Aarti vs State Of Haryana And Others

1
CWP-9973-2026


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-9973-2026

Aarti ....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
1. Date when judgment was reserved 28.10.2026
2. Date of pronouncement of judgment 04.11.2026
Date of uploading judgment
3. 04.11.2026
Whether operative part or full
4. Full
judgment is pronounced
5. Delay, if any, in pronouncing of full Not applicable
judgment and reasons thereof

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:- Mr. Dhruv Sihag and Mr. Simranjot Singh, Advocates for the
petitioner.

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

Ms. Harpriya Khaneka, Advocate for the respondent/HPSC.


HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the result dated 16.02.2026 (Annexure P-6), declared
pursuant to Advertisement No.53 of 2024 for the post of Assistant Professor
(College Cadre)-History in the Higher Education Department, Haryana, to
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.04 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2
CWP-9973-2026


the extent that respondent No.4 (Roll No.66518) has been selected and
recommended for appointment against the General/Unreserved category. A
further writ in the nature of mandamus has been sought, directing the
respondents to recommend and select the petitioner against the
General/Unreserved category, as she has secured more marks in the final
merit (Annexure P-5) than the last candidate recommended in that category.
CONTENTIONS
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the
Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent-
Commission') issued Advertisement No.42 to 67 of 2024 dated 02.08.2024
(Annexure P-1) for the posts of Assistant Professor (College Cadre) in
various subjects. Advertisement No.53 of 2024 pertained to History and
comprised 123 posts, of which 64 were meant for the General category and
11 for the EWS category. The selection comprised a screening test, a
Subject Knowledge Test and an interview. The petitioner applied under the
EWS category, qualified the screening test (Annexure P-3) and the Subject
Knowledge Test (Annexure P-4), and was interviewed. As per the marks
declared on 14.02.2026 (Annexure P-5), she secured 51.84 marks out of
100.
3. It was submitted that, in the final result dated 16.02.2026
(Annexure P-6), the petitioner was not recommended, whereas respondent
No.4 (Roll No.66518), who secured 51.06 marks, was recommended against
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.04 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3
CWP-9973-2026


the General category. Other General category candidates with lesser marks
were also recommended, and nine candidates belonging to categories other
than General/UR were recommended against UR posts. Learned counsel
argued that the petitioner did not avail any relaxation with regard to age-
limit, experience or eligibility, and qualified on all the standards prescribed
for General category candidates.
4. It was further contended that, as per the advertisement, the
marks of the screening test were not to be counted for final selection, since
the test was meant only for shortlisting candidates for the Subject
Knowledge Test. A relaxation in a qualifying examination cannot bar
migration to the open category, which is a category of merit and not a quota
reserved for general candidates. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to be
recommended against the General/Unreserved category, and the action of

the respondents was illegal and arbitrary.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Commission,
submitted that the petitioner applied under the EWS category, whereas
respondent No.4 applied under the General/UR category (Annexures R-3/1
and R-3/2). As per Note 2 of the provisional result of the screening test
dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure R-3/3), 38 candidates belonging to categories
other than General/UR were shortlisted against the posts meant for the
General/UR category, in pursuance of the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by
the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.329 of 2024. After verification
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.04 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4
CWP-9973-2026


of their documents, 18 of them were retained against General/UR posts vide
result dated 03.07.2025 (Annexure R-3/4). The roll number of the petitioner
did not figure in either list. Thus, she qualified the screening test in her own
category, i.e., EWS, by availing the benefit of reservation at the first stage

itself.
6. It was further submitted that a candidate who qualifies the
threshold stage only under reserved category standards cannot claim
adjustment against General/Unreserved vacancies merely because of better
performance in the later stages. The present petition was filed only after the
petitioner found that the General category cut-off was lower than that of the
EWS category, and is an afterthought. Reliance was placed on the judgments
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. G. Kiran , 2026 INSC
15 , and of this Court in Kartik Saini v. State of Haryana , CWP No.38944
of 2025 , decided on 17.02.2026, and Kiran Bala v. State of Haryana , CWP
No.7873 of 2026 , decided on 16.03.2026, the latter pertaining to the same
advertisement. Learned counsel also argued that the petitioner participated
in the selection process without protest and is estopped from challenging it,
that the conditions of the advertisement bind all candidates, and that she has
no vested right to appointment.
OBSERVATION AND ANALYSIS

