IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-3795-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 24.02.2026 MANOJ KUMAR ....Appellant Versus STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR *****

Present: Mr. Amit Parashar, Advocate with Mr. Nimanyu Gautam, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Pankaj Middha, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. Amit Rao, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

*****

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)

CM-9337-LPA-2025 Delay of 08 days in filing the appeal has been satisfactorily explained.

In that view of the matter, the application is allowed and accordingly, the delay of 08 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Main case

1. This appeal arises out of a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12.11.2025 passed in CWP-33439-2025, whereby the grievance raised by the appellant with regard to his non-selection has been rejected in limine.

2. It transpires that advertisement was issued by the respondents- University on 27.10.2023 inviting applications for recruitment to various posts including the post of Assistant Professor (Economics). The appellant applied in the category of Ex-Servicemen (Unreserved) category. The appellant was shortlisted for an interview. At the stage of interview, none were found suitable, and consequently, the Selection Committee has recommended issuance of a fresh advertisement.

3. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant contended that though he had scored 63 marks in interview, yet he has been arbitrarily discarded. The learned Single Judge had called for the original records, whereafter it was found that 63 marks claimed by the appellant were the marks assessed for the purposes of shortlisting of the candidates, and such marks were not the marks given at the interview. It was in this context that the learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition by observing as under:-

“3. Considering the submissions, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition for the reason the petitioner has been duly considered by the selection committee along with other shortlisted candidates, and has not been found suitable for the post in question. The unanimous decision of the selection committee, as recorded in its proceedings, dated 05.07.2024, has been conveyed to him vide impugned communication/letter dated 17.10.2025. There is no requirement for the selection committee to give detailed reasons for non-suitability of any particular candidate. It was headed by the University’s Vice Chancellor, and had a women representative as Chancellor’s nominee, three independent subject experts from different universities, Dean of Faculty and Chairperson, Department of Economics as members. There is no malafide or wrongdoing alleged on their part, therefore, this court has no reason to take a view different from that of the selection committee after interviewing the petitioner. Secondly, the notification, dated 01.10.1981, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, has no application to the case at hand. It is to the effect that while reporting about the non-availability of candidates for reserved posts/vacancies, it should be indicated whether eligible candidates were available or not, and whether they were suitable or not for the post in question. This has been considered necessary to obviate the criticism that despite availability of eligible candidates for the reserved posts, they are declared unsuitable for inadequate reasons. But this situation does not arise in the instant case as the reserved category candidates have been duly interviewed by the selection committee, which found them not suitable along with all other candidates. There is no allegation of any wrongdoing in the process qua them. Besides, learned counsel appearing for the University, contends that these instructions are not applicable to the University, nor have the same been adopted by it at any point of time. Thirdly, the judgment in N. Mani case (supra) is also