Rahi vs State Of Haryana And Ors

1
CWP-29697-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

271
CWP-29697-2026
28.10.2026
Date of Decision:



Rahi
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR


Present: Mr. Mohit Jaggi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. R.S Budhwar, Addl. AG Haryana-State.

Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate for respondents No.2
and 3.




HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral)
1. On the last date of hearing i.e. 11.09.2026, the following order
was passed by this Court:-
“Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the
nature of certiorari, for quashing the decision/action of the
respondents whereby the petitioner, a person with benchmark
disability (PWBD) candidate, after having successfully cleared
the written examination and having been called for interview,
has been declared "Not Found Suitable" by the interview
committee without any basis especially when there are no cut
off marks prescribed in the Advertisement No.01/2024
(Annexure P6). Further a writ of mandamus has been sought,
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.10.31 11:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2
CWP-29697-2026

directing the respondents to produce the complete selection
record including the marks awarded to the petitioner and all
other candidates in the written examination, academic
qualifications, domain knowledge test and interview and,
thereafter, to re-cast or re-determine the merit in accordance
with the criteria prescribed in the recruitment advertisement
and law. Further prayer has been made to direct the
respondent/University to consider or appoint the petitioner
against the reserved post of Junior Programmer under PwD
(Persons with Disability) category with all consequential
benefits. Lastly, it has been prayed that the respondents be
restrained from making or giving effect to any appointment
against the PwD (Persons with Disability) category post of
Junior Programmer on the basis of the impugned selection
process during the pendency of the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends
that reservation to a person with benchmark disability (PwD)
has been granted under the Act of Parliament i.e. Right of
Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016. He submits that
the respondents has advertised the posts by keeping one post
reserved for PwD category. In the advertisement, there was no
stipulation regarding minimum qualifying marks either for
Domain Knowledge Test or Interview. The petitioner appeared
in the Domain Knowledge Test and Interview on 03.07.2026,
however, the respondents have failed to fill the post offered
under the PwD category by declaring that ‘None Found
Suitable’ for the post, in question. The petitioner has secured
41 marks out of 100, which is maximum in his respective
category i.e. PwD category.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana who is
present in the Court accepts notice on behalf of respondent
No.1 – State and seeks time to file reply.
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.10.31 11:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3
CWP-29697-2026

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to supply a
copy of paperbook to counsel opposite during course of the
day.
Let notice be issued to respondents No.2 and 3,
returnable for 28.10.2026.
To be taken up immediately after the Urgent List.
Reply, if any, be filed in the Registry of this Court at least
one week before the next date of hearing with an advance copy
to counsel opposite.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue
involved in the present writ petition is no longer res integra. It is contended
that this very Court, in CWP-7892-2022, Gazal Sharma Versus Shri
Vishwakarma Skill University, Dudhola, Palwal through its Registrar ,
decided on 28.09.2026, has considered the issue regarding the action of the
recruiting authority in declaring “none found suitable” despite the selection
criteria notified in the advertisement not prescribing any minimum
qualifying benchmark for the relevant stage of selection. It is further
submitted that, in the aforesaid case, this Court held that the recruiting
authority could not introduce a disqualifying benchmark at a subsequent
stage or deviate from the notified selection criteria. Accordingly, learned
counsel prays that the present writ petition be decided in terms of the
aforesaid judgment.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 and
3 are unable to point out any distinguishing feature between the facts and
circumstances of the present case and those considered by this Court in
Gazal Sharma (supra) . They are also unable to controvert the applicability
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.10.31 11:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4
CWP-29697-2026

