IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

229(2 cases) Date of Decision: February 02, 2026

1. CWP-17423-2024 (O&M)

Gurvinder Singh and others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and others ..Respondents

2. CWP-18262-2024 (O&M)

Suminder Singh and others .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Shakti Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

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. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-17423-2024.

2. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 09.07.2024 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No.3 vide which claim of the petitioners for consideration for recruitment has been rejected, as well as for quashing of impugned public notice dated 19.02.2024 (Annexure P-7). Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought for directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for their appointment as Driver/Operator. Lastly, a prayer has been made to issue ad-interim order or directions to the respondents to reserve the post vacant qua the candidature of the petitioners till the final outcome of the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that respondent No.3 issued an advertisement dated 28.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) for the posts of Fireman and Driver/Operator in Municipal Corporations, Municipal Councils and Panchayats. The said advertisement categorically mentions that the candidate must hold a license for driving heavy vehicles for at least 05 years prior to the date of recruitment. However, the claim of the petitioner for consideration to the post of Driver/Operator was rejected vide impugned order dated 09.07.2024 (Annexure P-11) solely on the ground that the petitioners was not holding a driving license for heavy vehicles for at least 05 years prior to the last date of application under the advertisement i.e. 16.03.2023. It is submitted that the petitioners had successfully qualified the written examination as well as the physical efficiency test and were otherwise eligible for appointment to the post of Driver/Operator. Learned counsel contends that the advertisement (Annexure P-1) stipulates that the candidate must possess a licence for driving heavy vehicles for not less than five years prior to the date of recruitment, whereas in the impugned order (Annexure P-11), the respondents assessed eligibility with reference to the date of advertisement. He further argues that the selection process commences with the issuance of the advertisement and culminates with the declaration of the result, and that eligibility conditions cannot be altered mid-process. The impugned order(Annexure P-11) has thus been passed by applying a criterion contrary to the express terms of the advertisement(Annexure P-1) which is contrary to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 3 SCC 512.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the criteria were applied uniformly to all candidates and that this is not a case of cherry- picking. It is argued that the reference to the date of advertisement was a typographical mistake and that the recruiting agency sought clarification from the employer-department. The said clarification was received on 18.10.2023, pursuant to which the impugned order (Annexure P-11) came to be passed. He further submits that petitioners No.10 and 17 do not have the experience certificate even if the time period with respect to the driving license is calculated from the date of recruitment.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. It transpires th