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance. It transpires from the record that the
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.04 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5
CWP-9973-2026


selection for the post of Assistant Professor (College Cadre)-History was a
three-tier process. The screening test was meant only for shortlisting, and the
final merit was determined on the marks of the Subject Knowledge Test and
the interview. The petitioner, who applied under the EWS category, secured
51.84 marks in the final merit, more than those secured by respondent No.4.
On this basis, she seeks appointment against a General category post.
However, as per the respondent-Commission, she entered the zone of
consideration for the Subject Knowledge Test only as an EWS candidate,
and not on the standards applicable to General category candidates.
Therefore, the question that arises for adjudication is whether a reserved
category candidate who has crossed the screening stage by availing the
benefit of reservation can subsequently claim a General category post on the
basis of her performance in the later stages of the selection.
8. It is well settled that the open or General category is not a quota
reserved for candidates who do not belong to any reserved category, and is
available to all on merit. A Three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2021) 4 SCC 542, held
that a reserved category candidate who secures more marks than the last
candidate selected in the open or General category is entitled to be selected
in that category on her own merit, and her selection cannot be counted
against the quota reserved for her category. However, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court was careful to clarify that this principle applies only to candidates
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.04 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6
CWP-9973-2026


who have not availed any special benefit. Speaking through Justice Uday
Umesh Lalit, it was observed as follows:
“
35. We must also clarify at this stage that it is not disputed that the
Applicant no.1 and other similarly situated candidates are otherwise
entitled and eligible to be appointed in ‘Open/General Category’ and
that they have not taken or availed of any special benefit which may
disentitle them from being considered against ‘Open/General
Category’ seat. The entire discussion and analysis in the present case
is, therefore, from said perspective.”
(Emphasis added)
9. More recently, a Two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Rajasthan High Court v. Rajat Yadav , 2025 INSC 1503 , applied
the same principle to a multi-tier selection, wherein the reserved category
candidates secured more marks than the General category cut-off in the
written test, which was the first stage, but were confined to the shortlists of
their own categories for the second-tier typewriting test. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that a reserved category candidate who outscores
General category candidates in the screening examination itself, without
availing any concession or relaxation, must be treated as a candidate who
has competed for the unreserved category. Speaking through Justice
Dipankar Datta, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
“
67. Here, we do not see reason to agree with Mr. Gupta that any
shift or adjustment, or even migration as he contends, as such is
required where a candidate, who is also otherwise entitled to compete
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.04 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7
CWP-9973-2026


and be selected for a reserved vacant post, happens to outscore,
outperform and outshine not only reserved candidates but also
general candidates and figures at the top of the list of successful
candidates prepared after a qualifying/preliminary examination (for
screening/shortlisting) solely by dint of the marks secured by
him/her in such examination (without availing any
concession/relaxation) thereby entitling him/her to participate in the
second tier of a further suitability test. Such a meritorious
candidate, notwithstanding that he/she belongs to a reserved
category, be it Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Other
Backward Class, must of necessity (arising out of the concept of
equality before law and equal protection of the laws in Article 14,
and extended to Article 16 in matters of public employment) be
treated as a candidate who has competed for the ‘unreserved’
category and not the ‘reserved’ category, thereby obviating the need
for any ‘migration’ or, so to say, shift or adjustment.”

(Emphasis added)
9.1. Thus, the entitlement of a reserved category candidate to an
open category post flows from merit earned on the same standards as
General category candidates, including at the threshold stage of the
selection.
10. It is no longer res integra that a reserved category candidate
who crosses the threshold stage on a relaxed standard cannot later claim a
General category post. The issue has been squarely answered by a Two-
Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. G. Kiran ,
2026 INSC 15 , wherein a reserved category candidate had qualified the
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.04 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

8
CWP-9973-2026


Preliminary Examination on the relaxed standard meant for his category, and
thereafter outscored General candidates in the Main Examination and the
interview. Speaking through Justice J.K. Maheshwari, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that such a candidate cannot claim to have been selected on

General standard, and observed as follows:
“ 36. In the facts of the present case, the General category cut-off for
the Preliminary Examination was fixed at 267. Respondent No. 1
secured 247.18 marks. Had the Respondent No. 1 been put against the
general standard, his candidature would have been terminated at the
first stage i.e., the Preliminary Examination. His candidature
succeeded in the first stage of the examination because of the relaxed
standards allowed in the Preliminary Examination for SC candidates
i.e. 233 marks. After availing the benefit of this relaxation for
admission to the Main Examination, Respondent No. 1 cannot
subsequently claim to have been selected on 'General Standard'
merely due to his performance in the subsequent stages surpassed the
general standard. Therefore, if a candidate who has resorted a
relaxation at any stage of examination, would not fall within the
purview of the proviso to Rule 14(ii) of the Exam Rules, 2013 and in
that situation, for the purpose of the applicable Policy for cadre
allocation, he would not fall within the list of candidates selected on
'General Standard' claiming General Insider vacancy of home state
cadre as insider candidate..”
(Emphasis added)
11. Following the aforesaid judgment, this Court in Kartik Saini
(supra) dealt with a selection conducted by the respondent-Commission
itself, comprising a screening test, a Subject Knowledge Test and an
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.04 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

