HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ****

Pawan Kumar ... Petitioner VS.

Sainik School Kunjpura, Karnal & Ors. ... Respondents ****

1. Judgment reserved on 06.11.2025 2. Judgment pronounced on 21.01.2026 3. Judgment uploaded on 22.01.2026

4. Whether operative or full judgment Full 5. Delay in pronouncement of full judgment and reasons, if any NA ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL ****

Present: Mr. Govind Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. BS Bedi, Advocate for respondents No.1&2 Mr. Padam Kant Dwivedi, Advocate and Ms. Ayushi, Advocate for respondent No.3 ****

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

(1). The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, for issuing a writ of certiorari for setting aside order of the appointment of respondent No.3 and directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Master (Hindi)

after correcting the merit list.

(2). The petitioner had earlier been appointed as Assistant Master (Hindi) on contractual/temporary basis with effect from 01.11.2014 and continued to work as such and his services were allowed to be continued from time to time. Thereafter, the post of Assistant Master (Hindi) was firstly advertised in July, 2015 wherein no suitable candidate was found including the petitioner followed by another advertisement in December 2015 and in the said advertisement it was specifically mentioned that “candidates who had applied earlier need not apply again”. Meaning thereby that the candidates who had applied pursuant to the earlier advertisement of July, 2015 could participate in the selection without submitting a fresh application. However, the petitioner filed CWP No. 27301 of 2015 challenging the said advertisement, which was disposed of on 20.01.2016 on the statement made on behalf of the respondents that petitioner would be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Master (Hindi) on regular basis. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner appeared in the written test conducted by the answering respondent and also appeared in the interview. It is pertinent to mention that the SOP for selection of staff in Sainik Schools provides the procedure for appointment of staff members, including conduct of written test, interview and constitution of Selection Board. The petitioner participated in the selection process but remained unsuccessful, whereas respondent No. 3 was selected and appointed as a successful candidate.

(3). Meanwhile, the petitioner also challenged another advertisement issued for appointment of Assistant Master (Hindi) on contractual basis, which had been issued since the process of regular recruitment was then pending and had not been completed. However, the said advertisement dated 09.03.2016 was withdrawn on 01.04.2016 as the process of regular recruitment pursuant to the December 2015 advertisement had been completed and respondent No. 3 was appointed as Assistant Master (Hindi) on regular basis on 02.04.2016. Consequently, CWP No. 5235 of 2016 filed by the petitioner was dismissed with the observation that the advertisement dated 09.03.2016 stood withdrawn on 01.04.2016 since regular recruitment to the post of Assistant Master (Hindi) had taken place in pursuance of the regular recruitment notified in December

2015 and respondent No.3 had been appointed on 02.04.2016, even though the petitioner had participated but failed to get selected. Hence this writ petition.

(4). Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents intentionally did not want to select the petitioner and also terminated the services of the petitioner vide order dated 29.02.2016 (Annexure P9) as a counter-blast to the writ petition filed against the respondents for consideration of his earlier application. He submits that CWP-5235-2016 by the petitioner impugning the termination order wherein this Court granted interim relief.

(5). It is submitted that as per the information sought under the RTI Act, it is