Renu Goyal vs State Of Haryana And Others
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
CWP No.30899 of 2019 (O&M) and
CWP No.31939 of 2019 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
st rd
212 (1 & 3 cases)
Date of Decision: 27.10.2026
(1) C.W.P. No.30899 of 2019 (O&M)
Renu Goyal
Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….Respondents
(2) C.W.P. No.31939 of 2019 (O&M)
Renu Goyal
….Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
….Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Parveen Moudgil, Advocate for the petitioner
in both cases.
Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Karan Ranjha & Mr. Sandeep Chahal, Advocates
for respondent Nos.4 to 6 in CWP-30899-2019.
GAGANDEEP
2026.11.03 17:14
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
-1-
CWP No.30899 of 2019 (O&M) and
CWP No.31939 of 2019 (O&M)
Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Ms. Archie Anant & Ms. Prerna Malhotra,
Advocates for respondent No.2 in CWP-30899-2019.
Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate
for respondent No.2 in CWP-31939-2019.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. With the consent of parties, this common order shall dispose of the
aforementioned two civil writ petitions as they arise from a similar factual
matrix. For the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-30899-2019.
2. The Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for
quashing the selection and appointment of private respondent Nos.3 to 6, who
have been selected and appointed to the post of Assistant Registrar vide Result
dated 13.07.2019 (Annexure P-10). The petitioner seeks a direction to the
official respondents to appoint her to the post of Assistant Registrar as per her
merit. It is further prayed that an investigation into the alleged irregularities,
record fabrication, and forgery in the selection process be entrusted to the
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
CONTENTIONS
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that
respondent No.2-University issued an Advertisement No. SVSU/18/ENT/007
(Annexure P-2) inviting applications for direct recruitment to various non-
academic posts. Being fully qualified for the post of Assistant Registrar, the
GAGANDEEP
2026.11.03 17:14
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
-2-
CWP No.30899 of 2019 (O&M) and
CWP No.31939 of 2019 (O&M)
petitioner duly submitted her online application within the stipulated deadline
prescribed in the aforesaid advertisement. In terms of the selection criteria set
out therein (Annexure P-2), the total evaluation comprises 100 marks, divided
equally between a 50-mark written test and 50 marks allocated toward academic
merit, experience, and interview. Under this scheme, clearing the written
examination is a mandatory prerequisite for being shortlisted for document
verification and the subsequent interview. It is submitted that the petitioner
appeared in the written examination, conducted on 19.01.2018 as discernible
from the admit card (Annexure P-3A) and secured 57 marks, whereas private
respondents secured less than 50 marks in the written examination, as
discernible from the result (Annexure P-4) of the written examination. The
petitioner not only secured higher marks in the written examination but was also
awarded 23.65 marks under the combined criteria of academic merit and
experience. Consequently, having met the requisite threshold, she was duly
called for the scrutiny of documents. However, the petitioner was declared
ineligible on the ground that she had not attached the proper Experience
Certificate with the Application Form and was thus ignored, whereas the private
respondents were allowed to participate in the interview in spite of not having
the proper Experience Certificates. It is pointed out that a perusal of Annexure
P-5 reveals that, barring respondent No. 3, all private respondents, including the
petitioner, were shown to have inappropriate experience. Yet, as evident from
GAGANDEEP
2026.11.03 17:14
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
-3-
CWP No.30899 of 2019 (O&M) and
CWP No.31939 of 2019 (O&M)
Annexure P-8, only respondent Nos. 3, 5, and 6 were called for the interview,
whereas the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were left out.
3.1. It is argued that the result dated 13.07.2019 (Annexure P-10)
clearly indicates that respondent No. 4 (Vinay Saini) was amongst the selected
candidates, in spite of the fact that he was never called for the interview.
Moreover, post-selection, a notice was issued for document verification wherein
respondent Nos.3 to 6 were afforded an opportunity to submit proof of their
educational administrative experience as well as salary verification. As such, it
is contended that the respondent-University adopted different yardsticks and
indulged in cherry-picking in the very same selection process, while completely
ignoring the petitioner's Experience Certificate dated 17.09.2016 (appended at
page 51 of the paper-book).
