112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:10.09.2025 Manjit Kaur …Petitioner vs.

State of Punjab and others …Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Hari Chand Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab.

***

N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the speaking order dated 14.02.2025 (Annexure P-10) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Ward Attendant in the respondent-department was rejected on the ground that she had mentioned the wrong category in her online application form. It is further prayed that the Open General Category Merit List (Annexure P-5) qua the selection and appointment of respondent No.4 may also be quashed as the petitioner was ranked higher in merit and her candidature could not have been rejected only on the ground of an inadvertent mistake, while filling up the category in the online application form. It is further prayed that the respondent-department will be directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post Ward Attendant either in General Category or in Scheduled Caste(R & O) category, on the basis of the position of the petitioner in the merit list, on notional basis.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste (R & O) category and was working as Asha Worker since 20.05.2009 at Village Budrukhan under PHC Longowal, Civil Surgeon, District Sangrur. On 04.08.2020, the respondent-department issued an advertisement (Annexure P-1) for filling up 800 posts of Ward Attendant in the State of Punjab and invited online applications for the same. As per the advertisement dated 04.08.2020 (Annexure P-1), the selection on the said posts was to be made through competitive written examination as well as on the basis of marks of experience, which were to be conducted by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences-respondent No.3. The petitioner fulfilled all the educational qualifications and was having the requisite experience as Asha Worker, so she had applied online for the post of Ward Attendant. However, due to heavy rush in the cyber cafe, the petitioner had mentioned her category as Scheduled Castes (M & B), instead of Scheduled Castes (R & O) category. A written examination was conducted and the petitioner had appeared in the test. As per provisional result dated 29.11.2021 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner secured 61 marks, out of 90 marks. However, at the time of checking her result, the petitioner came to know that she had inadvertently filled her sub-category as Scheduled Caste (M & B), instead of Scheduled Caste (R&O). Consequently, her result was shown in the list of the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste (M & B) category. After declaration of result, the petitioner was called for counseling on 03.12.2021 at Baba Farid University, Faridkot on the basis of marks obtained by her and she had supplied her Scheduled Caste Certificate of (R & O) category and other relevant certificates. Her certificates were verified and she was granted 10 marks on the basis of her experience as well. Thus, the petitioner secured 99^th rank that is much above respondent No.4, who was at 403^rd rank, with 68.00 marks, which is apparent from the combined merit list (Annexure P-5). Learned counsel next contends that after the declaration of the final result, the respondent-department issued the order dated 10.05.2022 (Annexure P-6) and called the candidates of different categories for appointment. However, the name of the petitioner was not shown in the general category nor in the reserved category, in spite of the fact that she had secured 99^th rank in the combined merit list. Even after this, the respondent-department issued another list of candidates and called them for appointment, but the name of the petitioner was missing in the said list