IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 03.03.2025 SURENDER KUMAR …Petitioner(s)

Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present:- Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate and Mr. Ishaan Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Tanushree Gupta, DAG, Haryana.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral)

The petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the final result for the post of TGT English, Rest of Haryana cadre, dated 04.10.2022, Annexure P-23, in response to advertisement 09/2015, dated 23.07.2015, Annexure P-1.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner cleared the written test for the post in question and was called for interview- cum-document verification, vide notice dated 06.09.2016, Annexure P-4; he was interviewed on 16.09.2016. Later, the Department issued another notice dated 04.06.2022, Annexure P-20, requiring shortlisted candidates to appear for scrutiny of documents. The petitioner’s roll number figured therein but he could not appear. In fact, he was not required to be called as he had already been interviewed. The requirement to call such candidates for scrutiny of documents was wrongly incorporated in the notice in violation of directions issued by this Court in CWP-22746-2016 titled Satish Kumar Malik and others v. State of Haryana and others, vide judgment dated 15.11.2016. In terms therewith, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for selection on the basis of his marks in written examination as well as interview conducted on

16.09.2016.

3. Learned State counsel, on the contrary, contended that Commission had withdrawn the advertisement, vide public notice dated 22.02.2021, which was challenged before this Court. The said notice was quashed in CWP-8483-2021 and directions were issued to complete the selection process to fill the vacancies that had been duly advertised. Pursuant thereto, notice dated 04.06.2022 was issued by the Commission, calling the shortlisted candidates for scrutiny of documents to ascertain their eligibility.

There were specific notes contained in the notice, which read as under:

2. It is important to note that after the scrutiny of documents if a candidate is found eligible it will not confer any right of interview and candidates only falling within twice the number of vacancies above shall be called for interview. Candidates who have been already interviewed will not be interviewed again.

3 and 4 XXX XXX XXX

5. All above shortlisted candidates shall appear for scrutiny of documents. Candidates who have already appeared for scrutiny or interview earlier shall also appear for scrutiny and submit their documents.

The shortlisted candidates who appeared for the scrutiny of documents were called for an interview/viva-voce vide subsequent notice dated 17.08.2022, Annexure P-21. Thereupon, the final result of selection of all the candidates was announced on 04.10.2022, and the selected candidates were given the appointments as well. Thereafter, the Commission has carried out further process of selection, and the posts of TGTs in the Department were again advertised, vide advertisement 02/2023. Its final result was announced on 27.07.2024, and appointments in response thereto were also made. Therefore, at this stage, the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment in response to the earlier advertisement 09/2015, for which he did not even appear for scrutiny of documents in response to notice dated 04.06.2022.

4. Heard.

5. It is apparent on record that in response to the directions issued by this Court in CWP-8483-2021, the selection process was carried out, and the Commission issued public notice dated 04.06.2022, requiring the shortlisted candidates to appear for scrutiny of documents. The notice clearly stipulated that candidates who had already been interviewed would not be interviewed again. It, however, stipulated that candidates who had appeared for scrutiny of documents or in