificates issued during the year 2024-25 in accordance with the
notification dated 17.11.2021. Reference was also made to the online
link opened by HSSC from 12.08.2024 to 16.08.2024 in the Group D
recruitment under Advertisement No.01/2023, for uploading fresh BC-A
and BC-B certificates, and to the correction portal opened by HSSC
from 17.10.2025 to 24.10.2025 for CET-2025, vide public notice dated
16.10.2025. It was pointed out that HPSC, by Corrigendum-II dated
24.02.2025 (Annexure P-2 in CWP-29621-2025 ), reopened its portal
and permitted candidates to submit fresh certificates. Learned senior
counsel also referred to the letter dated 22.05.2024 of the Chief
Secretary, Haryana, addressed to the Government of NCT of Delhi
(Mark ‘X’ in CWP-30971-2024 ), wherein it was stated that submission
of an EWS certificate issued after the cut-off date is not a valid ground
for cancellation of candidature.
3.7. On behalf of the candidates who had applied for their
certificates on the SARAL portal before the cut-off date, but to whom
the certificates were issued thereafter, reliance was placed upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sakshi Arha v. Rajasthan
High Court, 2025 INSC 463 , which recognises the case of a candidate
whose certificate, though applied for, is delayed at the behest of the
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 22
competent authority. It was further submitted that, in CWP-17581-
2025 , titled as ‘ Sheetal and others v. State of Haryana and others ’, the
learned Advocate General, Haryana, on instructions from HSSC,
undertook that the candidates who had applied on SARAL for their
reservation certificates before the closing date would be considered in
the reserved category upon production of the certificate, and this
undertaking was recorded in the order dated 01.07.2025. The petitioner
in CWP-28786-2026 ( Kavita ), for instance, applied for her EWS
certificate on SARAL portal on 20.08.2024, a day before the closing
date, and had uploaded the acknowledgement thereof with her
application form. The certificate was issued to her on 22.08.2024.
3.8. With regard to the candidates who selected the option of
‘BC (Creamy Layer)’ in the application form, it was argued that such a
choice by a candidate belonging to the non-creamy layer confers no
benefit whatsoever, since Section 5 of the Haryana Backward Classes
(Reservation in Services and Admission in Educational Institutions) Act,
2016 excludes the creamy layer from the benefit of reservation. The
very inclusion of such an option in the drop-down menu was, therefore,
stated to be a defect in the design of the form. Learned senior counsel
pointed out that the petitioner in CWP-142-2025 ( Himanshi Kathri )
uploaded a BC-A (Non-Creamy Layer) certificate dated 30.06.2024
along with her form, and the HPSC itself treated her as a BC-A
candidate in the marks list of the interview.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 23
3.9. Lastly, it was submitted that, in any event, a candidate who
has availed no relaxation or concession on account of his reserved
category must at least be considered in the General category on the basis
of his merit. In support, reliance was placed upon the judgment of this
Court in CWP-35851-2025 , titled as ‘ Rohit Soni v. State of Haryana
and others ’, decided on 05.08.2026, and the judgment of a Co-ordinate
Bench in CWP-2667-2022 , titled as ‘ Om Roj v. Haryana Staff
Selection Commission and others ’, decided on 28.04.2022.
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
4. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent-HSSC, while
referring to the consolidated replies dated 14.08.2026 and 15.09.2026
filed by the Under Secretary, HSSC in CWP-24359-2026 (Pradeep) and
CWP-26328-2026 (Kamaljeet) respectively, contended that the
advertisement is the magna carta of the selection process, and its terms
bind the candidates as well as the Commission. It was submitted that the
BC-A and BC-B certificates were required to have been issued before
the closing date of the advertisement. Learned counsel referred to
Clauses 4.2, 9.2, 9.6, 10.2, 12.12 and 13 of Advertisement No.05/2024,
and argued that no change in the application form is permissible after its
final submission, “in spite of affidavit”, and only the documents
uploaded with the form are to be considered. Clause 13 further provides
that where any particulars are found false or incorrect due to non-
submission or wrong submission of documents, the candidature “shall
be deemed to be cancelled and such candidates shall not be considered
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 24
against even unreserved category”. It was further submitted that the
scrutiny was conducted only on the basis of the documents uploaded
during the submission of the application form. Reliance was placed
upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar v.
Madhu Kant Ranjan, (2021) 17 SCC 141 , Divya v. Union of India,
(2024) 1 SCC 448 and Mohit Kumar v. State of U.P., 2025 INSC 704 ,
the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1397-2025 ,
titled as ‘ Haryana Public Service Commission v. Pardeep Kumar and
others ’, decided on 03.11.2025, and the judgment of this Court in
CWP-23961-2026 , titled as ‘ Jyoti v. State of Haryana and others ’,
decided on 04.08.2026, whereby a similar petition arising from the same
advertisement was dismissed.
4.1. It was argued that there was no technical glitch in the
SARAL portal, inasmuch as a large number of selected candidates in the
BC-A and BC-B categories had uploaded certificates issued within the
prescribed period. It was further contended that any relief to the
petitioners would affect the candidates already selected, and would open
the door to a fresh round of litigation, since many reserved category
candidates who had secured marks above the cut-off, some of them
more than the petitioners, were not recommended for the very same
reason.
4.2. Learned counsel submitted that the Parivar Pehchan Number
is no substitute for a certificate. The non-creamy layer status of a
candidate depends upon the income of his family, which varies from
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 25
year to year, and the data linked to the Parivar Pehchan Number may
not have been updated. Moreover, the advertisement did not provide for
such data to be treated as proof of category.
4.3. It was contended that a candidate is answerable for the
cyber cafe or Common Service Centre operator whom he engages, since
the operator acts as his agent, and a final preview of the form is
provided precisely so that such errors may be detected before final
submission. Reliance was placed upon the judgments of the Division
Bench of the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 4087/2022 , titled as ‘ Monu
Singh v. Union of India and others ’, decided on 18.11.2024, and W.P.
(C) 12698/2023 , titled as ‘ Nisha Khan v. Delhi Police and another ’,
decided on 12.12.2025. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of
the Full Bench of this Court in CWP-5281-1997 , titled as ‘ Rahul
Prabhakar v. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar ’, decided on
16.05.1997, to contend that the terms of the brochure are binding and
the last date prescribed therein cannot be relaxed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-HPSC, while referring
to the replies filed on its behalf, contended that under Clause 1(i) of the
advertisement dated 23.07.2024 (Annexure P-1 in CWP-29927-2024 ),
the eligibility of a candidate with reference to his documents is assessed
only after he qualifies for the interview. It was submitted that Note 2(iii)
under Clause 6 stipulates that certificates issued after the closing date
shall not be accepted, while Clause 11(ii) requires the BC-A and BC-B
certificates to be issued in the year 2024-2025, in terms of the
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 26
instructions dated 22.03.2022 and the notification dated 16.07.2024.
Learned counsel further pointed out that, under Clause 3(xiii)(iii) of the
instructions dated 22.03.2022, a certificate based on income remains
valid only for the financial year in which it is issued.
5.1. With regard to the decision of the Council of Ministers
dated 18.05.2026 (Mark ‘Y’ in CWP-30971-2024 ), learned counsel
referred to the additional affidavit of the Secretary, HPSC, filed in
CWP-33205-2024 (Prem Singh) . It was submitted that the said
decision, conveyed vide letter dated 25.05.2026 of the Chief Secretary,
Haryana, approved that BC-A and BC-B (Non-Creamy Layer)
certificates issued during the year 2024-25, in accordance with the
notification dated 17.11.2021, “be considered as valid for all intents and
purposes”. However, it was argued that the selection process had
already concluded, since the final result for the post of PGT
(Mathematics) was declared on 04.01.2025 and the recommendations
were made on 07.02.2025 and 25.08.2025. Relying upon the judgment
of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash
Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, 2024 INSC 847 , it was contended
that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the selection process
has begun. It was further submitted that HPSC is an independent
constitutional body under Article 315 of the Constitution of India,
bound by the terms of its advertisement, and its role comes to an end
with the making of recommendations.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 27
6. Learned Advocate General, Haryana, appearing on behalf of
the State, referred to the affidavit dated 14.09.2026 of Joint Secretary,
Human Resources Department, filed on behalf of the Chief Secretary,
Haryana in CWP-30971-2024 (Smt. Usha) . It was submitted that, in
pursuance of the order dated 01.09.2026 passed by this Court in CWP-
30971-2024 (Smt. Usha) , a meeting was held on 11.09.2026 under the
chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Haryana (Annexure R-1), wherein
the following decisions were taken: First , HPSC and HSSC shall
remove the option of ‘Backward Class (Creamy Layer)’ from the drop-
down menus of their application forms; Second , every advertisement
shall specify the cut-off date for eligibility and the closing date, and
shall provide a uniform correction window of three days immediately
after the closing date, meant solely for editing or correcting the
application forms already submitted; Third , only those EWS and BC-A
or BC-B (Non-Creamy Layer) certificates which are valid and have
been issued on or before the cut-off date shall be accepted; Fourth , a
preliminary scrutiny of the documents of all applicants is not feasible.
Learned Advocate General submitted that these decisions shall be given
effect to by HPSC and HSSC in all future recruitment advertisements
and the same is a conscious policy decision of the State Government.
6.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners in CWP-21745-2026
( Mamta Rani ) and CWP-25718-2026 ( Seema and others ), who had
uploaded certificates in the format prescribed by the notification dated
16.07.2024, contended that the candidates who had failed to upload
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 28
such certificates by the closing date were rightly excluded. They sought
the exclusion of such candidates, the release of the posts kept on hold on
account of the pending petitions, and the redrawing of the merit list.
Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Sakshi Arha (supra) and the judgment of the Division Bench in
Pardeep Kumar (supra) .
OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS
I. The Questions for Determination
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance. The synopsis filed by learned counsel
for the parties have also been perused, and the same are taken on record
as Mark ‘P’, ‘Q’, ‘R’, ‘S’, ‘T’, ‘U’, ‘V’, ‘W’, ‘WA’, ‘WB’, ‘WC’,
‘WD’, ‘WE’ and ‘WF’. The Registry is directed to place them in the
files of the respective cases. Upon a consideration of the rival
submissions, the following questions arise for adjudication:
A. Whether a candidate who possessed the requisite
eligibility on the cut-off date can be excluded for a defect
in the online application form, or in the documents
uploaded along with it?
B. Whether a candidate who applied to the competent
authority for a certificate on or before the cut-off date,
and whose application was pending on that date, can be
treated as having possessed the certificate on the cut-off
date, though it was issued to him thereafter?
C. Whether the respondent-HPSC is bound to give effect to
the decision of the Council of Ministers dated 18.05.2026,
and whether its benefit can be confined to recruitments
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 29
conducted by the respondent-HPSC, to the exclusion of
similarly situated candidates in recruitments conducted
by the respondent-HSSC?
II. The Settled Law on Eligibility and its Proof
8. Before turning to the individual facts and circumstances of
these cases, this Court deems it appropriate to examine the line of
precedents on the distinction between eligibility and its proof, and to
discuss the settled position of law that emerges from them. The
aforesaid distinction was drawn by a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Charles K. Skaria (supra) . Speaking through Justice
V.R. Krishna Iyer, it was held as under:-
“ 20. There is nothing unreasonable nor arbitrary in adding
10 marks for holders of a diploma. But to earn this extra
10 marks, the diploma must be obtained at least on or
before the last date for application, not later. Proof of
having obtained a diploma is different from the factum of
having got it. Has the candidate in fact, secured a
diploma before the final date of application for admission
to the degree course ? That is the primary question. It is
prudent to produce evidence of the diploma along with
the application, but that is secondary . Relaxation of the
date on the first is illegal, not so on the second. Academic
excellence, through a diploma for which extra mark is
granted, cannot be denuded because proof is produced only
later, yet before the date of actual selection. The emphasis
is on the diploma, the proof thereof subserves the factum
of possession of the diploma and is not an independent
factor. The prospectus does say :
(4)(b): 10% to Diploma holders in the selection of
candidates to M. S., and M. D., courses in the
respective subjects or sub-specialities.
