##PAGE1##

242 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 12.08.2026 Nirmala Devi and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents

2) CWP-25356-2024 Somwati ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents

3) CWP-1432-2025 Samsher Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Tejpal Singh Dhull, Advocate and Mr. Ravi Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP-21901-2024).

Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP-25356-2024).

Mr. S.K. Malik, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP-1432-2025). Mr. Ravi Pratap Singh, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate and Ms. Hitika Sabherwal, Advocate for respondent No.3 in all cases.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. With the consent of all the parties, this common order shall dispose of the aforementioned civil writ petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix and involve identical questions of law. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP No.21901 of 2024.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned result and corrigendum dated 27.07.2024 (Annexures P-8 and P-9) to the extent that it does not recommend the petitioners for the post of TGT (Sanskrit). Further, a prayer is made seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent- Commission to recommend the name of the petitioners to the said post, in order of their merit and also, to grant them all consequential benefits including seniority.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. The respondent-Commission advertised various posts including Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) for Sanskrit vide advertisement No.7 of 2016 (Annexure P-1). The petitioners applied for the same, however, the respondent- Commission withdrew the selection process with respect to TGT (Sanskrit). Subsequently, in the year 2019, the said posts were re-advertised vide advertisement No.2 of 2019 (Annexure P-3), which also was eventually cancelled. Thereafter, the respondent-Commission advertised the post of TGT (Sanskrit) again vide advertisement No.2 of 2023 (Annexure P-4). Clause 11 to advertisement No.2 of 2023 (Annexure P-4) provided that the candidates who had applied against the cancelled advertisements shall be granted relaxation with respect to age and Haryana Teaching Eligibility Test (HTET).

4. The petitioners were also allotted unique IDs- 222016747, 222039378 and 222043311, respectively, by the respondent-Commission, identifying them as candidates who had previously applied against cancelled advertisements as well. However, the petitioners were not selected in furtherance of advertisement No.2 of 2023 (Annexure P-4) in spite of securing higher marks than the last selected candidates, as evident from vide the impugned final result and corrigendum dated 27.07.2024 (Annexures P-8 and P-9), 5. On 28.07.2024 (Annexure P-10), the respondent-Commission issued a notice containing the reasons for non-selection of candidates who had scored more than the cut-off marks. The roll numbers of the petitioners were also mentioned in the said notice (Annexure P-10) and it was stated that they were not considered for selection for the reason of being overage.

CONTENTIONS

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners had applied for the post of TGT (Sanskrit) in terms of advertisements No.7 of 2016 (Annexure P-1) and No.2 of 2019 (Annexure P-3), both of which were eventually cancelled for reasons best known to the respondent-Commission. Thereafter, when advertisement No.2 of 2023 (Annexure P-4) was issued, the petitioners applied for the post of TGT (Sanskrit) again. He directs the attention of this Court to Clause 11 of the advertisement No.2 of 2023 (Annexure P-4) to submit that the respondent-Com