Chanchal & Ors. vs State Of Haryana & Ors.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

The aforesaid writ petitions are being taken up together for adjudication, as they arise out of a common set of facts and involve identical questions of law. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, the facts are being extracted from CWP-26243-2026.

The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, especially in the nature of mandamus directing respondents particularly respondent No.3 to extend to the candidates of Advt. No.02/2023 dated 21.02.2023 (Annexure P-1) including the petitioners, the self same facility for correction of category which was extended to the candidates of Advt. No.01/2023 (Group-D) vide public notice dated 06.07.2024 & 08.07.2024 (Annexure P-6) i.e. to open/provide correction portal and to permit the petitioners, upon their backward class certificates, to correct their category from General/Unreserved to Backward Class-Block-A qua petitioners No.1 and 2 and Block-B qua petitioner No.3. Further directing respondents to re-cast and declare their result for the post of TGT (English) (ROH) qua petitioners No.1 and 2 and TGT Science (ROH) qua petitioner No.3, against Advt. No.02/2023-i.e. the result dated 27.07.2024 (Annexure P-8) as revised on 28.05.2026 (Annexure P-10) and 06.07.2026 (Annexure P-12) by counting the petitioners against their rightful backward class category on their own marks, and to extend them all consequential and continuity/notional benefits, including appointment to the respective posts. Further during pendency of present writ petition to keep two posts vacant in the backward class of TGT English and one post of TGT Science.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the respondent-Commission issued Advertisement No.02/2023 dated 21.02.2023 for recruitment to 7471 posts of TGTs (Annexure P-1). The petitioners, being members of the Backward Class by birth, were constrained to apply under the General Category, as the requisite BC certificates were either not issued by the State machinery within time or could not be accepted/uploaded through the online portal. It is submitted that the petitioners, however, possessed valid BC certificates prior to the date of scrutiny (Annexure P-3).

Learned counsel further submits that the final result was declared on 27.07.2024 (Annexure P-8), wherein the petitioners were treated as candidates belonging to the Unreserved/General Category. Petitioner No.2 was selected under the UR category against the cut-off of 63.65 marks, whereas petitioner No.3 was accommodated only in the Mewat Cadre under the UR category. Petitioner No.1, despite securing marks higher than the prescribed BC-A cut-off, was not selected.

It is further contended that, in another recruitment pursuant to Advertisement No.01/2023 for Group-D posts, the respondent-Commission had permitted candidates to seek correction of their category by reopening the online portal from 06.07.2024 to 10.07.2024 (Annexure P-6). However, no such opportunity was afforded to the candidates who had applied pursuant to Advertisement No.02/2023.

Learned counsel further submitted that the revised results were thereafter declared on 28.05.2026 (Annexure P-10) and 06.07.2026 (Annexure P-12), superseding the earlier result. Pursuant thereto, petitioner No.2 was ousted from the UR select list on the basis of the age tie-breaker, petitioner No.1 continued to remain excluded, and the rightful claim of petitioner No.3 for consideration against the BC-B category for the post of PGT Science in Rest of Haryana was also denied.

Learned counsel, while referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr., (2016) 4 SCC 754, further submits that membership of a Backward Class is a status acquired by birth and the caste certificate is merely evidence thereof and is not the source of such status. It is contended that denial of the benefit of reservation merely on account of failure to upload/produce the caste certificate within a short period, despite the candidate otherwise possessing the requisite status and a valid certificate, amounts to an infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Per contra, learned State Counsel, on advance notice, adopts the reply filed in CWP-21860-2024 as well as in the other connected cases. He refers to Clauses 3.1, 3.6, 3.8 and 5.2 of Advertisement No.02/2023 dated 21.02.2023 (Annexure P-1) and submits that the petitioners had consciously applied under the General Category. It is specifically provided under Clauses 3.1 and 3.6 of the advertisement that no change of category would be permitted after submission of the application form. Learned State Counsel contends that the terms and conditions of the advertisement are binding upon the candidates and cannot be altered subsequently.

It is further submitted that the petitioners, despite being aware of the category under which they had applied, participated throughout the selection process as General Category candidates and did not raise any objection in this regard at the relevant stage. The final result was declared on 27.07.2024, and the petitioners have approached this Court thereafter. Thus, at this belated stage, no relief can be granted to them, particularly when they had consciously participated in the selection process in the General Category.

Learned State Counsel further refers to Clause 9.5 of the advertisement, which requires every candidate claiming the benefit of reservation to upload the latest and valid certificate in support of such claim. He also refers to Clause 16.13, which specifically provides that the scanned documents uploaded along with the application form alone shall be considered for determining the eligibility, qualification and reservation criteria for the post in question.

It is further submitted that this is not a case where the petitioners were deprived of consideration on account of any technical glitch or where they had secured marks higher than the last selected candidate in the General Category. Rather, the petitioners themselves had opted for the General Category and participated in the selection process accordingly. Therefore, no subsequent change of category can be permitted at this stage.