13.Certificates to be produced :- In all cases true
copies of the following documents have to be
produced :-
xxx xxx xxx
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 30
(k) Any other certificates required along with the
application.
This composite statement cannot be read formalistic
fashion. Mode of proof is geared to the goal of the
qualification in question. It is subversive of sound
interpretation and realistic decoding of the prescription to
telescope the two and make both mandatory in point of
time. What is essential is the possession of a diploma
before the given date, what is ancillary is the safe mode of
proof of the qualification. To confuse between a fact and
its proof is blurred perspicacity. To make mandatory the
date of acquiring the additional qualification before the
last date for application makes sense. But if it is
unshakeably shown that the qualification has been
acquired before the relevant date, as is the case here, to
invalidate this merit factor because proof, though
indubitable, was adduced a few days later but before the
selection or in a manner not mentioned in the prospectus,
but still above board is to make procedure not the
handmaid but the mistress and form not as subservient to
substance but as superior to the essence .”
(Emphasis added)
8.1. The aforementioned principle was also explained by a three-
Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda v.
Chairman, JEE, (2005) 9 SCC 779 , speaking through Justice G.P.
Mathur, in the following terms:-
“7. The general rule is that while applying for any course
of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility
qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either
in the admission brochure or in application form, as the
case may be, unless there is an express provision to the
contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in
the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification
by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing
the necessary certificates, degrees or mark-sheets.
Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or
weightage etc. necessary certificates have to be produced.
These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of
particular qualification or percentage of marks secured
or entitlement for benefit of reservation. Depending upon
the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 31
matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to
apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of
procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to
submission of proof need not necessarily result in
rejection of candidature.”
(Emphasis added)
8.2. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also drawn a clear
line where the defect is not in the proof but in the eligibility itself. In
Union Public Service Commission v. Gaurav Singh, (2024) 2 SCC
605 , a two-Judge Bench held as under:-
“19. A technical irregularity in a certificate issued by the
competent authority in respect of the correct financial year
cannot be equated with an Income and Asset Certificate in
respect of a different financial year when the Income and
Assets for the particular financial year prior to the year of
submission of the application, goes to the root of eligibility
of a candidate to qualify in the EWS category.”
(Emphasis added)
8.3. To the same effect, in Divya v. Union of India, (2024) 1
SCC 448 , another two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that, under the rules governing the Civil Services Examination,
eligibility in the EWS category crystallizes only upon the issuance of
the Income and Asset Certificate before the cut-off date. Speaking
through Justice K.V. Viswanathan, the following was observed:
“ 44. The meaning of the word "eligible" as defined in P.
Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon is set out
hereunder:-
"Applied to the selection of persons, the word has
two meanings i.e. "legally qualified," or "fit to be
chosen."
Applied to our context, a person can be found eligible as
an economically weaker section candidate and he can be
considered as a fit person to be chosen under that category
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 32
only if the requirement of the OM of 31.01.2019 and Rule
27(3) read with Rule 28 are fulfilled. In Gaurav Singh's
case (supra) , it has been categorically held that assets for
the particular Financial Year, prior to the year of
submission, goes to the root of eligibility of the candidate
in the EWS category. It has been further held therein that
the candidates whose I&ACs are not in order did not have
any legal right to be considered. It has also been held that
no candidate can claim any legal right for
reconsideration of the candidature by submitting a fresh
certificate and/or a rectified certificate .
45. That is the fundamental distinction between the
Charles J. Skaria (supra) line of cases and the cases at
hand. As pointed out earlier, the eligibility for being
categorized as EWS candidate crystallizes only when the
I&AC is issued and, in this case, as required under the
rules, it was to be issued and possessed by the candidate
before 22.02.2022 .
46. It is also very well settled that if there are relevant rules
which prescribe the date on which the eligibility should be
possessed, those rules will prevail. In the absence of rules
or any other date prescribed in the
prospectus/advertisement for determining the eligibility,
there is a judicial chorus holding that it would be the last
date for submission of the application. (See Rekha
Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan [1993 Supp (3)
SCC 168]; Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab [(2000)
5 SCC 262]; Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India
[(2007) 4 SCC 54] .”
(Emphasis added)
8.4. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sakshi Arha v. Rajasthan High Court, 2025 INSC 463 held that a
category certificate must be valid and issued in terms of the rules by the
cut-off date. Nevertheless, the Hon’ble Apex Court, speaking through
Justice Augustine George Masih, preserved two situations in which a
candidate may still succeed in the following words:-
“38. Significant reliance is placed by the Appellants on the
3-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Ram Kumar
Gijroya (supra) . A perusal of the decision rendered by the
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 33
High Court of Delhi on the factual matrix therein is
evidently distinct. The same, thus, cannot come to the
rescue of the Appellants. In the instant case, it is not a
contention of Appellants that they are missing a valid proof
of attainment of their particular qualification or right. No
candidate before us has a claim that they, to begin with,
already availed and established their eligibility, or had
applied for a NCL category certificate and issuance of the
same is delayed at the behest of the competent authority.
The ratio, therefore, in the relied judgment would not
apply.”
(Emphasis added)
8.5. The consequence of a default on the part of the State itself
was considered by a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Haryana Staff Selection Commission v. Subhash Chand, 2024 INSC
112 . In that case, the candidate had applied under a reserved category
which the State, despite an order of this Court, had not removed from
the advertisement, and the certificate of the category to which he was
entitled could not even be applied for until the State issued instructions
in the year 2017. Speaking through Justice Abhay S. Oka, it was held as
under:-
“10. (...) It is because of the default on the part of the
State Government, the first respondent was prevented
from making an application in the EBPGC category.
These aspects have been considered by the Division
Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment. In
fact, in the impugned judgment, it is noted that the District
Administration started receiving the applications for
issuance of EBPGC certificates only when the instructions
were issued on 7th June, 2017 by the Chief Secretary of the
Government of Haryana . Therefore, the finding of fact
recorded by the Division Bench is that the first
respondent cannot be blamed for claiming reservation
under the SBC category quota and for not claiming
reservation under the EBPGC category quota . (...)
11. Considering the fact that the first respondent was
placed in a very peculiar position due to the default on
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 34
the part of the State Government , the learned Single Judge
has passed an order for accommodating the first
respondent. The order is just and equitable. ”
(Emphasis added)
8.6. With regard to trivial errors committed while applying
online, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vashist
Narayan Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2024 INSC 2 held that the
candidature of a person who has cleared all the stages of the selection
can be cancelled only after a careful scrutiny of the gravity of the lapse,
and not for trivial omissions or errors. Applying that principle, speaking
through Justice K.V. Viswanathan, it was held as under:-
“19. In this case, the appellant has participated in the
selection process and cleared all the stages successfully.
The error in the application is trivial which did not play
any part in the selection process. The State was not
justified in making a mountain out of this molehill.
Perhaps the rarefied atmosphere of the cybercafe, got the
better of the appellant. He omitted to notice the error and
even failed to avail the corrective mechanism offered. In
the instant case, we cannot turn a Nelson’s eye to the
ground realities that existed. In the order dated 22.11.2021
in C.A. No. 6983 of 2021 [Prince Jaibir Singh v. Union of
India & Ors.], this Court rightly observed that though
technology is a great enabler, there is at the same time, a
digital divide .”
(Emphasis added)
8.7. The concern with the digital divide has since been carried
further. In Pragya Prasun v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 599 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the State’s obligations under Article
21 of the Constitution of India extend to ensuring that government
portals are universally accessible. Speaking through Justice R.
Mahadevan, the following was held:
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 35
“17. At this juncture, we may also wish to observe that in
the contemporary era, where access to essential services,
governance, education, healthcare, and economic
opportunities is increasingly mediated through digital
platforms, the right to life under Article 21 of the
Constitution must be reinterpreted in light of these
technological realities. The digital divide – characterized
by unequal access to digital infrastructure, skills, and
content – continues to perpetuate systemic exclusion, not
only of persons with disabilities, but also of large sections
of rural populations, senior citizens, economically weaker
communities, and linguistic minorities. The principle of
substantive equality demands that digital transformation
be both inclusive and equitable. As already pointed out,
persons with disabilities encounter unique barriers in
accessing online services due to the lack of accessible
websites, applications and assistive technologies.
Similarly, individuals in remote or rural areas often face
poor connectivity, limited digital literacy, and a scarcity of
content in regional languages, effectively denying them
meaningful access to e-governance and welfare delivery
systems. In such circumstances, the State’s obligations
under Article 21– read in conjunction with Articles 14,15
and 38 of the Constitution – must encompass the
responsibility to ensure that digital infrastructure,
government portals, online learning platforms, and
financial technologies are universally accessible,
inclusive and responsive to the needs of all vulnerable
and marginalized populations. Bridging the digital divide
is no longer merely a matter of policy discretion but has
become a constitutional imperative to secure a life of
dignity, autonomy and equal participation in public life.
The right to digital access, therefore, emerges as an
intrinsic component of the right to life and liberty,
necessitating that the State proactively design and
implement inclusive digital ecosystems that serve not only
the privileged but also the marginalized, those who have
been historically excluded.”

(Emphasis added)
8.8. Notably, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has established certain
limits to the aforesaid principle. In Mohit Kumar v. State of U.P., 2025
INSC 704 , the appellant had applied for the post of Sub-Inspector in the
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 36
Uttar Pradesh Police in the OBC category, but had furnished a
certificate issued in the format meant for jobs under the Central
Government, instead of the format prescribed by the State Government
in the recruitment notification. He was, therefore, considered in the
General category and, having secured marks below the General cut-off,
was not selected. The Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed that the format
prescribed by the State required the gross annual income of the parents
for a continuous period of three years, which the Central format did not
certify, and Clause 5.4(4) of the notification expressly spelt out the
consequence of non-adherence. A two-Judge Bench, speaking through
Justice Dipankar Datta, held as under:-
“21. Be that as it may, clause 5.4(4) with which we are
concerned is far from ambiguous. It is absolutely clear
what UPPRPB required and what would be the
consequence of non-adherence. In the wake of such
requirement, no aspirant could possibly have any iota of
doubt as to the format in which the certificate was to be
issued. Even if Mohit and Kiran had doubts as to whether
the certificates that they had would suffice, nothing
prevented them from seeking such clarification and, at
the same time, approach the concerned tehsildars to issue
certificates in the requisite format. It has not been shown
that obtaining a second certificate in the format required
by the State Government was barred by any law. Having
regard thereto, both Mohit and Kiran cannot take shelter
under the plea that insistence on the part of UPPRPB of
certificates issued in the requisite format is a mere
formality which could have been dispensed with since
they had certificates issued in the other format .”
(Emphasis added)
8.9 In Poonam Dwivedi v. State of U.P., 2026 INSC 351 , the
appellants had applied for the posts of Health Worker (Female) under an
advertisement dated 15.12.2021, relying upon EWS certificates which
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 37
were not in respect of the financial year prior to the year of application.
Most of those certificates had been issued in January and February
2021, before the relevant financial year had even closed. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that such certificates bore an error apparent on their
face and, following Gaurav Singh (supra) , that a certificate of a
different financial year goes to the root of eligibility. It was further
observed that, since the certificates had been obtained even before the
advertisement was published, the candidates could have applied for
fresh certificates in terms of the advertisement. Similarly, in Madhu
Kant Ranjan (supra) , the advertisement for the post of Constable in the
Bihar Police required the candidates to enclose copies of all their
certificates with the application, the last date for which was 22.02.2004.
The candidate did not enclose his NCC 'B' certificate, and produced it
only after the physical test, on 15.01.2007. His plea in a later writ
petition that he had enclosed the certificate with his application was
found to be an afterthought, contrary to his pleadings in the earlier
round of litigation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, upheld the
refusal to award him the additional marks. Thus, in each of these cases,
either the certificate which alone could prove the status was not held by
the cut-off date, or the benefit was not claimed in the manner required,
and the candidate offered no explanation which could bring the case
within the exception.