of the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment to the controversy
involved in the present writ petition.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the case file with their able assistance.
5. It transpires that the issue involved in the present writ petition
is no longer res integra. This Court, in CWP-751-2023 and connected
matters, Dr. Surender Singh and another Versus State of Haryana and
others , decided on 19.08.2026, examined the legality of introducing
minimum qualifying marks for the interview after the commencement of the
selection process, contrary to the criteria notified in the advertisement. The
aforesaid issue was further considered by this Court in Gazal Sharma
(supra) , wherein the action of declaring candidates “none found suitable”,
despite the absence of any prescribed minimum qualifying benchmark for
the interview or teaching skill component, was examined.
6. A perusal of the advertisement and the selection criteria
prescribed therein leaves no manner of doubt that the recruitment process
contemplated assessment of the candidates on the basis of a composite
scheme carrying 100 marks, comprising 50 marks for the written
examination, 15 marks for academic qualifications, 20 marks for the
Domain Knowledge Test and 15 marks for the interview. The petitioner
participated in the selection process in accordance with the aforesaid criteria
and, having secured the requisite marks in the written examination, was
called for the subsequent stages of selection. The final assessment was,
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.10.31 11:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5
CWP-29697-2026

therefore, required to be undertaken in accordance with the notified selection
scheme.
7. Significantly, neither the advertisement nor the selection
criteria communicated to the petitioner prescribed any minimum qualifying
marks for the Domain Knowledge Test or the interview. Nor was any
separate benchmark stipulated on the basis of which a candidate could
subsequently be declared “Not Found Suitable”. In the absence of any such
condition, the petitioner was entitled to expect that his candidature would be
assessed in accordance with the criteria notified in advance and that his
merit would be determined by taking into consideration the marks awarded
under the prescribed components of the selection process.
8. The material placed on record further reveals that the petitioner
was not rejected on the ground of any deficiency in his eligibility or
educational qualifications. Rather, he was declared “Not Found Suitable” by
the Interview/Selection Committee despite having participated in the
prescribed stages of selection. The result subsequently obtained by the
petitioner under the Right to Information Act discloses the marks awarded to
him under the different components of the selection process. The
respondents were, therefore, required to demonstrate that the impugned
decision was taken in accordance with the selection criteria notified in the
advertisement.
9. Once the respondents had prescribed a structured selection
scheme carrying a total of 100 marks, they were bound to adhere to the
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.10.31 11:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6
CWP-29697-2026

same. They could not, at a subsequent stage, introduce an additional
qualifying condition or an undisclosed benchmark for the Domain
Knowledge Test or the interview, which had not been stipulated in the
advertisement. Any such exercise would amount to a departure from the
notified criteria and would have the effect of introducing a new condition
after the selection process had commenced.
10. The selection scheme prescribed by the respondents
contemplated assessment under distinct components, namely, the written
examination, academic qualifications, Domain Knowledge Test and
interview. Each component carried a specified allocation of marks. In the
absence of any stipulation prescribing minimum qualifying marks for the
Domain Knowledge Test or the interview, the respondents could not treat
either of these components as an independent qualifying stage so as to
exclude a candidate by declaring him “Not Found Suitable”, irrespective of
the overall assessment contemplated under the notified scheme.
11. The petitioner, having participated in the selection process and
been assessed under the prescribed components, could not lawfully be
excluded from consideration by applying a criterion which was neither
disclosed nor prescribed in the advertisement. The grievance raised by the
petitioner is not confined to the award of marks under any particular
component; rather, it concerns the legality of declaring him unsuitable in the
absence of a notified benchmark governing such disqualification. The
respondents were required to act within the framework of the selection
criteria declared by them before commencement of the recruitment process.
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.10.31 11:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7
CWP-29697-2026

12. The course adopted by the respondents, if sustained, would
have the effect of altering the scheme of selection after the candidates had
already participated in the process. A benchmark which was not prescribed
at the outset cannot subsequently be introduced to disqualify a candidate at
the stage of assessment. Such an exercise would amount to changing the
rules of the game after the game had commenced and would be contrary to
the settled principles governing public employment.
13. The discretion vested in a Selection Committee to assess the
suitability of candidates cannot be construed as an unfettered power to
disregard the notified selection criteria. Where the recruiting authority has
prescribed a quantified scheme of assessment, the discretion of the Selection
Committee must necessarily be exercised within the confines of that scheme.
The respondents cannot reserve to themselves an undisclosed power to
declare a candidate unsuitable by applying a benchmark which does not
form part of the advertised criteria.
14. The impugned action is, therefore, required to be examined not
merely from the standpoint of the marks awarded to the petitioner, but also
in the context of the authority of the respondents to declare him “Not Found
Suitable” in the absence of any prescribed minimum qualifying benchmark
for the relevant stages of selection. The selection process must remain
transparent and must be governed by the criteria notified in advance. Any
departure therefrom, to the prejudice of a candidate, would be contrary to
the principles of fairness and equal opportunity in public employment.
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.10.31 11:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