3.2. It is further submitted that once the private respondents were
permitted to participate in the interview despite lacking proper experience
certificates, the petitioner also submitted a valid Experience Certificate on
25.02.2019 (Annexure P-9), clearly demonstrating that she discharged
administrative responsibilities alongside her teaching duties. As such, the
petitioner is entitled to parity and the grant of identical relief.
4. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2
contends that the petitioner's reliance on Annexure P-13 is wholly misconceived.
It is submitted that the selection process was not carried out in-house by the
respondent-University itself, but was entrusted to three independent
GAGANDEEP
2026.11.03 17:14
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
-4-
CWP No.30899 of 2019 (O&M) and
CWP No.31939 of 2019 (O&M)
bodies/agencies to ensure fairness and transparency: the written examination
was conducted by Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science and
Technology (DCRUST), Murthal; the scrutiny of documents for evaluating
educational qualifications and awarding experience marks was assigned to
Indira Gandhi University, Meerpur, Rewari; and the interview was conducted by
the statutory Establishment Committee in accordance with the relevant Statutes
of the University. As such, there is no violation of the mandate of the procedure
prescribed for the selection of the post in question. After the recommendation
and appointment of the private respondents, the University further verified their
credentials by conducting an additional scrutiny; hence, there is no substantiated
allegation of mala fides .
4.1. Learned senior counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 6 controverts the
stand taken by the petitioner and has raised two preliminary objections. Firstly,
it is contended that the petitioner's reliance upon the Scrutiny Committee's
recommendations (Annexure P-5) is wholly misplaced, inasmuch as learned
counsel for the petitioner has omitted to consider the explanatory Note appended
at the foot thereof, whereby, all candidates were afforded another opportunity to
supply any document in support of their educational qualifications, experience,
or eligibility, in the event the same had not been annexed with their application
forms for any reason, on or before 15:00 hours on 14.02.2019. Thereafter,
through a subsequent notification dated 14.02.2019 (Annexure R-4/2), the time
GAGANDEEP
2026.11.03 17:14
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
-5-
CWP No.30899 of 2019 (O&M) and
CWP No.31939 of 2019 (O&M)
limit for submitting such documents was explicitly extended till 15:00 hours on
20.02.2019.
4.2. It is further submitted that the petitioner's assertion regarding
respondent No. 4 not being called for the interview is factually incorrect.
Following the extension of the deadline and the subsequent submission of
documents, a revised Interview Notice was issued (Annexure R-4/3), wherein
the roll number of respondent No. 4 is duly reflected. Drawing reference to the
Experience Certificate submitted by the petitioner alongside her application
form (at page 51), learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submits that it
fails to demonstrate any administrative experience, which is an essential
prerequisite for the non-teaching post of Assistant Registrar, whereas the
certificate of respondent No. 4, issued on 14.02.2019 (Annexure R-4/5), clearly
indicates that he performed duties as a Head of the Department and was
involved in both administrative and teaching work. Additionally, he had also
been serving as Chief Warden of the college in question. Moreover, it is
contended that the certificate submitted by the petitioner was admittedly
submitted on 25.02.2019, well after the cut-off date specified in the notice dated
14.02.2019 (Annexure R-4/2). It is urged that there is neither any allegation of
mala fides nor any substantiated plea of favoritism raised by the petitioner.
OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner along with
GAGANDEEP
2026.11.03 17:14
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
-6-
CWP No.30899 of 2019 (O&M) and
CWP No.31939 of 2019 (O&M)
private respondents, participated in the selection process pursuant to the
advertisement ( supra ) for recruitment to the post of Assistant Registrar. The
essential qualification and experience for the said post as discernible from
Annexure P-2 reads as under:-
4. Assistant Registrar
1. Name of the Post Assistant Registrar
2. Number of Posts 04 (UR), 01 (SC)
3. Classification B
4. Pay Band 15600-39100+5400
5. Mode of Direct
Recruitment
6. Age limit for direct 50 years
recruits
7. Educational and
other qualification
required for direct
recruits
Master’s Degree/LLB with at least 55%
or its equivalent grade of B in the UGC
seven-point scale. OR B.E./B.Tech. with
first division or its equivalent grade.
5 years of experience as Assistant
Professor in a college or a University
with experience in education
administration OR 5 years’ experience as
superintendent in a University/examining
body conducting public examination OR
comparable experience in research
establishments and/or institutions of
higher education.