8.10. The leading judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
on the subject is Divya Kalia (supra) . In that case, the petitioner had
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 38
applied as a Scheduled Caste candidate for the Haryana Civil Services
(Judicial Branch) Examination, 2023-24, advertised by HPSC on
01.01.2024, and had uploaded her Scheduled Caste certificate dated
11.07.2016 issued by the Tehsildar, Gurugram. She cleared the
preliminary examination and the main written examination. On
05.09.2024, shortly before her interview, HPSC informed her that her
candidature was provisionally liable to be rejected, since the certificate
did not bear a registration number and date, and since her domicile
certificate had not been attached, and gave her time till 07.09.2024 to
represent. She responded the same day, and the Tehsildar, Gurugram
confirmed that the certificate was genuine. HPSC, nevertheless, rejected
her candidature on 12.09.2024. The Division Bench permitted her to
appear in the interview provisionally, in which she secured the threshold
marks for appointment. The Division Bench categorically held that
possession of a qualification on the cut-off date is mandatory, but that its
proof is distinct from it, and a technical defect in a certificate issued by
the competent authority, which is beyond the control of the candidate,
may be condoned where the candidate actually possessed the attribute
on the cut-off date. It was further held that a candidate must be diligent,
must show good cause for any latitude, and must take corrective steps at
the earliest, and no straitjacket formula can be laid down, since every
case turns on its own facts. On the facts, it was observed that the date of
the certificate was in fact printed on it, the absence of the registration
number was attributable solely to the issuing authority, the domicile
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 39
certificate had in fact been uploaded, and the petitioner had pursued her
remedy promptly. The order of rejection was, therefore, quashed. The
Division Bench also deprecated the mechanical manner in which HPSC
had defended the litigation, and imposed upon it costs of Rs. 50,000/-
payable to the petitioner and exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be
deposited in the Poor Patient's Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh,
with liberty to recover the same from the erring officials. The relevant
paragraphs of the judgment read as under:
"9. It is trite law that a candidate, seeking public employment,
must possess the requisite mandatory qualification(s) as on the
prescribed cut-off-date. The Three Judge Bench judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma
(supra) and Bedanga Talukdar (supra) unequivocally enunciates
that the eligibility of a candidate is required to be adjudged with
scrupulous reference to the cut-off-date and that date alone. A
person, who acquires the requisite prescribed qualification,
subsequent to such a prescribed cut-off date, renders himself
ineligible and cannot be shown any relaxation unless the extant
rules so provide. As a pivotal imperative pre-requisite thereof, a
candidate is pertinently required to possess the mandatory
qualification(s), as sought for by the concerned
selecting/examining agency, on the cut-off-date; whereas,
acquiring them subsequently would not render such a candidate
eligible & failure therein would incur in consequential penal
effect(s).
The general rule, thus, is that a candidate must deposit all
requisite certificate(s) etc. at the time of submitting his
application form and he ought not to be permitted to rectify
such certificate(s). However, possession of a qualification is
starkly distinct from the proof thereof. Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Charles K. Skaria (supra) has held that what is
essential is the possession of a qualification before the concerned
date and mode of proof thereof, is ancillary. Following this dicta;
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dolly Chhanda
(supra) , Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) and Karan Singh Yadav
(supra) ; has carved out exception(s) when it relates to submission
of a certificate/testimonial with a technical defect/irregularity,
which was beyond the reasonable control of such candidate(s). It
is an unshaken canon of our jurisprudence that when
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 40
substantial and technical considerations are pitted against each
other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred.
Procedural and technical hurdles ought not to be allowed to
stand in the way of substantial justice . It must be grasped that
the concept of substantial justice is respected not on account of
its power to legalize an otherwise injustice configured so
endowed with a sceptre nay SENGOL on technical grounds; but
because it is for striking out and is expected to do so. If the
procedural violation does not cause prejudice to anyone else, the
concept of substantial justice requires that the Courts/authorities
must lean towards effectuating justice rather than relying upon
procedural and technical violations. When substantial &
procedural considerations stand in opposition, the former must
invariably prevail, for justice is not a mere mechanical exercise
but a tangible pursuit of truth & fairness. The dicta of these
judgments, essentially, grants a latitude to the reserved category
aspirants, treating the submission of irregular/technically
defective certificate(s), being essentially procedural lapse(s)
which may be condoned, in view of the facts involved. The
common denominator, which runs through these decisions is that,
even when correct requisite certificate(s) were allowed to be
submitted belatedly, such candidate did actually possess such
qualification on the cut-off-date. In other words, the Apex Court
has enunciated that such certificate(s)/testimonial(s) were proof
of an attribute which the candidate already possessed of and such
attribute was not attained after the cut-off-date.
Judicial notice can well be taken by this Court that, such
reservation certificate(s) are, more often than not, issued at the
end of the concerned authority(s) and a candidate does not have
any say nay authoritative say in issuance thereof. In actual life,
it is often exasperatingly cumbersome for a candidate to obtain
requisite certificate nay one issued in the exact prescribed form
from the concerned authority. A technical irregularity/defect in
such certificate(s) issued by the concerned competent authority
is, thus, beyond the control of an aspirant. Actual excellence or
even basic eligibility, thus, cannot be permitted to be obliterated
by the choice of an orthodox interpretation of law and
procedure. Equity ought to overpower technicality where the
justice so demands. In the realm of writ jurisdiction, courts are
duty bound to uphold the paramount cause of substantial justice,
ensuring that the dispensation of justice is not thwarted by mere
technicalities. While procedural considerations serve as
necessary safeguards to ensure orderly adjudication, they must
never be exalted to the extent that they eclipse the fundamental
tenets of fairness, equity and justice or even moribund the cause
of justice. The Court, as a sentinel of justice, must wield its
discretionary power to prevent miscarriage of justice arising
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 41
from rigid adherence to procedural formalities. Equity, being the
soul of justice, demands that the courts adopt a liberal and
pragmatic approach, ensuring that the form does not triumph
over the substance. A constitutional court, vested with extra-
ordinary jurisdiction, must, therefore, eschew hyper-technical
reasoning and focus on the broader ends of justice, for the law
must ever remain a handmaiden to justice & not an instrument of
oppression or procedural entanglement.
10. A conundrum faced by the selecting/examining agency in
such a scenario, seeks attention, namely; granting latitude to the
candidate(s) for submission of correct/technical error free
certificate(s) after the last date of depositing of application form
having passed, poses a threat of uncertainty, looming large in the
selection/examination process, as also may cause delay in
culmination thereof.
A candidate, while making an application and submitting
documents in support thereof, indubitably ought to be diligent
and any laxity ought not to be condoned as has been in the case
of Divya (supra). Document(s)/certificate(s) required to be
submitted have to be scrupulously checked by the candidate
concerned before submission thereof. A candidate cannot be
afforded latitude for omission(s) on his part as the
selecting/examining agency has to proceed on the basis of
application and documents submitted by the candidate . In case
an error has occurred on account of circumstances beyond the
control of the applicant, namely, an incorrect/technically
defective certificate(s), received by the candidate from the
competent authority, having been presented by the candidate, in
the back drop of such a candidate actually possessing the
requisite qualification, some latitude may be extendable to such
a candidate. It is indubitable that it is for the candidate to show
good cause, with certitude, for grant of such a latitude. Also,
corrective or remedial steps ought to be undertaken at the end
of the concerned candidate, at the earliest feasible date, since
the time lapse may, by itself proscribe any such latitude as held
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Divya (supra) .
Ergo; the conundrum is set at naught; viz, a candidate seeking
latitude for submission of an incorrect/defective certificate
alongwith the application form is required to show tangible cause
or accentuating circumstances, at the earliest opportunity lest the
timeline itself may non-suit such candidate. No exhaustive set of
such circumstances/cause(s) can possibly be laid down however
alluring this aspect may be. It is neither fathomable nor
desirable to lay down any straight jacket formula in this regard.
Any attempt in this case would be, to say the least, quixotic
endeavour. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 42
fact, may make a sea of difference between conclusions in two
cases. Such exercise would thus, indubitably, be dependent upon
the factual matrix of a particular lis, since every case has its own
peculiar factual conspectus.
xxx xxx xxx
12. Before parting with this order, another aspect of the lis in
hand craves attention. In discharging its role as a litigant, the
State (as also its instrumentalities) must adopt a balanced and
judicious approach, resisting the temptation to oppose the claims
indiscriminately. The State must exercise due diligence in
distinguishing between a baseless and a legitimate claim. While it
is justified in defending itself against spurious claims, this duty
must be discharged with a sense of responsibility. The
Constitutional framework envisions the State as a Welfare State,
which is inherently obligated to act in the best interest of its
citizens. In litigation involving the State and its citizens, this
welfare-oriented ethos must guide the State’s conduct. Unlike a
private litigant, whose sole objective is often to secure a
favourable judgment, the State bears a higher responsibility to
ensure that justice is served, consistent with the principles of
fairness and equity.
The Courts across the legal system—this Court being not an
exception—are choked with litigation. Frivolous and groundless
dispute(s) constitute a serious menace to the administration of
justice. They consume time and clog the overburdened
infrastructure. Productive resources, which should be deployed in
the handling of genuine causes, are dissipated in pursuing
worthless cause(s). In our jurisprudential eco-system, the State is
the largest litigant today and the huge expenditure involved
makes a big draft on the public exchequer. The present case is an
unsoothing illustration of, how litigations are pursued on
behalf of the State (HPSC, to be more precise, in the case in
hand), in a totally mechanical and indifferent fashion. The
proceedings reveal a lack of due diligence, reflective of an
apathetic approach that undermines the principles of
responsible governance & judicial propriety. Such conduct
reflects an absence of serious application of mind, resulting in
an unwarranted litigation that burdens the judicial system. This
tendency can be curbed only if the Courts across the system
adopt an institutional approach which penalizes such
comportment. The imposition of costs, is a necessary
instrument, which has to be deployed to weed out, such an
unscrupulous conduct. Ergo, this Court deems it appropriate to
saddle HPSC with costs, which indubitably ought to be veritable
and real time in nature. "
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 43
(Emphasis added)
8.11. With regard to an acquired qualification, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Haryana Staff Selection Commission v. Priyanka,
(2022) 18 SCC 136 , held that candidates whose provisional results had
been declared by their Universities before the cut-off date could not be
said to be unqualified on that date, so long as the authenticity of those
results was not in doubt. Similarly, in Harpreet Kaur (supra) , the
Division Bench held that it is the date of passing of the examination,
and not the date of issuance of the degree, which governs eligibility. In
LPA-61-2025 , titled as ‘ Haryana Staff Selection Commission v. Sumit
and others ’, decided on 16.01.2025, the advertisement required a
candidate claiming the benefit meant for dependants of ex-servicemen
to hold a valid eligibility certificate on the last date for submission of
the online application form. The candidate was asked at the time of
scrutiny, held on 05.02.2022, to produce a certificate from the Zila
Sainik Board, and he produced one dated 10.02.2022. The Division
Bench upheld the relief granted to him, holding that the status of a
candidate does not change merely because the certificate is issued at a
later date. In LPA-1963-2017 , titled as ‘ Rina and another v. Vice
Chancellor, Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak
and others ’, decided on 25.08.2022, the Division Bench upheld the
inclusion of candidates who possessed the eligibility on the cut-off date,
but whose sports gradation certificates were produced later for reasons
beyond their control.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 44
8.12. The Division Benches of this Court have also granted relief
for clerical and category errors where no facility for correction existed.
In Usha Dhillon (supra) , it was held as under:-
“ 6. The above issue can be viewed from another angle. It is
very possible that while a candidate is applying online, he
or she may, through a bona fide mistake, apply under a
category in which one does not intend to. On a question
being asked to learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the Commission, whether there was a provision on the
website of the Commission allowing correction in the
online application form, the answer came in the negative.
Therefore, there was no option left with the petitioner, but
to approach the Commission through her application
dated 01.10.2014. If one is human, one will err. What the
Court would normally see is whether that error is bona
fide. We find that the error in the case in hand was, in fact,
bona fide, and therefore, are inclined to interfere and grant
the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner.”
(Emphasis added)
8.13. In Sarla (supra) , the Division Bench observed as under:-
“5. We cannot loose sight of the fact that in view of the
prevailing socio economic condition in our country, every
citizen is neither net savvy nor has a computer or laptop
readily available for use. In these circumstances, when
such a candidate has to submit an application on-line he
has to dependent upon the cyber cafés providing the net
services . Being himself/herself not computer and net savvy
the candidate has to depend upon the operator in the cyber
cafe to fill in online form and in such a circumstance if any
mistake occurs it would be wholly unrealistic and arbitrary
to make such a candidate suffer . It is also to be taken note
of that if an incorrect entry is made due to human error,
there is no provision on the website of the Commission
allowing correction in the online application form. In
these circumstances, if a mistake is committed, there
being no provision for carrying out correction, even if it
is noticed subsequently, a poor candidate is to suffer for
no fault. ”
(Emphasis added)
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 45
To the same effect are the judgments in Kiran Bala (supra)
and Vishvajeet Singh (supra) . In the latter case, the Division Bench,
relying upon Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra) , affirmed the relief
granted to a candidate who had uploaded the correct BC-B certificate
but had selected the BC-A category in the form, his marks being above
the cut-off in both categories, so that the error conferred no advantage
upon him. It must be pointed out that the observation of the Division
Bench in Divya Kalia (supra) , that no latitude can be afforded for
omissions on the part of the candidate, was made with reference to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Divya (supra) , where the
certificate which alone could prove the status was not held on the cut-
off date. The said observation does not stand in the way of relief where
the eligibility was in fact possessed and no effective opportunity was
given to correct a bona fide error in its proof, as held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra) and by the Division
Benches of this Court in Sarla (supra) and Vishvajeet Singh (supra) .
8.14. In light of the above discussion, the settled position may be
stated thus:
(i) The eligibility prescribed must be possessed on the cut-
off date, and the requirement admits of no relaxation;
(ii) The mode and time of proof are matters of procedure,
and a defect in the proof of an eligibility actually held does
not, by itself, extinguish the candidature;
(iii) Where a status depends upon income or assets for a
prescribed period, as in the case of non-creamy layer or
EWS status, it exists in law only upon the issuance of a
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 46
valid certificate for that period. A certificate of a wrong
period, or one obtained after the cut-off date, therefore
goes to the root of eligibility, except where the certificate
was applied for before the cut-off date and its issuance was
delayed at the behest of the competent authority;
(iv) A candidate who could not obtain or claim the right
certificate because of the default of the State itself cannot
be blamed for it; and
(v) Relief turns upon the diligence and the bona fides of the
candidate.
III. The precedents relied upon by the respondents, read in their own
light
9. Learned counsel for the respondents placed considerable
reliance upon certain judgments of the Division Bench of this Court,
and of this Court itself. However, before analyzing each of them, the
principles governing the interpretation of judgments must be borne in
mind. It is trite that a judgment must be interpreted in the context of the
facts of the specific case presented before the Court, without reading
into it more than what is expressly stated. It is neither appropriate nor
permissible to isolate a word or a sentence from a judgment, detached
from the context of the issue being addressed, and treat it to be the
complete law in itself. Instead, a judgment must be read as a whole, and
any observations made therein ought to be understood in relation to the
questions that were actually under consideration. A two-Judge Bench of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 47
Rajkumar and others, (2007) 12 SCC 768 , speaking through Justice
Arijit Pasayat, made the following observations in this regard:
“11. Reliance on the decision without looking into the
factual background of the case before it is clearly
impermissible. A decision is a precedent on its own facts.
Each case presents its own features. It is not everything
said by a Judge while giving a judgment that constitutes a
precedent. The only thing in a Judge's decision binding a
party is the principle upon which the case is decided and
for this reason it is important to analyse a decision and
isolate from it the ratio decidendi. According to the well-
settled theory of precedents, every decision contains three
basic postulates - (i) findings of material facts, direct and
inferential. An inferential finding of facts is the inference
which the Judge draws from the direct, or perceptible
facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to
the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii)
judgment based on the combined effect of the above. A
decision is an authority for what it actually decides. What
is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every
observation found therein nor what logically flows from the
various observations made in the judgment. The
enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question
before a Court has been decided is alone binding as a
precedent. (See State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra
and Ors., (AIR 1968 Supreme Court 647) and Union of
India and Ors. v. Dhanwanti Devi and Ors., (1996(6)
SCC 44 ). A case is a precedent and binding for what it
explicitly decides and no more. The words used by Judges
in their judgments are not to be read as if they are words
in Act of Parliament. In Quinn v. Leathem, (1901) AC
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 48
495 (H.L.), Earl of Halsbury LC observed that every
judgment must be read as applicable to the particular
facts proved or assumed to be proved, since the generality
of the expressions which are found there are not intended
to be exposition of the whole law but governed and
qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such
expressions are found and a case is only an authority for
what it actually decides .
12. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without
discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the
fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed.
Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's
theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too
taken out of their context. These observations must be
read in the context in which they appear to have been
stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as
statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a
statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into
lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain
and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not
interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their
words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London
Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton, (1951 AC 737 at p.761) ,
Lord Mac Dermot observed :
“The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by
treating the ipsissima vertra of Willes, J as though
they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying
the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This
is not to detract from the great weight to be given to
the language actually used by that most
distinguished judge.”
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 49
13. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co., (1970(2) All
England Reporter 294) Lord Reid said, “Lord Atkin's
speech.....is not to be treated as if it was a statute
definition. It will require qualification in new
circumstances.” Megarry, J in (1971)1 WLR 1062
observed : “One must not, of course, construe even a
reserved judgment of Russell L.J. as if it were an Act of
Parliament.” And, in Herrington v. British Railways
Board, (1972(2) WLR 537) Lord Morris said:
“ There is always peril in treating the words of a
speech or judgment as though they are words in a
legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered
that judicial utterances made in the setting of the
facts of a particular case.”
14. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different
fact may make a world of difference between conclusions
in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance
on a decision is not proper .
15. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of
applying precedents have become locus classicus :
“Each case depends on its own facts and a close
similarity between one case and another is not
enough because even a single significant detail may
alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one
should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said
by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case
against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on
which side of the line a case falls, the broad
resemblance to another case is not at all decisive.”
*
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 50
“Precedent should be followed only so far as it
marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead
wood and trim off the side branches else you will
find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea
is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions
which could impede it.””
(Emphasis added)
9.1. Further, a point which was neither argued nor considered by
the Court passes sub silentio , and the decision is no authority on that
point ( Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur, (1989) 1 SCC
101 and State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., (1991) 4 SCC
139 ).
9.2. That brings this Court to the judgment of the Division
Bench in Pardeep Kumar (supra) , upon which the respondents have
principally relied. The Division Bench held as under:-
“ 54. The facts of the present LPAs are analyzed, and we
find that the advertisement clearly required the candidates
to submit BC(A)/BC(B) certificate. The advertisement was
issued in June 2024 i.e. 21.06.2024. The candidates, who
claimed reservation for BC(A)and BC(B), were required to
belong to Non-Creamy Layer. The determination of Non-
Creamy Layer is with reference to the income and assets of
a candidate. Certificate of BC(A)/BC(B)are, therefore,
based on changing financial status of the applicant and
therefore, it becomes necessary for the appellant-
Commission to require the candidate to submit the
certificate issued before the cut-off date.
xxx xxx xxx
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 51
57. It is undisputed that all the respondents-writ petitioners
claimed reservation in BC(A)/BC(B)or EWS category but
had not submitted their respective caste certificate of the
relevant period. In the leading case, the respondent No.1-
Pradeep Kumar submitted the BC(A) certificate dated
31.12.2019. Similarly, BC(A)/BC(B) certificates of all
other candidates/respondents were not of the relevant
period as per the advertisement. The candidates were
required to be possessed of the certificates on the last date
of making of application i.e. 12.07.2024. The certificates
annexed by them since were not in terms of the
advertisement, therefore, they were rightly ignored.”
(Emphasis added)
The Division Bench further held that the reopening of the
portal, or an invitation to submit representations, does not extend the
date by which proof of eligibility had to be obtained. It concluded that
the writ petitioners were not entitled to relief since they had not
furnished proof of their eligibility by the cut-off date. Thus, the ratio of
the said judgment is that a non-creamy layer certificate rests upon an
income which changes, and a certificate which does not relate to the
relevant period is no proof of eligibility for that period. The Division
Bench also observed that the cut-off date fixed for the submission of
certificates of proof of eligibility is sacrosanct. However, none of the
writ petitioners before the Division Bench held a certificate of the
relevant period on the cut-off date, and the judgment does not record
that any of them had applied for one before that date. The Division
Bench was, therefore, not called upon to consider the case of a
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 52
candidate who held a valid certificate on the cut-off date but uploaded
another document in its place, or whose application for the certificate
was pending with the competent authority on that date. The said
observation must be read in that context, and it is consistent with the
requirement that the proof itself must exist on the cut-off date.
9.3. In the same judgment, the Division Bench separately dealt
with the case of Neha Dhiman, who held a valid BC-A (Non-Creamy
Layer) certificate but had selected ‘BC(A) (Creamy Layer)’ in her form.
The Division Bench declined relief in the following terms:-
“ 70. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we
find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the appellant-Commission that the mechanism adopted
by it, provided sufficient opportunity to any candidate to
rectify any such alleged inadvertent error as would be
clear from perusal of Clause 16 of the advertisement . Not
only did the candidate fail to rectify the error after taking
the print out of the form and before signing and uploading
the scanned copy thereof, she did not take any steps to
submit a fresh application with the correct category as
duly provided for. Admittedly, she appeared in the
screening test held on 23.09.2024, result whereof was
declared on 09.10.2024. It was only on 03.11.2024, that
she belatedly filed a representation.
71. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for
the said petitioner are distinct on facts, where the mistake
in selecting option occurred on account of filling the
application form with the aid of cybercafé, for which,
there was no provision for correction. In the facts of the
instant case, the concerned petitioner is an educated
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 53
woman and does not allege that she was incapacitated
due to any such circumstances .”
(Emphasis added)
Notably, the Division Bench was not called upon to
consider whether an option which confers no benefit ought to be offered
in the form at all, and the judgment does not refer to Vashist Narayan
Kumar (supra) . In plain terms, the case of Neha Dhiman holds that
where a candidate had a real opportunity to correct the very mistake,
and let it pass until the Commission had acted upon it, a later request for
correction cannot succeed.
9.4. Subsequently, by order dated 25.05.2026 passed in RA-LP-
16-2026 and connected review applications in Pardeep Kumar (supra)
itself, the Division Bench held as under:-
“ 6. Those candidates who have already availed the benefit
of reservation at any stage of recruitment would not be
entitled for the benefit of migration to unreserved category.
However, those review applicants who though have
applied in the reserved category, but have not taken any
advantage of reservation and have secured marks above
the cut off meant for unreserved category, would be
accorded consideration in the unreserved category
against available seats. ”
(Emphasis added)
9.5. The reliance placed by the respondents upon the judgment
of the Full Bench in Rahul Prabhakar (supra) must also be examined.
The Full Bench held that an application received after the last date fixed
by the information brochure is no application at all, and the Court will
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 54
not rewrite the brochure. In his concurring opinion, Justice T.H.B.
Chalapathi further held that no power to relax the date had been
reserved either in the advertisement or in the brochure. However, that
judgment concerned the receipt of the application itself, and not the
proof of an eligibility already held, and the distinction between
eligibility and its proof was neither raised nor considered therein.