8
CWP-29697-2026

15. The contention that suitability is an essential consideration in
the selection of a candidate does not confer upon the respondents an
overriding discretion to disregard the prescribed selection scheme. The
power to assess suitability, wherever available, must be exercised
consistently with the terms of the advertisement and the applicable rules. It
cannot be employed to introduce a new disqualification or to render the
notified allocation of marks ineffective.
16. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tej
Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, (2025) 2 SCC 1 , has affirmed
that the doctrine against changing the rules of the game midway is a facet of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and ensures fairness in public
employment. The relevant extract of the said judgment reads as follows:
“(A) COMMENCEMENT/END OF THE RECRUITMENT
PROCESS

13. The process of recruitment begins with the issuance of
advertisement and ends with the filling up of notified
vacancies. It consists of various steps like inviting
applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection of defective
applications or elimination of ineligible candidates,
conducting examinations, calling for interview or viva voce
and preparation of list of successful candidates for
appointment.[11]
[11. A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra, (1990)
2 SCC 669; and Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi, (2010) 2 SCC
637.]
xxx xxx xxx
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.10.31 11:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

9
CWP-29697-2026


30. …a degree of discretion is necessary to be left to the
employer to devise its method/procedure to select a
candidate most suitable for the post albeit subject to the
overarching principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution as also the Rules/Statute governing service
and reservation. Thus, in our view, the appointing
authority/recruiting authority/competent authority, in
absence of Rules to the contrary, can devise a procedure
for selection of a candidate suitable to the post and while
doing so it may also set benchmarks for different stages of
the recruitment process including written examination and
interview. However, if any such benchmark is set, the same
should be stipulated before the commencement of the
recruitment process… The decision in K. Manjusree
(supra) does not prescribe setting of benchmarks for various
stages of the recruitment process but mandates that it should
not be set after the stage is over, in other words after the
game has already been played.”
(Emphasis added)
17. In the present case, the result sheet forming part of the record
reflects that the petitioner secured 41 marks out of 100, whereas Ravinder
Kumar secured 36 marks. The petitioner has, therefore, secured higher
aggregate marks. Despite the same, he was declared “Not Found Suitable”,
although no minimum qualifying marks for the Domain Knowledge Test or
Interview had been prescribed in the advertisement. The respondents are,
accordingly, required to assess his candidature strictly in accordance with
the notified selection criteria and the principles laid down in the aforesaid
judgments.
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.10.31 11:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

10
CWP-29697-2026

18. In view of the above discussions, the present writ petition is
allowed. The respondents are directed to recast the result strictly in
accordance with the selection criteria prescribed in the advertisement, by
taking into consideration the marks awarded under the Written Examination,
Academic Qualifications, Domain Knowledge Test and Interview
components. Since, as per the result furnished by the respondents, the
petitioner has secured higher aggregate marks than the other candidate in the
relevant category, his candidature shall be considered for appointment in
accordance with the said merit.
19. The respondents shall, accordingly, undertake the aforesaid
exercise and, subject to verification of the petitioner’s eligibility, documents
and fulfilment of all other requirements prescribed under the applicable
rules, issue an appointment letter in his favour for the post of Junior
Programmer, in accordance with law.
20. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits,
including notional seniority and other service benefits, from the date on
which his batchmates selected pursuant to the aforesaid recruitment joined
service. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to actual salary for the
period during which he did not discharge duties, and monetary benefits shall
be payable to him from the date of his actual joining pursuant to the
appointment so issued.
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.10.31 11:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

11
CWP-29697-2026

21. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondents
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this judgment.
.
22 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed
of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE

28.10.2026
Puneet Chawla Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No


PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.10.31 11:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document