1. CWP-661-2026

ASHA RANI AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondent(s)

2. CWP-565-2026

VINEET RANGA AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)

3. CWP-494-2026

GAURI YADAV ...Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondent(s)

4. CWP-2042-2026

MONIKA AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)

5. CWP-2457-2026

BIJENDER KUMAR ...Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)

6. CWP-2593-2026

SONALI ...Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)

7. CWP-3007-2026

ANITA MALIK ...Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)

8. CWP-3978-2026

NAVITA KANDHAL ...Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)

9. CWP-2394-2026

DILSHAD ALI AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)

10. CWP-5850-2026

PUSHPA SHARMA ...Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

Present:- Mr. D. S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate, Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate,

Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate,

Mr. Bhupinder Malik, Advocate, Ms. Anjali Sheoran, Advocate,

Mr. Pardeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate,

Mr. Munish Soni, Advocate, Mr. Rajender, Advocate,

Mr. Ashish Kaushik, Advocate with Mr. Ritish Jindal, Advocate,

Mr. Dalbir Singh, Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate,

Mr. Ravinder Singh Dhull, Advocate with

Mr. Navnit Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioner(s).

Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate with

Ms. Sheena Dahiya, Advocate; and

Ms. Sukriti Gupta, Advocate

for the respondents.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.

1. The aforementioned petitions are based upon similar facts involving common issues; accordingly, the same are being decided together. For brevity, the facts have been noticed from CWP-661-2026, which has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the advertisement 42 to 67 of 2024, dated 02.08.2024, Annexure P-4, issued by the second respondent/Hayana Public Service Commission, and memorandum dated 11.11.2022, Annexure P-2, issued by the State Government on the ground of being violative of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018 (for short, ‘the 2018 Regulations’), in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mandeep Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2025 INSC 834.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners have restricted the prayer in these petitions to quashing of advertisement 48 of 2024 only, whereby posts of Assistant Professor (English) in the Higher Education Department have been advertised.

Key details

3.1. Facts of the case in brief are, the respondent State Government sent requisition for recruitment against 613 posts of Assistant Professor (College Cadre) English in the Higher Education Department to the Commission. In turn, the advertisement in question was issued by the Commission inviting applications from the eligible, for selection to be carried out as per the procedure and criteria notified. The petitioners have applied for the posts in response thereto. As notified, the selection is to be carried out as per scheme/pattern of examination, requiring the candidates to appear for a Screening Test. Based upon its result, candidates four times the number of advertised posts