Moreover, in the present bunch of cases, Advertisement No.05/2024 in
CWP-24359-2026 (Pradeep) reserves the very power which the Full
Bench found to be absent, since Clauses 9.5 and 10.1 permit HSSC to
seek additional documents in support of those already uploaded. The
ratio of the said judgment, therefore, has no application to the
controversy at hand.
9.6. In LPA-480-2026 , titled as ‘ Suman Kumari v. Haryana
Public Service Commission ’, decided on 19.02.2026, the Division
Bench affirmed the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench in CWP-3269-
2026 , decided on 05.02.2026. There, HPSC had, by Corrigendum-II
dated 24.02.2025, reopened its portal and directed candidates who had
filled wrong particulars to apply afresh, and still the candidate had failed
to upload a valid EWS certificate. Thus, an opportunity to correct the
defect existed in that case, but was not availed. The petitioner in CWP-
29621-2025 (Vitesh Dhankhar) , on the other hand, made his
application on 02.03.2025, in the very window opened by Corrigendum-
II, and no opportunity to correct the uploaded document was available
to him thereafter.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 55
9.7. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the
judgment of this Court in Jyoti (supra) , decided on 04.08.2026. In the
aforesaid case, the undertaking of the State recorded in the order dated
01.07.2025 in Sheetal (supra) , and the judgments in Vashist Narayan
Kumar (supra) and Subhash Chand (supra) , were not brought to the
notice of this Court. Further, the decision of the Council of Ministers
dated 18.05.2026 was not on record. The observation that the conditions
regarding the upload of documents are “substantive conditions of the
recruitment process” must be read in that light, since the judgment was
rendered on the material then placed before this Court. The present
bunch, however, is decided on material which was not then before this
Court.
9.8. Thus, the aforementioned judgments, read in the light of
their own facts, do not advance the case of the respondents beyond the
extent indicated hereinabove.
IV. The Root of Eligibility Test
10. The Division Bench in Divya Kalia (supra) cautioned that
no straitjacket formula can be laid down in matters of this kind, since
every case turns on its own facts. What follows is, therefore, not a
formula which exhausts the circumstances of every case. It is a
structured sequence of the questions which the precedents examined
above already ask, set out in the order in which they arise, so that
recruiting agencies and candidates know in advance how a defect will
be judged. Predictability of this kind is itself a demand of Article 14 of
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 56
the Constitution of India. In Partha Das v. State of Tripura, 2025 INSC
1049 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that consistency and
predictability are important aspects of non-arbitrariness, and the rule of
law obliges the State to take only those decisions which are rooted in
fairness and equality.
10.1 Upon a careful consideration of the foregoing, this Court
deems it appropriate to lay down the following test, which shall govern
whether a defect in an online application form, or in the documents
uploaded along with it, can be cured:
The General Rules
(a) The eligibility prescribed must be possessed on the cut-off date,
and the requirement admits of no relaxation. The proof of an
eligibility so possessed is a matter of procedure. Therefore, a
defect in proof does not, by itself, extinguish the candidature of
a person who was in fact eligible.
(b) The label attached to a defect is not decisive. The threshold
question in every case is whether the candidate possessed the
eligibility on the cut-off date.
(c) The cut-off date means the date fixed by the governing rules or
the advertisement for possession of eligibility and, where no
such date is fixed, the closing date for submission of
applications.
(d) An advertisement may provide that only the documents
uploaded with the application form shall be considered, or that
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 57
a candidature containing incorrect particulars shall stand
cancelled. Such a condition applies with full force where the
candidate did not in fact possess the eligibility which he
claimed. However, where the candidate did possess that
eligibility and only the document furnished in proof of it was
defective, the particulars in his form cannot be called incorrect,
and such a condition does not, by itself, defeat his candidature.
(e) The burden of showing possession of the eligibility, and the
bona fides of the defect, lies upon the candidate. The burden of
showing that an effective opportunity to cure the defect was
given lies upon the recruiting agency.
Stage One: Possession. Was the eligibility possessed on the cut-off
date?
(a) How possession is fixed - An eligibility condition may be of
three kinds, and possession of each is fixed differently:
(i) An acquired qualification , such as a
degree, a diploma or the HTET certificate, is
possessed on the date on which its result is declared.
The marksheet or certificate, whenever issued, is
only its proof [ Priyanka (supra) ; Harpreet Kaur
(supra) ].
(ii) A settled status , which does not change
with the passage of time, such as caste or the status
of a dependant of an ex-serviceman, is possessed if it
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 58
existed on the cut-off date. A certificate of that status
issued later is only its proof [ Charles K. Skaria
(supra) ; Dolly Chhanda (supra) ; Sumit (supra) ;
Divya Kalia (supra) ].
(iii) A period-bound status , such as non-
creamy layer or EWS status, depends upon income
or assets for a prescribed period. It exists in law only
upon the issuance of a valid certificate for that
period, and such certificate must be issued on or
before the cut-off date, subject to the Pending
Application Rule mentioned hereinbelow. A
certificate relating to any other period goes to the
root of eligibility [ Gaurav Singh (supra) ; Divya
(supra) ; Pardeep Kumar (supra) ].
(b) How possession is shown - Possession must be shown from
official records, such as the date of declaration of a result, the
date and period stated on a certificate, the record of the SARAL
portal or the Family Information Data Repository. What was
entered in the application form may corroborate such record,
but is not decisive either way.
(c) A document in another format - A document in a format other
than the one prescribed by the advertisement or the rules is
sufficient proof of possession only if it certifies the same facts,
for the same period, as the prescribed format. If the prescribed
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 59
format certifies something more, the other document cannot
prove possession, and the candidate must have held a document
in the prescribed format on the cut-off date. For instance, in
Mohit Kumar (supra) , the format prescribed by the State
certified the gross annual income of the parents for a
continuous period of three years, which the format meant for
jobs under the Central Government did not. A certificate in the
Central format, therefore, could not prove possession of the
status claimed. This clause is subject to the State Recognition
Rule set out hereinbelow.
(d) Rule A: the Pending Application Rule - A candidate who, on
or before the cut-off date, made a complete application to the
competent authority for a certificate, through the channel
prescribed by the State, and to whom the certificate was issued
later on that very application, shall be treated as having held it
on the cut-off date. Having done all that was required of him
before the cut-off date, such a candidate cannot be made to
bear the time taken by the State machinery [ Sakshi Arha
(supra) ; Subhash Chand (supra) ]. This rule is not confined to
certificates of a reserved category status. It shall apply with
equal force to a certificate of experience, or a certificate of
disability, which a candidate applied for to the employer or the
authority competent to issue it on or before the cut-off date, but
which came to be issued to him thereafter for reasons not
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 60
attributable to any delay on his part. Such a candidate shall
likewise be treated as having held the certificate on the cut-off
date.
The stand of the State recorded in Sheetal (supra) ,
and Clause 12.23 of Advertisement No.05/2024, which requires
a candidate to produce both the old and the renewed document
at the time of scrutiny, rest upon the same principle. The
SARAL application number with its date, from the record of
the portal, shall be sufficient proof of such application. In the
case of a certificate of experience or disability, or any other
certificate not applied for through the SARAL portal, the
application shall be shown from the record of the employer or
the issuing authority, such as the date of its receipt, its diary or
dispatch number, or the registration number generated by the
portal through which it was made. A bare affidavit or a general
plea of a glitch in the portal shall not suffice in place of such
record. The certificate so issued must be produced at the stage
of scrutiny of documents, and must relate to the period which
covers the cut-off date. This rule shall not apply where the
application was rejected, or was returned for a deficiency
which the candidate cured only after the cut-off date, or where
the delay in issuance is attributable to the candidate himself,
such as his failure to appear before the Medical Board or to
furnish the particulars sought by the issuing authority.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 61
(e) Rule B: the State Recognition Rule - Where the State, by a
conscious decision, recognizes a class of certificates as valid
proof of a status for the relevant period, a certificate of that
class shall prove possession for that period, and sub-clause (c)
shall not defeat it. Every similarly situated candidate shall be
treated alike in this regard, unless a real and pertinent
differentia is shown.
(f) If possession is not shown at this stage, the defect goes to the
root, and the claim to which that eligibility relates fails. Its
consequence is governed by Stage Four discussed hereinafter.
Stage Two: Is the claim free from any bar?
(a) Where possession is shown , the defect is curable unless :
(i) The claim to the benefit was never made in the
application form, as distinct from a claim made with
defective proof. A candidate who consciously opted
for one category cannot, after participating in the
selection process on that basis, seek conversion of
his candidature to another [ J&K Public Service
Commission v. Israr Ahmed, (2005) 12 SCC 498;
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur v. Neetu Harsh,
2019 SCC OnLine SC 1119 ]. However, this bar shall
not apply where the claim could not be made owing
to the default of the State itself [ Subhash Chand
(supra) ]; or
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 62
(ii) The candidate has made a misrepresentation or
has practiced fraud.
(b) Where the genuineness of a document, or the status itself, is
disputed, the competent authority shall decide that dispute after
affording the candidate an opportunity of hearing, and the test
shall be applied on the basis of that decision.
Stage Three, Forfeiture: Did the candidate let an effective
opportunity to cure the defect pass?
(a) Effective opportunity - An opportunity is effective only if it
was publicized, was given before the claim was acted upon ,
and was capable of revealing that very defect to the candidate.
A printout of the application form showing the typed
particulars is effective against a typed error, such as a wrong
category. It is not effective against a wrong or missing
attachment, which the printout does not show. Further, a
recruiting agency which held the power to call for documents
in support of those already uploaded, and which instead
scrutinized the uploaded documents without any intimation to
the candidate, cannot be said to have given an effective
opportunity.
(b) Acted upon - A claim is acted upon when the recruiting agency
draws up a result or merit list on its basis.
(c) Where an effective opportunity was given and not availed, and
the defect was raised only after the claim was acted upon, relief
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 63
shall be declined. However, a trivial error which played no
part in the selection may still be cured, where the candidate
shows circumstances, such as dependence upon a cyber cafe or
the absence of any facility for correction, which explain why
the opportunity was not availed [ Vashist Narayan Kumar
(supra) ; Sarla (supra) ; Pardeep Kumar (supra) ].
(d) There is no forfeiture where the defect was raised before the
claim was acted upon, or where the recruiting agency itself
treated the candidate in the correct category.
(e) Where no effective opportunity was given at all, there is no
forfeiture, and the candidate shall be permitted to produce
proof of the eligibility which he possessed on the cut-off date.
(f) Promptness - In every case, the candidate must move promptly
once he learns of the defect, whether through an intimation by
the recruiting agency or, where none was given, through the
declaration of the result. Time runs from that date, since it was
the recruiting agency which chose when to scrutinise the
documents. An unexplained delay thereafter shall defeat relief.
Stage Four, Consequence: What follows?
(a) Where possession is shown, no bar applies and there is no
forfeiture, the defect shall be cured, and the candidate shall be
considered in the category claimed, upon verification of the
document from the issuing authority or the official record.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 64
(b) Where the claim to a reserved status fails under this test, only
that claim fails. The candidate shall be considered in the
unreserved category on the basis of his merit, subject to his
fulfilling the eligibility conditions prescribed for that category,
unless the governing rules or the advertisement expressly bar
such consideration [ Pardeep Kumar (supra) , order dated
25.05.2026 in RA-LP-16-2026; Rohit Soni (supra) ].
(c) Where the eligibility for the post itself is not shown, the
candidature fails.
The Residuary Principle
This test structures, and does not exhaust, the inquiry. A
circumstance not foreseen by it shall be weighed on the principles from
which it is drawn, namely, that eligibility is fixed on the cut-off date,
that proof is the handmaid of eligibility, and a diligent candidate who
was in fact eligible shall not lose the benefit of his merit for a lapse in
procedure.
