Satvender Singh vs State Of Haryana And Ors

223 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1) CWP-4042-2021 (O&M)
Date of decision: 01.09.2026
Satvender Singh ....Petitioner

Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
2) CWP-9011-2021
Vijayta Malik and another ....Petitioners

Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
3) CWP-9344-2021
Suman Kumari and another ....Petitioners

Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
4) CWP-10299-2021
Manju ....Petitioner

Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
5) CWP-9111-2021
Banarasi Dass ....Petitioner

Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
6) CWP-33953-2024
Mahesh Dutt and another ....Petitioners

Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
NEHA
2026.09.09 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh

CWP-4042-2021 (O&M) -2-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate and
Ms. Neha, Advocate
for the petitioners (in CWP-10299-2021).
Mr. Vikram Sheoran, Advocate
for the petitioners (in remaining cases).
Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Akshit Pathania, AAG, Haryana.
Ms. Anshika, Advocate for
Mr. Jasbir Singh Mor, Advocate
for respondents No.9 to 64 (in CWP-4042-2021).
Mr. Sajjan Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Vishal Punia, Advocate
for the applicant/respondent No.65
(in CM-8827-CWP-2022 in CWP-4042-2021).
Mr. Karan S. Gill, Standing Counsel
for the respondent-NCTE.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
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.
However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-4042-2021.
2. The present civil writ petition 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 order dated 05.06.2018 (Annexure P-6). Further, for
issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to
relieve the candidates those who not having essential qualification after one
time exemption. Further prayer has been made for issuance of directions to the
respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner and allow him to join
as PGT (History).
NEHA
2026.09.09 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh

CWP-4042-2021 (O&M) -3-
3. On 08.04.2021, the following order was passed:-
“ Learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia,
submitted that the petitioner had applied for the post of PGT
History vide Advertisement Annexure P-2 dated 28.6.2012 and in
the selection process, he was put in the waiting list. In the
statutory rules namely Haryana State Education School Cadre
(Group B) Service Rules, 2012, one of the qualifications for the
post of PGT History was that the candidate must have a certificate
of having qualified Haryana Teachers Eligibility Test
(HTET)/School Teachers Eligibility Test (STET). However, the
State of Haryana vide amendment dated 2.7.2012 (Annexure P-3)
amended the aforesaid rules by providing that in the case of direct
recruitment, the teachers working in privately managed
Government aided, recognized and Government School, are
exempted from having qualifications of Haryana Teachers
Eligibility Test or School Teachers Eligibility Test and B.Ed as
described in column 3, if they have worked as a teacher for a
minimum period of four years on the date of enforcement of these
rules. Furthermore, it was stated that a person who has passed
Haryana Teachers Eligibility Test or School Teachers Eligibility
Test without the qualification of B.Ed., before the notification of
these rules, shall also be considered for the post of PGT in the
case of direct recruitment as one time measure in the first
recruitment to be held after amendment of these rules. This
amendment was made as one time measure and in pursuance of
this amendment, a corrigendum was issued vide Annexure P-4
dated 3.7.2012 i.e. on the very next date when the aforesaid
amendment was issued. In the corrigendum, it has been provided
that a person who has passed STET/HTET without the
qualification of B.Ed., before the date i.e. 11.04.2012 of
notification of Service Rules concerned, shall also be considered
eligible for the post of PGT as one time measure in the first
recruitment and this would apply till 1.4.2015.
NEHA
2026.09.09 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh

CWP-4042-2021 (O&M) -4-
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that to
this extent there was no difficulty faced by the petitioner. However,
vide impugned order Annexure P-6 dated 5.6.2018, the dates have
been extended from 01.04.2015 to 01.04.2018 vide notification
dated 12.09.2014 and now again has been extended to 01.04.2022.
Learned counsel has submitted that it is a settled law that
administrative instructions cannot override the statutory
provisions/rules. Once in the amendment, the provision was made
as one time measure which was already granted so thereafter, the
State of Haryana should not have issued the administrative
instructions contrary to the statutory provisions/rules.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted
that the action of the respondent – State has adversely and
prejudicially affected the rights of the petitioner because he was
put in waiting list and now with the extension of this time by way
of administrative instructions number of other persons have
become eligible who would apply for the post which in turn would
prejudicially affect his rights.
Notice of motion.
Notice regarding stay as well.
On asking of the Court, Mr.Deepak Manchanda, Addl.
A.G. Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of all the respondents and
prays for time to file reply.
List on 30.4.2021.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has produced in Court today a
letter dated 16.02.2026, bearing Memo No.20/3-2022 PRT (ART), issued by the
Administrative Officer on behalf of the Director General Elementary
Education, Haryana, Panchkula. The same is taken on record and retained on
the case file as ‘Mark-Y’. The Registry is directed to tag the same at an
appropriate place in the file. It is stated therein that the Government has
extended the time for passing the HTET examination up to March, 2027.
NEHA
2026.09.09 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh

CWP-4042-2021 (O&M) -5-
5. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by learned counsel
for the petitioner(s) on the ground that the petitioner(s) has till date, neither
challenged the amendment carried out on 02.07.2012 (Annexure P-3) nor the
corrigendum dated 03.07.2012 (Annexure P-4). As such, in view of the law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Sanyam
Lodha (2011) 13 SCC 262 and the Division Bench of this Court in Dhani Ram
Chaudhary vs. State of Haryana and another 2005 (1) SCT 571 , no relief can
be granted to the petitioner(s).
5.1. Secondly, it is submitted that the private respondents were selected
and appointed in the year 2014, whereas, the present petition was filed only in
the year 2021. Thus, the petitioner(s) has approached this Court after a delay of
approximately seven years from the date of appointment of the selected
candidates. Consequently, the present petition suffers from the vice of delay
and laches.
5.2. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner(s) has no
indefeasible right to seek appointment, particularly, when the post of PGT is a
Group-B post and there is no provision under the relevant Rules for operating a
waiting list. Placing reliance upon the instructions dated 13.12.2004 and
18.09.2018 issued by the Government of Haryana concerning the operation of
waiting lists, he submits that the post of PGT falls under Group-B (Non-
Gazetted) category and, therefore, the petitioner(s) cannot be considered for
appointment by operating the waiting list. In this regard, he has also placed on
record a letter No.42/2/2007-5GSI dated 01.07.2008 in Court today, which is
NEHA
2026.09.09 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh

CWP-4042-2021 (O&M) -6-
taken on record and retained on the case file as ‘Mark-X’. The Registry is
directed to tag the same at an appropriate place in the file. He further submits
that, in view of the aforesaid position, the Government does not feel the
necessity of maintaining any waiting list in respect of Group-B posts. He
submits that under the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group B)
Service Rules, 2012, one of the essential qualifications for appointment to the
post of PGT (History) was that a candidate must possess a certificate of having
qualified the Haryana Teacher Eligibility Test (HTET)/State Teacher Eligibility
Test (STET). He further submits that the State of Haryana amended the
aforesaid Rules on 02.07.2012 (Annexure P-3) and granted exemption from
passing the test in question as a one-time measure. The petitioner(s), however,
is aggrieved by the further relaxation granted vide order dated 05.06.2018
(Annexure P-6), whereby, the period originally stipulated up to 01.04.2015 was
extended up to 01.04.2018.
5.3. Moreover, the amendment carried out on 02.07.2012 in the Service
Rules was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.15929
of 2012 , titled Shivani Gupta and others Vs. State of Haryana and others ,
along with a bunch of connected cases, which were decided on 21.12.2012. The
challenge to the validity of the amendment, including Note (i) in Appendix ‘B’
to the Rules of 2012, was declined.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance, this Court finds that the petitioner(s) applied
for the post of PGT pursuant to Advertisement dated 28.06.2012 (Annexure P-
2). Admittedly, the petitioner(s) neither challenged the amendment carried out
NEHA
2026.09.09 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh

CWP-4042-2021 (O&M) -7-
on 02.07.2012 (Annexure P-3) nor the corrigendum dated 03.07.2012
(Annexure P-4). The reply filed by respondent No.3-Commission further
indicates that the petitioner(s) had applied for the post in question under the
General Category through the erstwhile Haryana School Teachers Selection
Board. The selection process was concluded and the final result for the post in
question was declared on 10.04.2013. The petitioner(s) was not selected,
having secured 51.95 marks, whereas the last selected candidate in the General
Category secured 53.81 marks. The petitioner(s), therefore, cannot now be
permitted to challenge or indirectly question the exemption granted
vide amendment dated 02.07.2012 (Annexure P-3), particularly when the said
amendment was never challenged by him and the selection process in which he
participated stood concluded with the declaration of the final result on
10.04.2013.
7. It is trite law that the delay in approaching this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India may be condoned if sufficient cause is
indicated or a reasonable explanation is provided for the same. However, the
(s)
facts of the matter at hand indicate otherwise. Learned counsel petitioner has
failed to specify any compelling or extenuating circumstance which prevented
him/her from approaching this Court for such a long time. Reference in this
regard may be made to the judgment rendered by a three-Judge Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power
Corporation Limited and Others vs. Ram Gopal (2021) 13 SCC 225 , wherein,
the following was held:
NEHA
2026.09.09 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh

CWP-4042-2021 (O&M) -8-
“16. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to
proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of
India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an
unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays
and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions,
and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their
discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over
wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence- sitters cannot be
allowed to barge into Courts and cry for their rights at their
convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike
with mere opportunists . On multiple occasions, it has been
restated that there are implicit limitations of time within which
writ remedies can be enforced. In SS Balu v. State of Kerala ,
this Court observed thus:
“17. It is also well settled principle of law that "delay
defeats equity". .... It is now a trite law that where the writ
petitioner approaches the High Court after a long
delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the
ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that
they are similarly situated to the other candidates who
obtain the benefit of the judgment. ””
(emphasis added)
8. Further, in Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and others 2024
AIR SC 2717, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that the
High Courts must factor in the delay, while exercising its discretionary powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further opined that undue
and unexplained delay may be reason enough to dismiss a petition as indolent
litigants ought not to be encouraged by writ Courts.
9. In the present case, the petitioner (s) has approached this Court
after a considerable lapse of time and no plausible explanation has been offered
(s)
by learned counsel for the petitioner for the delay in filing the present
petition (s) .
NEHA
2026.09.09 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh

CWP-4042-2021 (O&M) -9-
10. In view of the discussion above, this Court does not find it
appropriate to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Accordingly, the above mentioned all the petitions stand
dismissed.
11. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
12.
A photo copy of this order be placed on the file of connected cases.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
01.09.2026
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
NEHA
2026.09.09 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh