IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 28.01.2026 Neeru . . . Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA PRESENT: Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate with Mr. Rahul Chadha, Advocate and Mr. Jagraj Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.(ORAL)

CM-1198-2026 For the reasons stated, the application is allowed, and amended memo of parties is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

CWP-934-2026 The petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to consider the petitioner's candidature for appointment as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) English pursuant to advertisement 2/2023, dated 21.02.2023, Annexure P-1, under the BC-B category. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner applied for the post in question as a BC-B category candidate in response to the aforementioned advertisement, but she failed to upload a valid certificate establishing her credentials as a candidate belonging to the said category, and by mistake uploaded a domicile/resident certificate instead. Her application form was accepted by respondent no.2/Commission, and was permitted to appear in the written examination as BC-B category candidate. This is apparent from her admit card, dated 12.04.2023, Annexure P-4, mentioning her category as such. He further contended that the result of written examination was declared on 05.07.2023, Annexure P-5, and the selected candidates, including the petitioner, were provisionally called for scrutiny of documents in order to establish their eligibility. She appeared and submitted her BC-B category certificate dated 17.07.2024 (wrongly mentioned as 17.07.2014), Annexure P-3, issued under Government instructions dated 31.08.2010. The final result was declared on 27.07.2024; however, her roll number did not find mention therein. As per the detailed result, dated 04.11.2024, she has secured 57.95 marks.

2.1. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the reason the petitioner failed to submit a valid BC-B category certificate was her inter-caste marriage. On this account she could not be issued Parivar Pehchan Pattar (PPP) in time which was an essential pre-requisite to get the reserved category certificate. It was finally issued on 25.09.2025, and she submitted the same in the office of respondent no.2, alongwith representation dated 08.10.2025, Annexure P-12, but to no effect. Despite the posts lying vacant, the petitioner's candidature has not been considered. In support of the contention reliance has been placed upon Supreme Court judgment in Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another, (2016) 4 SCC 754. A reference has also been made to an order passed by this Court in CWP No.29139 of 2024 titled Savita Rani v. State of Haryana and others, alongwith connected matters, dated 27.10.2025, directing the Commission to get the objections which were submitted against the written examination pursuant to the advertisement in question, examined by independent subject experts. And based upon their advice, take a decision as to whether the selection result needs to be revised. Till then the posts lying vacant are not to be filled. Accordingly, the petitioner has a right to consideration.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner initially failed to upload a valid BC-B category certificate with the application form; even at the time of scrutiny of documents she failed to submit the same. Her candidature was accordingly considered under General category. Since the last selected candidate under the said category secured 63.65 marks, the petitioner could not be selected. It is further submitted that at this stage also her candidature cannot be considered as final selection result has been declared by the Commission o