Khetpal vs State Of Haryana And Anr
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
-1-
CWP-1732-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
253
CWP-1732-2024
Date of Decision: 28.10.2026
Khetpal .....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another …..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present : Mr. Sunil K. Nehra Sirsa, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Addl. AG, Haryana.
*
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction,
especially a writ in the nature of Certiorari , for quashing the impugned order dated
02.08.2023 (Annexure P-11), the Final Result dated 31.01.2023 (Annexure P-3), to
the extent that the petitioner has not been selected, and the Detailed Result dated
07.02.2023 (Annexure P-8), vide which the petitioner has been declared “Not
Eligible”, being illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. The petitioner further seeks
issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus , directing the respondents to appoint
him to the post of Store Keeper in the Skill Development and Industrial Training
Department, along with all consequential benefits, as he is fully eligible and has
secured more marks than the last selected candidate in the Scheduled Caste
Category, for which the cut-off is 47 marks, whereas five posts of Store Keeper are
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.03 10:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
-2-
CWP-1732-2024
lying vacant. A further prayer has been made for issuance of directions to the
respondents to reserve one post of Store Keeper during the pendency of the present
writ petition.
CONTENTIONS
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia , contends that the
petitioner participated in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated
20.07.2019 (Annexure P-13) issued for the post of Store Keeper under the
Scheduled Caste Category. The petitioner submitted his online application form,
duly declaring his credentials, and appeared in the written examination held on
20.02.2020. On the basis of his performance in the written examination, he was
called for scrutiny of documents. However, upon declaration of the final result, the
petitioner was not included amongst the selected candidates, as is discernible from
Annexure P-3. The petitioner was declared ineligible on the ground that he had
submitted his B.Com. degree/Detailed Marks Card (DMC), dated 19.06.2014,
whereas the experience certificate submitted by him pertained to a period prior to
the issuance thereof. The experience certificate dated 10.01.2017 (Annexure P-6)
was rejected on the ground that the experience claimed by the petitioner had been
acquired prior to the issuance of his B.Com. DMC on 18.06.2014.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, refers to Annexure P-14,
i.e. the certificate issued by Kurukshetra University, and submits that the petitioner
had passed his B.Com. Part-III examination in October 2011 under Roll No. 50704,
and the result was declared on 06.01.2012, with the petitioner securing 1017 marks
out of 1800 marks. Thus, for all intents and purposes, the petitioner had acquired
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.03 10:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
-3-
CWP-1732-2024
the requisite educational qualification on 06.01.2012, and the experience claimed
by him is liable to be considered accordingly.
4. It is further submitted that the DMC for the third year was issued after
the petitioner detected an error in the marks recorded therein. In this regard, learned
counsel submits that the petitioner appeared in the B.Com. Part-I examination in
April 2009 and initially secured 328 marks. Upon re-evaluation, his marks were
increased to 341, and the DMC was issued on 11.02.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner
cleared his B.Com. Part-II examination in April 2010, securing 358 marks, and the
DMC was issued on 08.09.2010. Subsequently, the petitioner appeared in and
passed his B.Com. final-year examination in October 2011, securing 331 marks,
and the result was declared in January 2012. The DMC for the third year was issued
on 13.01.2012. However, the said DMC incorrectly reflected his aggregate marks
in B.Com. Part-I and Part-II as 686 instead of 699, thereby resulting in a reduction
in the total marks. Upon detecting the said mistake, the petitioner applied for
correction of the DMC, whereupon the corrected DMC, reflecting the accurate
marks, was issued on 19.06.2014.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the
objection raised by the respondents is wholly untenable and that the petitioner's
claim deserves to be considered in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Haryana Staff Selection Commission v. Priyanka and others,
Civil Appeal Nos. 5065–5095 of 2021 , decided on 01.09.2021, wherein it was held
that the University's record evidencing acquisition of the requisite qualification
before the cut-off date could be relied upon, even if the formal result was declared
subsequently. Learned counsel further relies upon the judgment passed by the
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.03 10:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
-4-
CWP-1732-2024
Division Bench of this Court in Harpreet Kaur v. State of Haryana and others,
LPA-612-2023 , decided on 09.08.2024, wherein it was held that where a candidate
had acquired the requisite qualification by passing the examination, the subsequent
date of issuance of the degree/certificate would not, by itself, render the candidate
ineligible.
6. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the prayer made by
the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner himself had attached his B.Com.
final-year DMC dated 18.06.2014 along with his application. The respondents
considered the said document and, on that basis, found that the experience
mentioned in the experience certificate had been acquired prior to the issuance of
the DMC. It is further submitted that the clarification issued by Kurukshetra
University (Annexure P-14) was not produced by the petitioner at the time of
scrutiny of documents.
7. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no
clarification was ever sought from the petitioner and that he was straightaway
declared ineligible. No notice was issued to him, nor was any opportunity of
hearing afforded before taking the impugned decision.
OBSERVATIONS & ANALYSIS
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
record, it transpires that the petitioner had applied for the post of Store Keeper
pursuant to the advertisement (Annexure P-13). The controversy in the present case
revolves around the validity of the experience acquired by the petitioner prior to
the issuance of his corrected DMC.