8. Period of probation 2 years
if any
6. The petitioner's Experience Certificate dated 17.09.2016 attached
with the application form (Annexure P-3, at page 51 of the paper-book) merely
indicates that she served as an Assistant Professor in the Department of
Electronics and Communication Engineering at Manav Rachna University,
Faridabad. There is no mention therein of the petitioner having acquired any
GAGANDEEP
2026.11.03 17:14
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
-7-
CWP No.30899 of 2019 (O&M) and
CWP No.31939 of 2019 (O&M)
experience in educational administration. On 12.02.2019, the Scrutiny
Committee recorded its observations concerning the experience possessed by
candidates for various posts, flagging inappropriate experience among various
candidates and appending an explanatory Note at the foot of Annexure P-5,
whereby a uniform opportunity was afforded to all aspirants to rectify
deficiencies in the documents already annexed or to furnish any document that
could not be submitted alongside their application forms, with the deadline fixed
as 14.02.2019. The said Note reads as under:
"Note:
In case, any candidate could not attach any document in support of
qualification/experience/eligibility etc. due to any reason even after
giving one opportunity, the LAST OPPORTUNITY is given to submit
relevant document(s). All such document(s) to be sent on mail id:
[email protected] upto 15.00 Hrs on 14th Feb, 2019. Candidates
must ensure that they should submit all documents in support of their
eligibility as per the notified eligibility criteria in the advertisement.
Experience certificate must be issued by competent Authority
mentioning pay scale and experience in the relevant area.
In the subject of mail only Roll Number and Name of Post to be given,
in the body of mail details of documents must be mentioned. The
University will not be responsible for any delay or late submission of
document(s) and will not consider any representations after 15.00 Hrs
on 14th Feb, 2019.
Interview schedule for all eligible candidates will be published on the
University website separately."
GAGANDEEP
2026.11.03 17:14
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
-8-
CWP No.30899 of 2019 (O&M) and
CWP No.31939 of 2019 (O&M)
7. Thereafter, vide notification dated 14.02.2019 (Annexure R-4/2),
the competent authority extended the timeline for submission of deficient
documents up to 20.02.2019. A perusal of the certificate dated 14.02.2019
(Annexure R-4/5) page 129 demonstrates that respondent No. 4 was actively
involved in both administrative and academic assignments, having discharged
duties as Head of the Department as well as Chief Warden. Furthermore, the
petitioner's assertion that respondent No. 4 was selected despite never having
been called for the interview is factually incorrect, inasmuch as a perusal of the
interview notice dated 25.02.2019 (Annexure R-4/3) explicitly reflects the roll
number of respondent No. 4. It is trite law that the terms and conditions of an
advertisement are sacrosanct and bind not only the participating candidates but
the Selection Committee as well. The advertisement ( supra ) prescribes five
years of experience as an Assistant Professor coupled with experience in
educational administration. Given that the post in question is non-academic in
character, the stipulated experience bears a direct nexus to the functional
requirements of the post of Assistant Registrar.
CONCLUSION
8. Admittedly, the petitioner originally annexed the 17.09.2016 (page
51) experience certificate with her application form (Annexure P-3), and when
the Scrutiny Committee flagged it on 12.02.2019 (Annexure P-5), she re-
submitted that very same certificate on 13.02.2019 (Annexure P-6), which was
demonstrably deficient as it failed to reflect any experience in educational
GAGANDEEP
2026.11.03 17:14
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
-9-
CWP No.30899 of 2019 (O&M) and
CWP No.31939 of 2019 (O&M)
administration. Although the cut-off date for curing such documentary
deficiencies was extended up to 20.02.2019 vide notification dated 14.02.2019
(Annexure R-4/2), the petitioner submitted a fresh Experience Certificate dated
25.02.2019 (Annexure P-9, page 76 of the paper-book) only on 25.02.2019, well
after the extended deadline had expired. In such circumstances, this Court finds
no infirmity or illegality in the action of the respondent-authorities in declining
to consider the candidature of the petitioner for lack of requisite qualifying
experience.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the present writ petitions
are dismissed.
10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
11. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case.
27.10.2026 ( HARPREET SINGH BRAR )
Gagan
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes
Whether reportable :Yes
GAGANDEEP
2026.11.03 17:14
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
-10-