Sonia Kumari vs State Of Haryana And Ors

CWP-24575-2018 &
CWP-24589-2018 -1-
206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1) CWP-24575-2018
Date of decision: 25.08.2026
Sonia Kumari ....Petitioner

Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
2) CWP-24589-2018
Kuldeep ....Petitioner

Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. S.S. Brar, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CWP-24575-2018).
None for the petitioner (in CWP-24589-2018).
Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. This common order shall dispose of the aforementioned civil writ
petitions, as they arise from a similar factual matrix. For the sake of brevity, the
facts are taken from CWP-24575-2018. There is no representation on behalf of
the petitioner in CWP-24589-2018, however, the case file has been perused.
2. The present civil writ petition(s) has been filed under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the action of the respondents to the extent for not calling
the petitioner(s) for the interview on 26.09.2018 as well as oral rejection of
the candidatures of the petitioner(s) for the post of TGT (Science) against the
NEHA
2026.09.01 18:06
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh

CWP-24575-2018 &
CWP-24589-2018 -2-
advertisement No.3/2015 dated 28.06.2015 (category No.1) and category No.6
(Annexure P-2). Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent-Commission to consider the petitioner(s) eligible for
the post of TGT (Science) against the advertisement No.3/2015 dated
28.06.2015 (Category No.1) and Category No.6 (Annexure P-2) and call the
petitioner(s) for interview for the post of TGT (Science) in the respective
category. Further, directing the respondent-Commission to take the interview
of the petitioner(s) provisionally on 26.09.2018 for the post of TGT (Science).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) inter alia contends that the
petitioner(s) participated in the selection process for the post of TGT (Science)
in the SC Category pursuant to Advertisement No.4/2014 dated 08.09.2014.
However, the said advertisement was subsequently withdrawn and the
respondent-Commission issued Advertisement No.3/2015 inviting applications
for 1919 posts of TGT including 895 posts of TGT (Science) as discernible
from Annexure P-2.
3.1 He further submits that the petitioner(s) has secured 110 marks in
her respective category, whereas, the last selected candidate in the said category
secured 56 marks. The petitioner(s) possessed the requisite educational
qualifications for the post in question on the last date prescribed for submission
of applications, except that she did not possess the prescribed combination of
three subjects out of the five subjects, namely, (i) Physics, (ii) Chemistry, (iii)
Botany, (iv) Geology and (v) Mathematics, in her Bachelor of Science degree.
The petitioner(s) obtained her Bachelor of Science degree in the year 2009
from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and B.Ed. degree in the year 2011
from Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak.
NEHA
2026.09.01 18:06
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh

CWP-24575-2018 &
CWP-24589-2018 -3-
3.2 Learned counsel submits that both the aforesaid degrees were
acquired prior to the implementation of the Haryana School Education (Group
C) Service Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2012 Rules’), which came
into force on 11.04.2012. The petitioner(s) was declared ineligible without
assigning any reason. Upon making enquiries, she was orally informed that she
did not possess the requisite combination of three subjects out of the five
prescribed subjects in B.Sc. in terms of the advertisement ( supra) . It is
contended that the action of the respondent-Commission is arbitrary, unfair and
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner(s)
had acquired her Bachelor of Science degree prior to the implementation of the
2012 Rules and was eligible under the erstwhile Haryana State Education
School Cadre (Group C) Service Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1998
Rules’), which prescribed only a combination of two subjects in B.Sc. It is
further submitted that Advertisement No.3/2015 was the first advertisement
issued after the framing of the 2012 Rules, as the earlier advertisement issued
in the year 2014 had subsequently been withdrawn.
3.3 As such, learned counsel contends that the petitioner(s) ought to be
considered eligible particularly in view of the fact that she is substantially more
meritorious than the last selected candidate in the SC Category. It is further
submitted that in the past the respondent-Commission had issued a
corrigendum dated 03.07.2012 granting one-time exemption to eligible
candidates under the 1998 Rules and, therefore, the petitioner(s) is also entitled
to similar relaxation.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by
learned counsel for the petitioner(s) on the ground that the issue raised in the
NEHA
2026.09.01 18:06
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh

CWP-24575-2018 &
CWP-24589-2018 -4-
present writ petition regarding grant of relaxation has already been considered
by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1509 of 2019 titled as Haryana
Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary Vs. Monika Balwaria and
others , decided on 19.03.2024, wherein, it was held that petitioners therein who
are identically circumstanced had participated in the same selection process,
were not entitled to such relaxation. The said judgment was subsequently
affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the appeal preferred by the
candidates was dismissed.
4.1 Learned State counsel further submits that the terms and
conditions stipulated in the advertisement are sacrosanct and binding upon both
the candidates as well as the recruiting agency. It is not a case where the
conditions prescribed in the advertisement are contrary to the applicable
statutory rules rather the selection process is required to be conducted in
accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
the record, it transpires that the petitioner(s) initially participated in the
selection process pursuant to Advertisement No.04 of 2014, published on
08.09.2014. However, the said advertisement was subsequently withdrawn,
thereafter, the petitioner(s) participated in the selection process pursuant to
Advertisement No.03 of 2015, published on 28.06.2015 (Annexure P-2). The
petitioner(s) had applied for the post of TGT (Science) in the SC Category. The
essential qualification prescribed for the post in question is contained at page
No.77 of the paper book and is reproduced hereunder:
“Cat. No. 1 895 post of TGT Science (including 754 post of Backlog)
(Re-advertised)
NEHA
2026.09.01 18:06
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh

CWP-24575-2018 &
CWP-24589-2018 -5-
E.Q. i. B. Sc. and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education:
OR
B. Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 year Bachelor in
Education (B. Ed.);
OR
B. Sc. with at least 45% marks and 1 year Bachelor in
Education (B. Ed.), in accordance with NCTE
(Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued
from time to time in this regard;
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50%
marks and 4 year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.
El. Ed):
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50%
marks and 4 years B.Sc. Ed.;
OR
B. Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 years B. Ed. (Special
Education);
ii. In case of B.Sc. a combination of at least three subjects
out of the following:
(1) Physics (2) Chemistry (3) Botany (4) Zoology (5)
Mathematics
Note : In the case of Hons. Degree, in any of the above
mentioned subjects, the candidate must have studied other
two subjects in the first and second year of course.
iii. In case of B. Ed. Science as a teaching subject from a
recognized university.”
5.1. Perusal of the aforesaid essential qualification clearly indicates
that a candidate is required to possess a combination of three subjects out of the
NEHA
2026.09.01 18:06
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh

CWP-24575-2018 &
CWP-24589-2018 -6-
five subjects specified therein. The aforesaid requirement was incorporated in
terms of the Haryana School Education (Group C) Service Rules, 2012.
Admittedly, the petitioner(s) does not possess a degree satisfying the prescribed
requirement of a combination of three subjects out of the five specified
subjects, namely, (i) Physics, (ii) Chemistry, (iii) Botany, (iv) Geology and (v)
Mathematics. The petitioner(s) possesses a B.Sc. (General) degree which does
not satisfy the aforesaid essential qualification prescribed for the post of TGT
(Science). Further, the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely
covered by the judgment in Monika Balwaria’s case (supra) , wherein, it has
been held that candidates who do not possess the essential qualification
prescribed in the advertisement are not entitled to seek relaxation in the said
qualification.
5.2 This position is further supported by the settled principle that the
qualifications prescribed in the recruitment advertisement must be followed as
they are. The Court cannot replace or relax the qualification prescribed by the
recruiting authority, especially, when the petitioner(s) has not shown that the
prescribed qualification is contrary to the applicable Rules or is otherwise
unreasonable.
6. A two-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Maharashtra
Public Service Commission through its Secretary vs. Sandeep Shriram
Warade and others, (2019) 6 SCC 362 , speaking through Justice Navin Sinha,
has made the following observations in this regard:
“
10. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for
the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or
desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the
employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate
NEHA
2026.09.01 18:06
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh

CWP-24575-2018 &
CWP-24589-2018 -7-
must possess according to the needs of the employer and the
nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of
eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to
desirable qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by
an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of
equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If
the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the
Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an
ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law
the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after
appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case
can the Court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the
appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and
interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain
language of the same.”
      
(emphasis added)
7. A two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in  Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel and others vs. State of Gujarat and others,
(2023)19 SCC 596  has held that subject to the applicable Rules, an
advertisement for recruitment binds the parties involved as it has  trappings of a
statutory prescription . Speaking through Justice M.M. Sundresh, the following
was opined:
“
23. Another unique feature of the present case is that the
Selection Committee has reduced the marks to facilitate the
horizontal reservation by treating it as a vertical reservation.
Admittedly, the rules do not provide for such reservation to be
treated as a vertical one. Likewise, the rules do not fix any cut-off
marks. An advertisement, made pursuant to a notification, binds
the parties. It has got all the trappings of a statutory prescription,
unless it becomes contrary to either a rule or an Act. A change, if
any, can only be brought forth by way of an amendment and
nothing else. Such an amendment even if it is permissible can be
tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of
NEHA
2026.09.01 18:06
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh

CWP-24575-2018 &
CWP-24589-2018 -8-
India. It cannot be introduced to give an entry to a special
reservation, in a case where a right becomes accrued to a
candidate, under a policy decision reduced in the form of an
advertisement, to be considered for a post in the absence of any
eligible candidate from the horizontal category.”
8. In view of the above discussion and the settled legal position, both
the writ petitions are hereby dismissed.
9. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
10. A photo copy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
25.08.2026
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
NEHA
2026.09.01 18:06
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh