110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 18.02.2026 Hardeep Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Krishan M. Vohra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl.A.G., Haryana.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representations of the petitioner (Annexures P-6, P-8 & P-9) in a time bound manner, for directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as fully eligible for the post of LDC, Category No.3 under advertisement No.03/2016 by holding that the petitioner had acquired the requisite PGDCA qualification prior to the cut off date on the basis of the examination held in January, 2016, provisional certificate dated 31.01.2016 (Annexure P-2), taking into account the EDUCOMP Computer Proficiency Certificate session 2007-2008 (Annexure P-4) and Information Technology and Strategic Management one year course issued by the Institute of Charted Accountants of India (Annexure P-5) as an additional qualification. Further, for directing the respondents to re-scrutinize the petitioner’s document and to consider his candidature for appointment against the available/vacant posts of LDC in accordance with law. Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the decision/communication, whereby, the petitioner has been treated as ineligible including the cryptic RTI based communication (Annexure P-7).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner applied for the post of LDC in terms of the advertisement No.03 of 2016 issued by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (in short ‘HSSC’). The last date to apply was 11.04.2016. The petitioner was having the essential qualification as set out in the advertisement. The petitioner has appeared and cleared his exam in January, 2016 of Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications (PGDCA) and he was issued a Provisional Certificate on 31.01.2016 (Annexure P-2) by the concerned Institute. He further refers to the application form (Annexure P-1) and he has provided complete particulars including the percentage of marks obtained by the petitioner in the essential qualification. The petitioner appeared in the written examination and secured 108 marks and he was called for document scrutiny and interview on 15.03.2017. However, his name was excluded from the final result declared on 13.11.2020 (Annexure P-6). The petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act and the HSSC gave a cryptic reply (Annexure P-8) stating his candidature was not accepted because his final PGDCA certificate (Annexure P-3) was issued after the cut off date of 11.04.2016 by ignoring the provisional certificate which fully endorses that petitioner has acquired the essential qualification before the cut off date. He further submits that the similarly situated candidates filed CWP No.17619 of 2025 titled as ‘Jasmeet and others Vs. State of Haryana and others’ and this Court on 29.05.2024 (Annexure P-11) disposed of the aforesaid writ petition on the basis of the statement made by the learned Advocate General, Haryana. As such, the vacant posts were required to be filled from the eligible candidates as per merit. Pursuant to this, 114 candidates were appointed but the petitioner despite having higher marks than the many appointees was not considered. Further, the petitioner made multiple representations (Annexures P-7, P-9 & P-10) highlighting that he has passed the exam and has attached the provisional certificate before the cut off date but no action was taken.

3. Per contra, the learned State counsel submits that in terms of the order passed by this Court in Jasmeet’s case (supra), the exercise to fill the vacant posts was undertaken and the enti