V. Equal Treatment: The Cabinet Decision of 18.05.2026 and Article
14 of the Constitution of India
11. The Council of Ministers, in its meeting held on 18.05.2026
(Mark ‘Y’ in CWP-30971-2024 ), considered the rejection of the
candidature of candidates possessing BC-A and BC-B (Non-Creamy
Layer) certificates issued during the year 2024-25 in terms of the
Haryana Government notification dated 17.11.2021. The decision was
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 65
conveyed to the Secretary, HPSC, vide letter dated 25.05.2026 of the
Chief Secretary, Haryana, the operative part of which reads as under:-
“ 2. It is intimated that the Council of Ministers, in its
meeting held on 18.05.2026, considered the issue
regarding the rejection of the candidature of candidates
possessing BC-A/BC-B (Non Creamy Layer) category
certificates issued during the year 2024-2025, but prior to
the date of advertisement i.e. 23.07.2024, and
decided/approved that the BC-A/BC-B (Non Creamy
Layer) category certificates issued during the year 2024-
2025, in accordance with the notification dated
17.11.2021, be considered as valid for all intents and
purposes .
3. Therefore, it is requested that further necessary action
may kindly be taken to ensure the timely implementation of
the decision of the Council of Ministers (CMM), and the
Government may also be apprised of the action taken in
this regard.”
(Emphasis added)
11.1. This Court is of the considered view that the respondent-
HPSC is bound to give effect to the aforesaid Cabinet decision. The
decision changes no eligibility criterion since non-creamy layer status
for the year 2024-25 remains the requirement; rather, it merely
recognizes a certificate of that very year as proof of the status. The
Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash
Pathak (supra) has categorically held that the eligibility criteria notified
at the commencement of a recruitment cannot be altered midway, unless
the rules or the advertisement so permit, and even a permissible change
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 66
must satisfy Article 14. Matters of procedure, however, stand on a
different footing. A recruiting body may devise its own procedure for
taking the recruitment to its logical end, so long as that procedure is
transparent, non-arbitrary and rationally connected to its object, and
where the rules are silent, administrative instructions may fill the gap.
Speaking through Justice Manoj Misra, the following observations were
made:-
“ 42. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following
terms:
(...)
(2) Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List,
notified at the commencement of the recruitment process,
cannot be changed midway through the recruitment
process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the
advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules,
so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the
extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have
to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution
and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness;
(...)
(4) Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may
devise appropriate procedure for bringing the
recruitment process to its logical end provided the
procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory/
non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought
to be achieved.
(5) Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the
recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility.
However, where the Rules are non-existent, or silent,
administrative instructions may fill in the gaps ;
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 67
(6) Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right
to appointment. (...)”
(Emphasis added)
11.2. Furthermore, what document shall evidence a reserved
status is a matter of the reservation policy of the State. The
independence of the respondent-HPSC under Article 315 of the
Constitution of India concerns the conduct of the selection, and not the
framing of that policy.
11.3 . Moreover, this Court is of the view that the benefits flowing
from the Cabinet decision dated 18.05.2026 cannot be confined to the
advertisement dated 23.07.2024 issued by the respondent-HPSC. It is
trite law that State action must be based on valid relevant principles
applicable alike to all who are similarly situated, and it must not be
guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that
would be denial of equality. Where an act is arbitrary and it affects any
matter relating to public employment, it is implicit in it that it is against
the principles of fairness and equal treatment and is therefore violative
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. A two-Judge Bench of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. M. Vijayakumar, 2026
INSC 352 , while referring to State of Punjab and others v. Davinder
Singh and others, (2025) 1 SCC 1 and Ajay Hasia and others v. Khalid
Mujib Sehravardi and others, (1981) 1 SCC 722 , speaking through
Justice Manoj Misra, has opined as follows:-
“ 22. Article 14 of the Constitution forbids class legislation
but permits reasonable classification which must satisfy
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 68
twin tests: (1) that the classification must be founded on an
intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are
grouped together from others, and (2) that differentia must
have rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved
by the Act - The differentia which is the basis of the
classification and the object of the Act are distinct things
and what is necessary is that there must be a nexus
between the two. (13) Legislative and executive action may
accordingly be sustained if it satisfies the twin tests of
reasonable classification and the rational principle
correlated to the object sought to be achieved. The burden
of proof lies on the State to affirmatively establish that
these twin tests have been satisfied. The State must
therefore not only establish the rational principle on which
classification is founded but correlate it to the objects
sought to be achieved (14). Besides, equality is a dynamic
concept with many aspects and dimensions, and it cannot
be cribbed, cabined and confined within traditional and
doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of view,
equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and
arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of
law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice
of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is
implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political
logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of
Article 14, and if it affects any matter relating to public
employment, it is also violative of Article 16. Articles 14
and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure
fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State
action must be based on valid relevant principles
applicable alike to all similar situate and it must not be
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 69
guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations
because that would be denial of equality.
xxx xxx xxx
24. In State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davinder Singh & Ors,
(2025) 1 SCC 1, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J. (as His
Lordship then was), while explaining the contours of
Article 14, wrote: “85. The Constitution permits valid
classification if two conditions are fulfilled. First, there
must be an intelligible differentia which distinguishes
persons grouped together from others left out of the group.
The phrase “intelligible differentia” means difference
capable of being understood. The difference is capable of
being understood when there is a yardstick to
differentiate the class included and others excluded from
the group. In the absence of the yardstick, the
differentiation would be without a basis and hence,
unreasonable. The basis of classification must be
deducible from the provisions of the statute; surrounding
circumstances or matters of common knowledge. In making
the classification, the State is free to recognize degrees of
harm. Though the classification need not be mathematical
in precision, there must be some difference between the
persons grouped and the persons left out, and the
difference must be real and pertinent. The classification is
unreasonable if there is little or no difference. Second, the
differentia must have a rational relation to the object
sought to be achieved by the law, that is, the basis of
classification must have a nexus with the object of the
classification.””
(Emphasis added)
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 70
11.4. The Haryana Government notification dated 16.07.2024,
which had superseded the earlier notification dated 17.11.2021,
governed every advertisement issued thereafter, including
Advertisement No.05/2024 dated 09.08.2024 issued by the respondent-
HSSC. A candidate holding a non-creamy layer certificate of the year
2024-25, issued under the earlier notification dated 17.11.2021 on or
before the cut-off date of the advertisement concerned, stands in the
same position whether that advertisement is dated 23.07.2024 or
09.08.2024, and whether the recruiting agency is HPSC or HSSC. This
Court had also noticed, in the order dated 01.09.2026 in CWP-30971-
2024 (Smt. Usha) , the absence of a uniform and coherent policy in this
regard.
11.5. A benefit which the State has chosen to confer cannot,
consistently with Article 14 of the Constitution of India, be withheld
from those who stand in the same position. The Cabinet decision dated
18.05.2026 shall, therefore, apply to every candidate, in any recruitment
conducted by the respondent-HPSC or the respondent-HSSC to which
the notification dated 16.07.2024 was applied, who held a BC-A or
BC-B (Non-Creamy Layer) certificate of the relevant financial year,
issued under the notification dated 17.11.2021 before the cut-off date of
the advertisement concerned.
11.6. In light of the above discussion, this Court concludes that
the respondent-HPSC is bound to give effect to the Cabinet decision
dated 18.05.2026, that its confinement to certain recruitments rests on
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 71
no real and pertinent differentia, and it shall apply to every similarly
situated candidate in recruitments conducted by the respondent-HPSC
and the respondent-HSSC.
VI. The Test Applied to the present cases
12. The petitions in this bunch broadly present the following
kinds of defects, each defined by what the candidate held on the cut-off
date and by the ground on which the candidature was rejected:
Type What the candidate
Grounds for rejection Illustrations
held on or before
the cut-off date
1 A reservation or
Another document was
Pradeep ( CWP-
residence certificate
uploaded in its place,
24359-2026 );
meeting every
i.e., an older certificate
Pradyumn Jangra
requirement of the
or the SARAL
( CWP-25359-
advertisement
acknowledgement slip,
2026 ); Vitesh
or the certificate in
Dhankhar ( CWP-
another format, or the
29621-2025 );
uploaded copy was
Meenu ( CWP-
illegible
24560-2026 )
2 The essential
Its document was not
Reeta ( CWP-
qualification
uploaded or was
25383-2026 );
(diploma, HTET,
uploaded only in part,
Kamaljeet and
Hindi up to Matric,
or another document
others ( CWP-
etc.)
was uploaded in its
26328-2026 );
place
Ravisha ( CWP-
25162-2026 );
Deepak ( CWP-
27943-2026 )
3 A BC-A (Non-
The option of ‘BC
Himanshi Kathri
Creamy Layer)
(Creamy Layer)’ was
( CWP-142-2025 )
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 72
certificate of the
selected in the form,
relevant year, which
though the category
was also uploaded
claimed was BC-A
4 An application for the
The certificate itself
Kavita ( CWP-
certificate, made on
was issued only after
28786-2026 )
SARAL before the
the cut-off date
cut-off date
5 A certificate of the
It was rejected for not
Prem Singh and
relevant financial
being issued under the
others ( CWP-
year (2024-25),
Haryana Government
33205-2024 )
issued under the
notification dated
earlier Haryana
16.07.2024
Government
notification dated
17.11.2021
6 No certificate of the
An outdated certificate
Anu Jogi ( CWP-
relevant financial
was uploaded, or a
29927-2024 ); Smt
year, and no proof
fresh one was obtained
Usha ( CWP-
showing that an
after the cut-off date
30971-2024 )
application for the
same was made
before the cut-off
date
7 No claim for any
The benefit of
Arun Kumar
reservation made, the
reservation was sought
( CWP-31674-
form having been
only at a belated stage
2018 )
filed in the General
category
Type 1: A valid certificate held, but not properly uploaded
a. The petitioner in CWP-24359-2026 ( Pradeep ) held a
BC-B certificate dated 21.08.2024, the particulars of which
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 73
he entered in his application form, but his earlier certificate
dated 18.03.2024 came to be uploaded.
b. The petitioner in CWP-25359-2026 ( Pradyumn Jangra )
applied for his BC-A certificate on the SARAL portal on
17.08.2024, and a certificate of that date was issued to him
in terms of the notification dated 16.07.2024. Since the
certificate could not be downloaded in time, he uploaded
only the SARAL acknowledgment.
c. The petitioner in CWP-29621-2025 ( Vitesh Dhankhar )
uploaded the EWS certificate issued in the format meant
for jobs under the Government of India. The certificate in
the Haryana format, issued on the same day, i.e.
16.04.2024, by the same Tehsildar and valid for the year
2024-25, was in his possession and was produced at the
time of document verification on 22.08.2025. He had
applied on 02.03.2025, in the window opened by
Corrigendum-II dated 24.02.2025 (Annexure P-2), and his
candidature was rejected vide letter dated 19.09.2025
(Annexure P-9), without any prior notice of the defect.
d. The petitioner in CWP-24560-2026 ( Meenu ) held an
EWS certificate dated 02.05.2024, valid for the year 2024-
25, but the uploaded copy was deemed illegible.
13. In each of the above-mentioned cases, the eligibility in
question is a period-bound status , and a valid certificate for the relevant
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 74
period was issued to the petitioner on or before the cut-off date, as is
borne out by the date and period stated on the certificate itself ( Stage
One ). The defect, therefore, lies only in the proof. Each petitioner
claimed the category concerned in the application form, and nothing on
record suggests any misrepresentation ( Stage Two ). In CWP-29621-
2025 ( Vitesh Dhankhar ) also, unlike in Mohit Kumar (supra) , the
certificate in the prescribed format was itself held on the cut-off date.
