109 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 24.04.2026 Pawan Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate for the petitioner.

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

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 19.03.2026 (Annexure P-7). Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner against the vacant posts of Technical Expert advertised by notice dated 12.01.2024 (Annexure P-1) and grant him opportunity to appear for the interview.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that respondent No.1 advertised 55 posts for engagement of Technical Experts on contractual basis on 12.01.2024 as discernible from Annexure P-1. The petitioner applied for the advertised post and was allotted application No.TECH-2021-000055 as evident from Annexure P-2. On 14.03.2024, the petitioner came to know that 44 persons have been appointed against the 55 vacancies. The petitioner made representations on 24.02.2025 (Annexure P-4)

and 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-5) which remained unheeded prompting the petitioner to approach this Court by way of filing CWP No.32396 of 2025 titled as Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another which was disposed of vide order dated 03.11.2025 (Annexure P-6) with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation and pass a speaking order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing.

2.2 In purported compliance, the respondents have passed the impugned speaking order on 19.03.2026 (Annexure P-7) rejecting the representations of the petitioner on the ground that he was not eligible. The speaking order is illegal and arbitrary and passed without proper application of mind. The respondents have acted in violation of the directions issued by this Court on 03.11.2025 (Annexure P-6) which directed a speaking order. Further, the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature who was one of the short listed candidates in the merit list, despite existing of vacancies is discriminatory and violates the Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the Department of Urban Local Bodies, Haryana, invited applications for 55 posts of Technical Experts by issuing an advertisement dated 12.01.2024. Thereafter, a list of shortlisted candidates was published on the official website of the Department, informing the candidates to appear before the Selection Committee for document verification and interview on 24.02.2024 at 10:00 A.M. in the office of the Directorate of Urban Local Bodies, Haryana, Sector 4, Panchkula. It was further specifically mentioned in the said notice that in case candidates failed to appear for the interview on the scheduled date and time i.e. 24.02.2024 at 10:00 A.M., no further opportunity would be granted. Admittedly, the petitioner did not attend the document verification nor appear for the interview. Accordingly, he was not offered appointment due to his non-appearance before the Selection Committee. As such, the petitioner cannot, after a lapse of nearly one year, be permitted to seek extension of time and participate in the interview. The entire selection process has since been concluded, and the petitioner was not selected due to his own lapse.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner participated in the selection process for 55 advertised posts of Technical Experts on a contractual basis in terms of the advertisement dated 12.01.2024 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner was one of the shortlisted candidates and a public notice was issued on the official website of th