210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 22.08.2025 Shubham Kumar and another ....Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate for the petitioners.

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

Mr. Balvinder Sangwan, Advocate and Mr. Krishna Maurya, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate for respondent No.4-HSIIDC.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside of the result dated 18.02.2025 (Annexure P-15/A) published by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) for the post of Manager (Utility) in Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC) as well as impugned order dated 27.02.2025 (Annexure P-16) to the extent of withdrawal of the recommendation of the petitioners for the said post.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly, the facts are that the HPSC published an Advertisement bearing No.1 of 2018 for various posts in various departments, including 07 posts for Manager (Utility) in HSIIDC. Out of these 07 posts, 06 were unreserved and 01 was reserved for SC category. On 14.09.2021, the HPSC conducted a computer-based written test and pursuant thereto released a list of qualifying candidates on its official website, which included the petitioners (roll numbers 5571 and 4816, respectively). After scrutiny of documents and an interview, the petitioners were selected for appointment to the post of Manager (Utility) with HSIIDC, as discernible from result dated 29.08.2023 (Annexure P-6). Subsequently, appointment letters were issued to the petitioners and they joined their posts on 30.04.2024 and 14.03.2024, respectively, after resigning from their previous jobs.

3. However, the result dated 29.08.2023 (Annexure P-6) was challenged before this Court in CWP-22114-2023 titled Lalit Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others and CWP-23085-2023 titled Jyoti Nagil vs. State of Haryana and others on the ground of disqualifying them for want of securing 50% marks in the interview as such a condition was not prescribed in the initial criteria. The said petitions were allowed and this Court directed the HPSC to ignore the condition of 50% marks in interview and consider the petitioners therein for appointment to the post of Manager(Utility) against three vacancies. Aggrieved by the same LPA-481-2025 titled Haryana Public Service Commission vs. Lalit Kumar was preferred which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 17.02.2025. In the interregnum, COCP-626-2025 titled Lalit Kumar vs. Nishant Kumar Yadav and another was filed and during the pendency of the same, HPSC issued a revised Final Result dated 18.02.2025 (Annexure P-15/A), which did not bear the names of the petitioners as selected candidates.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the petitioners were duly selected to the post of Manager (Utility) and have rendered 10 months of service in pursuance thereof. In view of the order passed by this Court in CWP No.22114 of 2023 (Annexure P-14) titled Lalit Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others, the respondents revised the result which moved the petitioners from Serial No.3 & 5 to Serial No.6 & 8, respectively, of the merit list. He further relies upon the judgment of this Court passed in CWP No.13215-2009 titled as ‘Gajraj Singh Vs. State of Haryana’ to raise a specific argument that even in the absence of any waiting list, all the posts advertised by respondent No.2-HPSC should be filled in the order of merit, by considering the next eligible candidate against the advertised post. Admittedly, 03 out of the 05 remaining posts in the general category, are still lying vacant. Further, in CWP No.23766 of 2025 titled as ‘Jyoti Nagil Vs. State of Haryana and others,’