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.03 10:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
-5-
CWP-1732-2024
9. This Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid controversy is
squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a two-judge Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Priyanka (supra) and the Division Bench of this Court in
Harpreet Kaur (supra) . The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows in
Priyanka (supra) :
“7. The short question which was raised before the High Court and
also before us is as to whether the provisional/confidential result
declared by the Universities would be a validly declared result or not.
The question has been considered by the High Court in detail and it
has been held in favour of the candidates. In our view also, as long as
the authenticity of the provisional/confidential result declared by the
Universities is not in doubt, which in the present case has been
confirmed by the Universities on the request made by the
appellant/commission, the view taken by the High Court is perfectly
justified. It cannot be said that the respondents were not qualified as
on the cut off date, which was 12.10.2015, as the
provisional/confidential result had been declared by the respective
Universities in favour of the candidates prior to the said date and the
applications were filed by the respondents well within time, along with
such provisional/confidential result. As such, to this extent, we are not
inclined to interfere with the order impugned in these appeals.”
10. Likewise, in Harpreet Kaur (supra) , the Division Bench observed as
follows in this regard:
“8. The question to be determined by this Court is as to whether the
date of passing of examination or the date of issuance of certificate is
required to be seen/taken into consideration for the purposes of
recruitment.
xx xx xx
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.03 10:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
-6-
CWP-1732-2024
12. A perusal of the certificate shows that the appellant passed B.Ed
examination in May, 2017. Since she did not deposit the requisite fee
because of the financial condition of the family and deposited the same
vide receipt dated 22.09.2022, the certificate of degree of B.Ed was
issued on 10.10.2022. Once it is certified in the degree of Bachelor
Education for two years course, that the appellant passed the
examination in May, 2017, the recruitment agencies who are
presumed to be consisting of members of experts, who read the
certificates in its correct perspective, rather than going into the date
of issuance of certificate, should consider the date of passing of the
examination. These are all procedural lapses/delays for which the
students/candidates/ aspirants for job should not suffer. Apart from
this, we have observed in other matters also, some time there is
lapse/delay on the part of certain educational institutions, in issuance
of marks sheet/degrees. Therefore, the recruitment agencies should
take into consideration the date and year of passing of the
examination and not the date of issuance of the certificate. It is further
clarified that if in any exceptional cases there is some doubt regarding
authenticity of the marks sheet/date of declaration of results, the
candidate should be issued appointment letter subject to the condition
of their being retained in the job as per the verification of the
educational qualification certificates with respect to the date and
authenticity of the document. It would reduce the unnecessary
litigation and would encourage all the meritorious candidates. The
recruitment agencies should be prudent enough to select the best
candidate by ignoring procedural lapse(s) in the documents.”
11. Adverting to the facts of the present case, a perusal of Annexure P-14
clearly indicates that the petitioner appeared in the B.Com. Part-III examination
held in October 2011 and that the result thereof was declared on 06.01.2012. The
record further indicates that the marks were subsequently revised on 17.06.2014 on
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.03 10:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
-7-
CWP-1732-2024
account of the re-evaluation of the petitioner's B.Com. Part-I examination, as
requested by him. Consequently, the corrected DMC was issued on 19.06.2014.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and the university record, it is evident
that the petitioner had passed the B.Com. examination in October 2011, with the
result being declared on 06.01.2012. The subsequent correction of his marks and
issuance of the corrected DMC would not, by itself, alter the date on which he
acquired the requisite educational qualification. Accordingly, any experience
acquired by the petitioner subsequent to 06.01.2012 is required to be considered by
the respondents as valid experience, in the light of the judgments rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka's case (supra) and by the Division Bench of
this Court in Harpreet Kaur's case (supra) .
CONCLUSION
13. In view of the admitted facts and the stand taken by learned counsel
allowed
for the parties, the present petition is in terms of the judgments rendered
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka's case (supra) and by the Division
Bench of this Court in Harpreet Kaur's case (supra) . The impugned order dated
02.08.2023 (Annexure P-11) is set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider
the candidature of the petitioner in the relevant category for the post in question, in
accordance with the aforesaid judgments, and to treat the experience acquired by
the petitioner subsequent to 06.01.2012 as valid experience, subject to fulfilment
of the other applicable eligibility conditions.
14. Respondent No. 2 shall, upon such reconsideration, consider the
petitioner for the post in question and pass appropriate orders regarding the
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.03 10:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
-8-
CWP-1732-2024
recommendation of his candidature, in accordance with law, within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
15. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found eligible in all respects and is
appointed pursuant to the aforesaid directions, he shall also be entitled to all
consequential and notional benefits admissible under the applicable service rules,
from the date of joining of his batchmates. However, he shall not be entitled to
actual salary for the period during which he did not discharge his duties, and salary
shall be payable from the date of his actual joining.
16. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
( HARPREET SINGH BRAR )
28.10.2026 JUDGE
parul verma
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.03 10:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment