IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.02.2026 MEENAKSHI YADAV …Petitioner(s)

Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present:- Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, Advocate with Ms. Anagya Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Sahni, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral)

The petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the condition in petitioner’s appointment letter dated 27.08.2024, Annexure P-16, whereby she has been given appointment as Assistant Professor (Physical Education) in the fifth respondent/College with effect from 19.04.2024 (forenoon). Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post with effect from 04.03.2014, i.e., the date on which the selection committee proceedings dated 20.09.2013 were approved by the University.

2. As apparent on record, the petitioner applied for the post in question and was placed at number 2 in the panel of candidates recommended for appointment by the selection committee in its meeting dated 20.09.2013; the proceedings of the committee were approved by the University on 04.03.2014. The petitioner challenged the appointment by filing a writ petition, CWP-99-

2014 titled Ms. Meenakshi Yadav v. Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak and others. The candidate recommended for appointment, Rambir Singh, who was not given the appointment, also approached this Court by filing, CWP-5772- 2014, titled Rambir Singh v. State of Haryana and others. Both the petitions were decided by a common order dated 24.11.2022. The Court found that the criteria of selection was not correctly followed by the selection committee, and accordingly a direction was issued to constitute a fresh selection committee to complete the process, after considering the candidature of all eligible candidates.

The relevant paragraphs of the judgment read as under:

12. It is manifest that the selection has been cancelled on the purported ground that there was disagreement among the Selection Committee members with regard to the applicability of the selection criteria. There is no dispute with regard to the criteria adopted by the Selection Committee. It has neither been pleaded nor there is any material on record to suggest that the criteria which had been adopted by the Selection Committee was not in accordance with the advertisement or the rules. The selection has been cancelled on the ground that the criteria had not been correctly followed. This Court had, by order dated 09.11.2021, directed the respondents to re- examine the matter. The petitioners had promptly filed these petitions in the year 2014 and the matter has been pending adjudication since then. It is also not the case that the entire selection is vitiated on the account of malpractices where it is not possible to separate the tainted candidates from the bona fide candidates. It would also be unjust and inequitable if the action of the official respondents in cancelling the selection on the ground of not following the criteria, is upheld. It would be apposite if the respondents are directed to complete the selection process in terms of the criteria. The candidature of the petitioners and other candidates, who had applied for selection, would be considered in terms of the criteria set out by respondent No.2.

13. Consequently, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2 to constitute a fresh Selection Committee which would thereafter complete the selection process after consideration of the candidatures of all the eligible persons, who had applied in terms of the afore-noted advertisement.

Pursuant thereto, a fresh selection committee was constituted which reviewed the selection process. It was only after filing of a contempt petition seeking compliance of the direction issued vide judgment dated 24.11.2022, that the petitioner was issued appointment letter