01Facts
The petitioners had applied for appointment as Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs), including PGT (History), pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.06.2012.
¶ 3 · pp. 3–4Under the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group B) Service Rules, 2012, qualification in HTET/STET was prescribed as an essential qualification.
¶ 3 · pp. 3–4By amendment dated 02.07.2012 and corrigendum dated 03.07.2012, certain candidates were granted exemption from HTET/STET and B.Ed. requirements as a one-time measure, initially up to 01.04.2015.
¶ 3 · pp. 3–4The exemption period was subsequently extended, including through the impugned order dated 05.06.2018, which extended the relevant period up to 01.04.2018.
¶ 3 · p. 4The petitioners participated in the selection process but were not selected.
¶ 6 · p. 7In CWP-4042-2021, the petitioner secured 51.95 marks, whereas the last selected General Category candidate secured 53.81 marks.
¶ 6 · p. 7The final result was declared on 10.04.2013.
¶ 6 · p. 7The selected candidates were appointed in 2014, while the writ petition was filed in 2021.
¶ 5.1 · p. 5The petitioners sought quashing of the order dated 05.06.2018, directions to relieve candidates allegedly lacking the essential qualifications after the one-time exemption, and appointment of the petitioners by operating the waiting list.
¶ 2 · p. 2During the proceedings, the Court was informed that the Government had further extended the time for passing HTET up to March 2027.
¶ 4 · p. 402Issues
i.Whether the petitioners could challenge the extension of the one-time exemption from the HTET/STET and B.Ed. requirements after participating in the selection process, without challenging the original amendment and corrigendum?
¶ 5–6 · pp. 5–7ii.Whether the petitioners were entitled to appointment through operation of the waiting list or to seek displacement of candidates appointed pursuant to the selection process?
¶ 2, 5.2 and 6 · pp. 2, 5–7iii.Whether the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, having been filed approximately seven years after completion of the selection and appointment of the selected candidates?
¶ 5.1, 7–9 · pp. 5, 7–903Law Applied
The Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, reiterating that writ relief may be refused where the petitioner approaches the Court after an unreasonable and unexplained delay.
¶ 5 · p. 5Relying on State of Rajasthan v. Sanyam Lodha, (2011) 13 SCC 262, and Dhani Ram Chaudhary v. State of Haryana, 2005 (1) SCT 571, the Court held that a person who has not challenged the relevant statutory amendment cannot indirectly question it at a later stage.
¶ 5 · p. 5The Court also relied on Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Ram Gopal, (2021) 13 SCC 225, and S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, for the principle that limitation may not strictly apply to writ proceedings, but unexplained delay, laches and acquiescence remain relevant; fence-sitters and indolent litigants are not entitled to discretionary relief.
¶ 7 · pp. 7–8The principle was further reaffirmed with reference to Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley, 2024 AIR SC 2717.
¶ 8 · p. 8The Court also noted that the validity of the 02.07.2012 amendment had previously been upheld in Shivani Gupta v. State of Haryana, CWP-15929-2012 and connected matters, decided on 21.12.2012.
¶ 5.3 · p. 604Reasoning
The Court found that the petitioners had participated in the selection process governed by the amended eligibility framework but never challenged either the amendment dated 02.07.2012 or the corrigendum dated 03.07.2012.
¶ 6 · p. 7Since the selection process concluded with declaration of the result on 10.04.2013, the petitioners could not subsequently challenge or indirectly question the exemption after being unsuccessful in the selection.
¶ 6 · p. 7The Court further held that the petitioners approached it only in 2021, approximately seven years after the appointments made in 2014, without providing any plausible explanation for the delay.
¶ 5.1 and 9 · pp. 5, 8–9Their claim was therefore barred by laches and was inconsistent with the rule that writ jurisdiction should not be used to revive stale claims or disturb a completed selection process.
¶ 5.1 and 9 · pp. 5, 8–9The Court also took note of the State’s contention that the applicable rules did not confer an indefeasible right to appointment through a waiting list, particularly for Group-B posts.
¶ 5.2 · pp. 5–605Holding
The Court held that the petitioners could not challenge the exemption framework or seek appointment after participating in and losing the completed selection process, particularly when they had not challenged the original amendment and had approached the Court after an unexplained delay of approximately seven years.
¶ 6–10 · pp. 7–9The Court declined to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and dismissed all the connected writ petitions.
¶ 10–11 · p. 9Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
¶ 10–11 · p. 9Original Court PDF
Satvender SinghvsState Of Haryana And Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
