IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-16454-2025 DECIDED ON:29.08.2025 REENA ...PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl. AG, Haryana ****

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J

1. Prayer This civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India is filed for issuance of the Writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 and directing to the respondents to issue appointment letter and to allow the petitioner to join on the post of Multi-Purpose Health Worker (Female) under General category as selected as per the final result dated 05.02.2024 as the petitioner secured 53.6 marks and last candidate selected under General category secured only 49.725 marks

2. Brief Facts The petitioner applied for recruitment to Group-C posts pursuant to Advertisement No. 3/2023 issued by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC). While submitting the application, her sub-category was allegedly inadvertently entered as Dependent of Ex-Servicemen (DESM), though she belonged to the General Category. She participated in the selection process, appeared in the examination, and was shown as selected in the UR-DESM category in the result declared on 05.02.2024.

The petitioner made representations seeking correction of her category from DESM to General, asserting that she had secured more marks than the last selected candidate in the General Category. Upon her legal notice, this Court in CWP No. 4015 of 2025 directed the respondents to consider her claim and pass a reasoned order. Pursuant thereto, the respondents rejected her request vide order dated 21.05.2025. The respondents have taken the stand that no change of category was permissible after final submission of the form and that the selection result dated 05.02.2024 itself has been set aside by the Division Bench in LPA No. 1037 of 2023 vide order dated 31.05.2024, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court vide order dated 24.06.2024 deeming the result inoperative.

Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the rejection order dated 21.05.2025.

3. Contentions On behalf of Petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied under Advertisement No. 3/2023 for the post of Multi-Purpose Health Worker (Female), but due to a bona fide mistake, her sub-category was mentioned as Dependent of Ex-Servicemen (DESM) though she belongs to the General Category. It is contended that immediately upon noticing the error, the petitioner made written representations, emails and even approached the Commission for rectification, but her request was not entertained.

Counsel argues that the petitioner secured 53.62 marks in the written examination, whereas the last selected candidate in the General Category had secured only 49.725 marks, thus the petitioner is more meritorious and ought to have been considered in the General Category.

It is further urged that the rejection of petitioner’s claim is wholly arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and amounts to denial of equal opportunity in public employment. It is argued that the error in selection of category was purely technical and procedural, and the respondents ought to have considered her candidature in the proper category rather than depriving her of appointment.

Accordingly, it is prayed for the impugned order be set aside and directions be issued to the respondents to treat the petitioner as a General Category candidate and issue her appointment letter for the post in question.

On behalf of Respondents Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner had herself applied under the Dependent of Ex-Servicemen (DESM) category in her application form and was allotted a roll number accordingly. The advertisement clearly stipulated that candidates must check all particulars be