IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

126+135 Date of Decision: 12.05.2025

1. CWP-9094-2025 (O&M)

SUMAN DEVI AND OTHERS …Petitioner(s)

Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …Respondent(s)

2. CWP-12612-2025 SARWAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER …Petitioner(s)

Versus HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ANOTHER …Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present:- Ms. Anu Chatrath, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ratik Kapur, Advocate and Ms. Dhamanpreet Kaur, Advocate;(in CWP-9094-2025)

Mr. Anand Bhardwaj, Advocate (in CWP-12612-2025)

for the petitioners.

Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral)

The aforementioned petitions are based upon similar facts involving common issues; accordingly, the same are being decided together. For brevity, the facts have been taken from CWP-9094-2025, which has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.10.2024, Annexure P-27, whereby the petitioners’ claim for appointment as Art and Craft Teacher in response to advertisement 06/2006, dated

20.07.2006, has been rejected.

2. As per details of the case, in brief, the petitioners are applicants for the posts of Art and Craft Teacher in response to the aforementioned advertisement. They were considered ineligible on the basis of two years Diploma in Art and Craft having been obtained from the deemed University, Janardhan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘JRN Vidyapeeth’). The issue of their eligibility was finally decided by this Court, vide judgment dated 18.12.2023, rendered in CWP-23467-2021 titled Reetu Devi and others v. State of Haryana and others, along with connected cases. The following directions were issued therein:

16. In view of the discussion, all the petitions are allowed, and the respondents are directed to; (1) consider the petitioners eligible for the posts of Art and Craft Teacher advertised vide advertisement no.6 of 2006, as already held by this Court in Krishan Kumar case (supra); (ii) declare the petitioners’ final selection result and consider them for selection and appointment(s) as per merit. In case marks secured by the petitioners are more than those of the last selected candidate(s) in their respective categories, they will be given appointment(s) with effect from the date other selected candidates have been so appointed, with all consequential benefits except salary, which will be paid to them from the date of joining the service.

2.1. In terms therewith, the respondents considered the petitioners’ case for appointment on the basis of diploma from JRN Vidyapeeth, but they could not be selected on account of being lower in merit. And the impugned order, dated 21.10.2024, has been passed rejecting their case on the ground that they had secured marks below the cut-off under General and BC-B categories, i.e., 142 and 126, respectively.

3. Learned senior counsel, Ms. Anu Chatrath, contends that the petitioners could not have been considered ineligible for the post in the light of directions issued by this Court in Reetu Devi case, and their claim has been wrongly rejected vide the impugned order. She also contends that cut-off marks for the posts under General and BC-B categories were 110 and 108, respectively, as established by the announcement of revised final result dated 26.12.2022, Annexure P-24. The petitioners undisputedly have secured more marks than the cut-offs, still they have not been selected on baseless grounds.

4. Learned State counsel, Ms. Tanushree, has received instructions from the third respondent/Secretary, Haryana Staff Selection Commission, dated 05.05.2025, which are retained on case file as Annexure ‘A’. Relying upon instructions she contends that cases challenging the selection in response to the advertisement above mentioned, have been finally decided by the Supreme Court vide judgment rendered in Neeraj Kumar and another v. State of Haryana and others, 2023 AIR (SC) 3299, holding as under:

12