Since the particulars claimed by these petitioners were true and only
their proof was defective, Clause 13 of Advertisement No.05/2024 does
not defeat the candidature of the petitioners before HSSC [ General
Rules (d) ]. The respondent-HSSC, despite holding the power under
Clauses 9.5 and 10.1 of the advertisement to call for additional
documents, scrutinized the uploaded documents without any intimation
to the candidates. Similarly, HPSC rejected the candidature of the
petitioner in CWP-29621-2025 ( Vitesh Dhankhar ) without any prior
notice of the defect, even though he had produced the certificate in the
prescribed format at the time of document verification. No effective
opportunity to cure the defect was, thus, given to any of these
petitioners, and the plea that the cyber cafe operator acted as the agent
of the candidate does not advance the case of the respondents ( Stage
Three ). Moreover, the record does not show any undue delay or lack of
diligence on part of these candidates. Therefore, these petitioners are
entitled to relief, upon verification of the certificate from the official
record ( Stage Four ).
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 75
Type 2: The relevant qualification held, its documentary proof
being missing or wrong
a. The petitioner in CWP-25383-2026 ( Reeta ) qualified the
HTET (Level-1) held on 15.11.2015, the result whereof was
declared on 18.12.2015, but could not upload the certificate. All
the material particulars relating to the HTET qualification,
including the HTET Level, Roll Number, Registration Number,
Year of Passing, Date of Declaration of Result were filled in the
online application form.
b. The petitioners in CWP-26328-2026 ( Kamaljeet and others )
uploaded only the second-year marksheet of their diploma,
though both years had been passed before the cut-off date.
c. The petitioner in CWP-25162-2026 ( Ravisha ) uploaded her
Class XII marksheet, which does not show Hindi, under the head
meant for proof of Hindi, though she studied Hindi up to Matric
standard, as is borne out by her Matric certificate on record
(Annexure P-4 in CWP-25162-2026 ).
d. The petitioner in CWP-27943-2026 ( Deepak ) uploaded his
B.Ed. degree in the field meant for the HTET certificate, though
he had qualified the HTET held on 04.12.2022.
14. In the above-mentioned cases, each qualification is an
acquired qualification , possessed on the date on which its result was
declared, and date is a matter of record [ Priyanka (supra) ; Harpreet
Kaur (supra) ] ( Stage One ). No bar is attracted, since each qualification
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 76
was claimed in the application form and nothing suggests any
misrepresentation ( Stage Two ). As in the cases of Type 1 , the
advertisement of HSSC gave no effective opportunity to cure a missing
or wrong attachment, and the documents were scrutinized without any
intimation to the candidates ( Stage Three ). Therefore, these petitioners
are entitled to relief, upon verification that the qualification was
obtained on or before the cut-off date ( Stage Four ). Where the marks of
a candidate are equal to the cut-off, as in the case of the petitioner in
CWP-27943-2026 ( Deepak ), and there is a genuine tie between two or
more candidates, the tie shall be resolved under the relevant clauses of
the advertisement and in terms of the judgment of this Court in CWP-
21870-2025 , titled as ‘ Kavita and others v. State of Haryana and
others ’, once the defect is cured.
Type 3: The ‘BC (Creamy Layer)’ option selected within the
category claimed
15. The petitioner in CWP-142-2025 ( Himanshi Kathri )
selected ‘BC (A) (Creamy Layer)’ in her application form, though her
BC-A (Non-Creamy Layer) certificate dated 30.06.2024 was uploaded
along with it. Her eligibility, thus, stood established on the cut-off date
( Stage One ). She claimed the BC-A category in her form, and nothing
on record suggests any misrepresentation ( Stage Two ). Further, HPSC
itself placed her in the BC(A) category in the marks list of the interview,
and she represented on 03.12.2024, before the declaration of the final
result on 04.01.2025. The recruiting agency, thus, itself treated her in
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 77
the correct category, and there is no forfeiture ( Stage Three (d) ). Her
case is, therefore, distinguishable from that of Neha Dhiman in Pardeep
Kumar (supra) , who let the opportunity to correct the error pass, and
represented only after the result of the screening test had been declared.
Nor does her case involve any change of category. She claimed the BC-
A category in her application form and participated in the selection in
that category. The option of ‘BC (Creamy Layer)’ confers no benefit of
reservation at all, and the respondent-HPSC itself treated her as a BC-A
candidate. The rule laid down in Israr Ahmed (supra) and Neetu Harsh
(supra) is, therefore, not attracted. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled
to relief.
Type 4: An application made before the cut-off date, the certificate
obtained after the same.
16. The petitioner in CWP-28786-2026 ( Kavita ) applied for her
EWS certificate on the SARAL portal before the cut-off date, and
uploaded the acknowledgment thereof with her application form. The
certificate was issued to her on 22.08.2024. Her case, therefore, falls
squarely within the Pending Application Rule ( Stage One (d) ). The
plea of the respondents that there was no technical glitch in the SARAL
portal does not advance their case, since the rule does not turn upon any
glitch, but upon a complete application made before the cut-off date and
shown from the record of the portal. For the same reason, the
apprehension of a fresh round of litigation is misplaced, since the rule
benefits only a candidate who in fact applied before the cut-off date.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 78
Therefore, the respondents shall verify the record of the SARAL portal
and, if it shows that the application was made on or before the cut-off
date and the certificate was issued on that very application, shall treat
the certificate as having been held on the cut-off date. Otherwise, the
defect goes to the root ( Stage One (f) ).
Type 5: A certificate of the right year under the earlier Haryana
Government notification dated 17.11.2021
17. The petitioners in CWP-33205-2024 ( Prem Singh and
others ) hold BC-A certificates of the relevant financial year, issued
under the earlier notification dated 17.11.2021, and their candidature
was rejected on that ground alone. The State has, by the Cabinet
decision dated 18.05.2026, recognized such certificates as valid for all
intents and purposes. The prescribed format clause in the advertisement,
therefore, yields to the State Recognition Rule , and possession of the
status for the relevant period stands established ( Stage One (e) ).
Accordingly, these petitioners are entitled to relief upon verification that
the certificate was issued on or before the cut-off date, the respondent-
HPSC being bound by the Cabinet decision dated 18.05.2026 as
observed hereinabove.
Type 6: No valid certificate of the relevant year in possession before
the cut-off date.
18. The BC-A certificate uploaded by the petitioner in CWP-
29927-2024 ( Anu Jogi ) was dated 30.10.2022, and her fresh certificate
was issued on 24.10.2024, after the closing date of 14.08.2024. In her
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 79
affidavit dated 24.10.2024, she has disclosed the SARAL application
number on which the fresh certificate was sought, but not the date of
that application, and HPSC has rejected her candidature on the ground
that the certificate was issued after the closing date. The record before
this Court, therefore, does not show whether the application was made
before or after the cut-off date. In the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case, and in the interest of justice, the respondent-HPSC shall
verify the date of that application from the record of the SARAL portal.
If it is found that the application was made on or before the cut-off date,
and the certificate dated 24.10.2024 was issued on that very application,
her case shall fall within Type 4 and shall be decided under the Pending
Application Rule . Otherwise, the defect goes to the root ( Stage One
(f) ). The same course shall be followed by the respondents in every case
in which a candidate has furnished a SARAL application number for the
certificate in question.
19. The petitioner in CWP-30971-2024 ( Smt Usha ) applied
under Advertisement No.32 of 2024 with an EWS certificate dated
22.03.2024, which was valid only for the year 2023-24. Upon the notice
of provisional rejection dated 08.11.2024, she applied for a fresh EWS
certificate, which was issued on 13.11.2024. Admittedly, the application
for the fresh certificate itself was made only after the notice of
provisional rejection, i.e. well after the closing date of 14.08.2024.
Neither a certificate of the relevant year nor an application for one
existed on the cut-off date. The defect, therefore, goes to the root ( Stage
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 80
One (f) ), and the Pending Application Rule has no application in such
cases. The claim of the petitioner to the EWS category, therefore, fails.
Her candidature in the General category shall, however, be governed by
Stage Four (b) of the test and by direction (d) hereinafter.
Type 7: No claim for any reservation made, the form having been
filed in the General category
20. The petitioner in CWP-31674-2018 ( Arun Kumar ) applied
in the General category under Advertisement No.4/2015 issued by
HSSC, and made no claim in his application form to the benefit meant
for dependants of ex-servicemen. His certificate as such a dependant
was issued in the year 2017, after the closing date of 21.09.2015. The
status of a dependant of an ex-serviceman is a settled status , and a
certificate thereof issued later would not, by itself, defeat a claim duly
made [ Sumit (supra) ]. The petitioner, however, pleads inadvertence,
with a bare assertion of earlier attempts to obtain the certificate, but
without any application number or date. The material on record does not
show any default on the part of the State which prevented him from
making the claim. Since the claim was never made in the application
form, the bar under Stage Two (a)(i) squarely applies. Further, the
petitioner approached this Court only in the year 2018, about three years
after the closing date ( Stage Three (f) ). Therefore, this Court is of the
considered view that the petitioner in CWP-31674-2018 is not entitled
to relief.
20.1. It is trite law that the category under which a candidate
applies is not a mere procedural formality, since it bears directly upon
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 81
the number of posts available in each category, the applicable cut-off,
the zone of consideration and the inter se merit of the candidates. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Israr Ahmed (supra) and Neetu Harsh
(supra) has held that a candidate who consciously opts for a particular
category, and participates in the selection process on that basis, is bound
by the option so exercised. Such a candidate cannot be permitted to
resile from it after the process has progressed or culminated, so as to
claim a more beneficial category. The case of the petitioner in CWP-
31674-2018 (Arun Kumar) is squarely covered by the aforesaid
principle. However, this principle must be distinguished from the cases
falling under Types 1 to 5 discussed hereinabove. In those cases, the
candidates claimed the very category or qualification in their application
forms and participated in the selection process on that basis, and only
the proof of that claim was defective. Curing such a defect does not alter
the category of the candidature, and therefore does not offend the rule
laid down in Israr Ahmed (supra) and Neetu Harsh (supra) .
21. Lastly, the petitioners in CWP-21745-2026 ( Mamta Rani )
and CWP-25718-2026 ( Seema and others ) , who are placed below the
candidates whose posts were kept on hold, seek their exclusion. A
candidate in a merit list or a waiting list has no indefeasible right to
appointment, though such a candidate has a right to fair consideration,
as this Court held in CWP-14196-2025 , titled as ‘ Ujjawal Kumar v.
Haryana Staff Selection Commission and another ’, decided on
17.03.2026, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 82
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 . Accordingly,
their claim to the exclusion of candidates found eligible under the test
cannot be entertained. Their consideration on merit against any post that
remains is, however, unaffected.
VII. Recruitments in the Digital Age
22. Public employment, being a facet of the guarantee of
equality of opportunity under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India, is to be offered to the most meritorious among those who are
eligible, and every stage of a recruitment, including the scrutiny of
documents, exists only to serve that end. The scrutiny of documents is
intended to verify whether a candidate who has proved his merit in the
examination does in fact possess the eligibility which he has claimed,
and it is neither meant to be a digital competence assessment which tests
the skill of a candidate in uploading documents on a portal, nor a sieve
designed to reduce the number of claimants to a post. Where a defect
found at the stage of scrutiny can never be put right, even though the
eligibility itself is borne out by official record, scrutiny ceases to
perform its function of verification and is reduced to a mechanical filter,
which excludes meritorious candidates for reasons having no bearing
whatsoever on their fitness for the post. It is, therefore, expected of
every recruiting agency of the State that its scrutiny is directed towards
discovering the truth of a candidate's eligibility, and not towards finding
a ground for its rejection.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 83
23. The record of the present bunch of cases, however, reveals
an approach which falls well short of that expectation. Candidates who
had cleared the written examination with marks above the cut-off, and
whose eligibility stood established by certificates and relates to a date
prior to the cut-off date, were excluded without any intimation of the
defect, the scrutiny having been confined to the documents uploaded,
even though the terms of the very advertisement empowered the
respondent-HSSC to call for additional documents in support of those
already uploaded. Most of them came to know of their exclusion only
upon the declaration of the final result, when nothing could be done
within the process itself. The respondent-HSSC has itself stated in its
reply that a number of reserved category candidates who had secured
marks above the cut-off were not recommended for the same reason,
and has advanced that circumstance, not as a cause for concern, but as a
ground to resist relief. The respondent-HPSC, similarly, continued to
resist the claims of candidates holding certificates of the relevant year,
even after the Council of Ministers had decided, and the Chief Secretary
had conveyed to it on 25.05.2026, that such certificates be considered
valid for all intents and purposes.