9
CWP-9973-2026


interview. A BC-B candidate, who had been shortlisted for the Subject
Knowledge Test only on the relaxed cut-off of his category, was held not
entitled to migrate to the General category on the basis of his final marks.
Rejecting the plea that the screening test carries no weight merely because

its marks do not form part of the final merit, this Court held as under:
“ 8. A screening test, when placed at the threshold of a multi-stage
selection process, operates as a filtering mechanism or a gateway,
without clearing which a candidate cannot progress to the
subsequent stages of examination and interview. It thus constitutes a
mandatory eligibility sieve, and not a mere formality. Any relaxation
granted at the screening stage directly confers a tangible and decisive
advantage, as it enables a candidate to cross the threshold and gain
access to the subsequent stages of selection. Even if no relaxation is
availed at later stages, the fact remains that the candidate could reach
the next level only because of the initial relaxation, without which he
could have been eliminated at the threshold itself. In such a scenario,
the contention that the screening test is of no consequence, merely
because its marks are not carried forward to the final merit list, is
fundamentally misconceived.”
(Emphasis added)
12. Subsequently, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Kiran Bala
(supra) applied the same principle to the posts of Assistant Professor
(College Cadre)-Hindi, advertised under the very same advertisement.
There, BC-A candidates who had qualified the screening test on the cut-off
meant for their category were held not entitled to be considered against the
General category, even though they secured more marks than the last
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.04 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

10
CWP-9973-2026


selected General category candidate in the final result. Only the candidate
who had crossed the General category cut-off at the screening stage itself

was treated as a General candidate.
13. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that a
relaxation in a qualifying examination cannot bar migration finds some
support in the judgment of a Two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Chaya v. State of Maharashtra , 2026 INSC 277 . It was held
therein that a relaxation in a qualifying examination merely enables a
candidate to enter the zone of consideration, and that the migration of such a
candidate depends on the Recruitment Rules or the employment notification.
However, the said judgment stands on a distinct footing. The relaxation in
Chaya (supra) was in the qualifying marks of the Teacher Eligibility Test,
an eligibility qualification prescribed by the National Council for Teacher
Education, whose guidelines themselves permitted such concession. It was
not a stage of the recruitment. The selection was made solely on the marks
of a separate examination, i.e., the Teachers Aptitude and Intelligence Test,
in which all candidates competed on equal terms.
14. In the present case, on the other hand, the screening test was the
first tier of the very selection process, conducted by the respondent-
Commission under the same advertisement. As per the scheme of
examination (Annexure P-1), only candidates four times the number of
advertised posts were to be called for the Subject Knowledge Test. The
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.04 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

11
CWP-9973-2026


screening test was, therefore, a competitive filter, and a lower cut-off at this
stage decided who would compete further. The facts of the present case are
thus akin to those in G. Kiran (supra) , which concerned a relaxed standard
in the Preliminary Examination of the same selection, and which was
noticed and distinguished in Chaya (supra) itself. Moreover, the reasoning
in Kartik Saini (supra) does not rest on any express rule, but on the very
nature of a screening test as a gateway to the subsequent stages of the same
selection. That reasoning applies with equal force to the present case.
Therefore, the reliance on Chaya (supra) is misplaced.
15. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the respondent-
Commission has specifically averred that the roll number of the petitioner
did not figure among the 38 reserved category candidates shortlisted against
the General/UR posts at the screening stage (Annexure R-3/3), nor among
the 18 candidates finally retained against those posts (Annexure R-3/4). It is,
thus, evident that the petitioner crossed the screening stage only as an EWS
candidate, and not on the standards applicable to General category
candidates. It is of no consequence that she did not avail any relaxation in
age-limit, experience or eligibility. Having availed the benefit of reservation
to enter the zone of consideration for the Subject Knowledge Test, she
cannot now claim a General category post merely because her final marks
are higher than those of respondent No.4.
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.04 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

12
CWP-9973-2026


16. It is further noted that the nine candidates of other categories
recommended against UR posts, as per Note 4 of the result (Annexure P-6),
are all among the 18 candidates retained against General/UR posts at the
screening stage (Annexure R-3/4). These include the two EWS candidates
bearing Roll Nos.66137 and 66141. They qualified the screening test on
General standards, and the petitioner, therefore, stands on a different
footing. The argument raised on this basis does not advance her case.
17. In the wake of the aforementioned discussion, this Court is of the
considered view that the respondent-Commission rightly considered the
petitioner only against the EWS category, and the final result dated
16.02.2026 (Annexure P-6) cannot be faulted. In view thereof, the other
objections raised by the respondent-Commission need not be gone into.
CONCLUSION
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in
the present petition, and the same is hereby dismissed .
19. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE

04.11.2026
PC

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No

PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.04 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document