24. The Division Bench of this Court in Divya Kalia (supra)
had occasion to deprecate a similar approach. It was observed that
reservation certificates are issued by the concerned authorities, over
whom a candidate has no control, that it is often cumbersome for a
candidate to obtain a certificate in the exact prescribed form, and a
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 84
technical irregularity in such a certificate cannot be permitted to
obliterate the merit or even the basic eligibility of a candidate, since the
law must remain a handmaiden of justice and not become an instrument
of oppression or procedural entanglement. The Division Bench
described the refuge sought by HPSC in the clauses of its advertisement
as a subterfuge, and further observed that the State and its
instrumentalities, being the largest litigant and the custodian of a
Welfare State, are obliged to distinguish between a baseless and a
legitimate claim, to resist the temptation to oppose every claim
indiscriminately, and to remember that, unlike a private litigant whose
sole object is a favourable judgment, the State bears a higher
responsibility to ensure that justice is done. Finding that HPSC had
pursued that litigation in a totally mechanical and indifferent manner,
burdening an already overburdened system with an unwarranted
dispute, the Division Bench saddled it with costs. It is unfortunate that
the respondent-Commissions do not appear to have taken these
observations to heart. A recruiting agency of the State which defends the
exclusion of a candidate whose eligibility is not in doubt, merely
because a document came to be uploaded in the wrong field or in an
illegible copy, does not serve the cause of merit, and such conduct
deserves to be deprecated.
25. The digitization of recruitment is, undoubtedly, a welcome
step, since it simplifies the process and eases the burden upon the
candidates and the recruiting agencies alike. However, digitization must
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 85
be matched by the means to use it, and a process which is efficient for
the agency but unforgiving for the candidate does not answer the
constitutional promise of equality of opportunity. As noticed
hereinabove, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the digital
divide which separates a large section of aspirants, many of whom
depend upon cyber cafes and Common Service Centres to apply. This
Court had also noted, in the order dated 01.09.2026 passed in CWP-
30971-2024 ( Smt Usha ) , that correction portals are opened by the State
recruiting agencies only occasionally and without any uniform or
consistent scheme, that denying public employment to otherwise
meritorious candidates on account of deficiencies in documentation,
without affording them an opportunity to rectify them, appears to be
rather inequitable, and denying consideration to a citizen merely
because he lacks the resources to navigate the digital ecosystem falls
foul of the guarantee embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the State to ensure that its
recruitment portals are designed with the candidate in mind, that the
defects which such portals invariably generate are capable of being
cured, and no candidate is denied consideration merely for want of the
means to navigate them.
26. As recorded in the affidavit dated 14.09.2026 in CWP-
30971-2024 ( Smt Usha ) , the State has taken certain positive steps by
way of the policy decision dated 11.09.2026. The option of ‘BC
(Creamy Layer)’ is to be removed from the drop-down menus; a
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 86
uniform correction window of three days is to be provided; and
certificates issued on or before the cut-off date alone are to be accepted.
However, the aforesaid policy decisions operate only prospectively and
a window of three days may not suffice for candidates who depend upon
cyber cafes and the SARAL portal. Furthermore, the correction window
closes before the document scrutiny stage, and the defects found at the
stage of scrutiny remain without remedy. Moreover, the policy is silent
on candidates who hold the right certificate but uploaded another, and
on applications pending on the SARAL portal on the cut-off date.
27. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court deems it
appropriate to set out the following guidelines, which shall govern all
future recruitments conducted by the State of Haryana and its recruiting
agencies, and which shall be incorporated in the policy to be framed in
terms of the directions issued hereinafter:
a) Since not all defects in the application form are visible to the
candidate on printout of the form, a window for correction
after the closing date of the advertisement must be provided
that covers the uploaded documents as well as the particulars
of the application form. This correction window must be long
enough for candidates who depend upon cyber cafes and the
SARAL portal.
b) Recruiting agencies must provide a notice of provisional
rejection at the stage of document scrutiny, stating the defect
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 87
and allowing reasonable time of not less than seven days to
respond.
c) No candidature shall be rejected for non-upload of a
certificate without first verifying it online from the SARAL
portal or from the Family Information Data Repository,
wherever the candidate has furnished the certificate number or
the Parivar Pehchan Number in the application form, as the
State already holds these records of its residents. Likewise,
where a candidate has, on or before the closing date, applied
for a certificate of reservation, experience or disability, but
has not received it, the application form shall permit him to
upload proof of such application, and the certificate, when
issued, shall be accepted at the stage of scrutiny in terms of
the Pending Application Rule stated hereinabove.
d) In most cases, the printout of the application form shows only
the typed particulars. The final printout must, therefore, list
every uploaded document by its title, so that a wrong or
missing attachment becomes visible to the candidate before
the final submission of the form.
e) Every advertisement must specify, in clear terms, the financial
year to which each certificate must relate, the date on or
before which it must be issued, and the format in which it is to
be furnished, the absence of such clarity having been a
recurring source of litigation.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 88
f) HPSC and HSSC must follow one uniform and published
policy in these matters, and any departure therefrom in a
particular recruitment must be supported by reasons recorded
in writing, for candidates in recruitments conducted by two
agencies of the same State cannot be subjected to different
yardsticks.
g) An option which confers no benefit upon the candidate serves
only to mislead him. Accordingly, no such option, including
the option of “BC (Creamy Layer)”, shall be offered in the
drop-down menus of the application forms.
CONCLUSION
28. Consequently, the questions framed above are answered in
the following terms:
A. A candidate who possessed the eligibility on the cut-off
date cannot be excluded for a defect in the application
form or in the uploaded documents, unless a bar under
Stage Two of the test applies, or the candidate let an
effective opportunity to cure the defect pass or failed to
move promptly under Stage Three. Whether such a defect
is curable, and what follows where it is not, is governed
by the Root of Eligibility Test laid down hereinabove.
B. A candidate who, on or before the cut-off date, made a
complete application for a certificate to the competent
authority through the channel prescribed by the State,
and to whom it was issued later on that very application,
shall be treated as having possessed it on the cut-off date,
upon proof being furnished in terms of the Pending
Application Rule.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 89
C. The respondent-HPSC is bound to give effect to the
decision of the Council of Ministers dated 18.05.2026. Its
confinement to certain recruitments rests on no real
differentia and cannot stand with Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Furthermore, the aforesaid
decision shall apply to every similarly situated candidate,
holding such a certificate issued on or before the cut-off
date, in recruitments conducted by the respondent-HPSC
and the respondent-HSSC, as stated hereinabove.
29. In view of the foregoing, all the above-mentioned writ
petitions are disposed of in the following terms:
a) The respondents/competent authorities shall consider the
candidature of each petitioner in terms of the Root of
Eligibility Test laid down hereinabove, and the findings
recorded in paragraphs 13 to 21 with regard to the Type
into which his/her case falls. Each petitioner shall be
afforded an opportunity to produce the documents which
existed on or before the cut-off date, and such documents
shall be verified from the issuing authority or the official
record. A reasoned and speaking order shall be passed
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of
a certified copy of this order. Where the status itself is
disputed, the competent authority shall decide that
dispute, after hearing the candidate, within the same
period.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 90
b) In the case of a petitioner who applied for a certificate,
including a certificate of experience or disability, on or
before the cut-off date, and to whom it was issued
thereafter, the record of the SARAL portal or, as the case
may be, of the employer or the issuing authority shall be
verified, and the claim shall be decided in terms of the
Pending Application Rule, provided the delay in its
issuance was not attributable to such petitioner.
c) The respondent-Haryana Public Service Commission and
the respondent-Haryana Staff Selection Commission
shall give effect to the decision of the Council of
Ministers dated 18.05.2026, conveyed vide letter dated
25.05.2026, in the recruitments conducted by them, in
terms of paragraph 11.5 hereinabove, within the period
stipulated in direction (a).
d) Where the claim of a petitioner to a reserved category
fails under the test, the candidature of such petitioner
shall be considered in the General/Unreserved category
on the basis of merit, in terms of Stage Four (b) of the
test. Insofar as the petitioners who have availed any
relaxation or concession in fee, age or eligibility
qualifications are concerned, the respondents/competent
authorities shall consider their candidature strictly in
terms of the governing Recruitment Rules and the
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 91
advertisement. Accordingly, if the said Rules or the
advertisement expressly bar a candidate who has availed
any such relaxation or concession from being considered
against the General/Unreserved category, the candidature
of such petitioner shall be considered only in the category
under which he applied. In the absence of any such
express prohibition, the mere availing of a relaxation or
concession, including a concession in fee, shall not by
itself bar the consideration of such petitioner against the
General/Unreserved category, subject to his fulfilling the
essential eligibility conditions prescribed for the post. In
case the respondents/competent authorities decline to
consider any petitioner against the General/Unreserved
category, a reasoned and speaking order to that effect
shall be passed within the period stipulated in
direction (a).
e) The petitioners, if found eligible and meritorious, shall be
offered appointment against the available vacancies,
including the posts kept on hold on account of the
pendency of these petitions, and, in the event of any
deficiency, by creating supernumerary posts. They shall
be granted consequential notional benefits, including
seniority, from the date on which candidates with lesser
marks, selected in the category concerned, were
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 92
appointed. However, actual monetary benefits shall be
given to the petitioners only from the date of their actual
joining. The respondents/competent authorities are
directed to complete the aforesaid exercise within a
further period of three weeks.
f) It is, however, clarified that the candidates who were
originally selected and appointed, and have been working
continuously since then, shall not be removed from
service. This Court is of the considered view that
unseating them at this stage would be contrary to public
interest, as they have gained considerable experience in
the meantime. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Sandeep Choudhary, 2022(2)
SCT 657 and of the Constitution Bench in Sivanandan
C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, 2024(3) SCC 799.
g) The Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana shall
frame a policy, within a period of three months, binding
upon HPSC and HSSC in all future recruitments, which
shall incorporate each of the points (a) to (g) in para 27
hereinabove. An affidavit indicating compliance with this
direction shall be filed before this Court within the same
period of three months. At the cost of repetition, this
Court deems it necessary to point out that a large part of
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 93
the litigation in matters of recruitment arises from
disputes regarding the validity or proof of certificates.
Therefore, in order to avoid such multiplicity of litigation
in future, the respondents/competent authorities shall not
reject the candidature of any candidate for non-upload of
a certificate without first verifying it online from the
SARAL portal or the Family Information Data
Repository, wherever the candidate has furnished the
certificate number or the Parivar Pehchan Number in the
application form, since the State already holds these
records of its residents. The policy to be framed in terms
of this direction shall specifically provide for such
verification.
h) In case any grievance of a petitioner, other than one
relating to the selection process, which was specifically
raised in his/her petition and has not been dealt with in
the present order, still survives, such petitioner shall be at
liberty to submit an appropriate representation in respect
thereof before the respondents/competent authority,
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order. Such representation shall be
confined strictly to the grievance so raised. No
representation shall be entertained on any fresh ground,
or on any ground which has been considered and decided
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21

CWP-24359-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 94
herein, so as to assail the selection process or the
candidature of any candidate, since all such issues stand
concluded by the present order. Upon receipt of such
representation, the respondents/competent authority shall
consider the same and decide it by passing a reasoned
and speaking order, within a period of four weeks from
the date of its receipt.
30. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
31. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of the
connected cases.
32. The Registry is directed to supply a copy of this order to
learned State Counsel for necessary information and due compliance.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
05.11.2026
yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 18:21