Learned State Counsel has strongly placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and another vs. Neetu Harsh and another, 2019 SCC Online SC 1119, wherein it has been categorically held that once a candidate opts for a particular category, pays the prescribed fee and participates in the selection process, he cannot be permitted to change his category subsequently. He has further relied upon the judgment in Vinay Sharma vs State of Haryana and others, 2020(4) SCT 623, whereby this Court while relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J&K Public Service Commission vs Israr Ahmed and others, 2005 (12) SCC 498, held that once a candidate has consciously opted for a particular category at the time of filling application, the same cannot be permitted to be changed at a later stage.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper-book with their able assistance.

The short question which arises for consideration in the present writ petitions is whether the petitioners, having submitted their applications pursuant to Advertisement No.02/2023 dated 21.02.2023 under the General/Unreserved Category and having participated in the selection process as such, can, at this belated stage, seek alteration of their category and claim consideration against the Backward Class category on the basis of the certificates obtained/possessed by them subsequently.

It is not in dispute that the respondent-Commission issued Advertisement No.02/2023 dated 21.02.2023 for direct recruitment to 7471 posts of TGTs in the Education Department, Haryana. The online application window remained open from 23.02.2023 to 15.03.2023. The petitioners submitted their respective applications during the said period and, admittedly, opted for the General/Unreserved Category. The record further reveals that they were issued admit cards accordingly and participated in the written examination as General Category candidates.

The terms and conditions of the advertisement are of significance. Clause 3.1 of the advertisement specifically stipulated, in substance, that the candidate was required to ensure correctness of the particulars furnished in the online application and that, after closure of the registration process, no change, correction or modification in the application was permissible. The petitioners, having consciously furnished their category as General/Unreserved while submitting their applications, cannot now seek to alter the very basis on which their candidature was considered.

Clause 3.6 of the advertisement also made it clear that no change in the category after submission of the application was permissible. The aforesaid stipulation cannot be treated as an insignificant procedural requirement. Category is directly connected with the number of posts available in each category, the applicable cut-off, the zone of consideration and the inter se merit of candidates. Permitting a candidate to change the category after participation in the selection process would, therefore, have the effect of altering the terms of the recruitment after the selection process has commenced.

The petitioners seek to overcome the aforesaid stipulation by relying upon the Backward Class certificates subsequently possessed by them. However, Clause 9.5 of the advertisement required the candidates claiming the benefit of reservation under the BCA/BCB categories to furnish/upload the requisite fresh/latest certificate in accordance with the applicable Government instructions. Likewise, Clause 16.13 stipulated that the scanned documents uploaded along with the application form alone would be taken into consideration for determining the qualification and reservation criteria.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners otherwise belonged to the Backward Class and subsequently obtained valid certificates cannot, by itself, confer a right upon them to alter the category under which they had applied. The question before this Court is not merely whether the petitioners possessed the requisite social status, but whether, having consciously applied and participated as General Category candidates in terms of the advertisement, they can subsequently seek conversion of their candidature to the reserved category contrary to the express terms and conditions of the recruitment.

The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners upon Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra), does not advance their case in the facts and circumstances of the present matter. The issue before this Court is not confined to belated production of a caste certificate. In the present case, the petitioners, at the time of submitting their applications, specifically applied under the General Category and thereafter participated in the selection process on that basis. Thus, the claim raised by the petitioners entails a change in the category of their candidature itself, which is expressly prohibited under the terms of the advertisement.

The reliance upon the correction facility extended by the respondent-Commission in Advertisement No.01/2023 for Group-D posts is also of no assistance to the petitioners. The Commission has explained that the said recruitment was conducted through the CET system and that the correction facility was opened pursuant to grievances received from candidates in respect of their particulars, including category. The Commission has further explained that Advertisement No.02/2023 relates to recruitment to TGT posts and was a separate recruitment process. The mere fact that a correction facility was provided in another recruitment cannot confer an indefeasible right upon the petitioners to seek a similar alteration contrary to the specific conditions governing the present recruitment.

There is yet another aspect of the matter. The petitioners did not raise any objection to their having been treated as General Category candidates at the relevant stage. They accepted their candidature, were issued admit cards accordingly, appeared in the written examination and participated in the subsequent stages of the selection process. It is only after declaration of the result that they seek alteration of the category so as to obtain the benefit of reservation. Such a course cannot be permitted, as it would not merely amount to correction of a ministerial error but would result in alteration of the category under which the petitioners chose to participate in the recruitment.

The issue is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neetu Harsh’s case (supra) has categorically held that where a candidate consciously participates in a selection process by opting a particular category and availing the benefit thereof, such candidate cannot be permitted to subsequently resile from the declared position after the process has progressed or culminated. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further reiterated the principle laid down in Israr Ahmad’s case (supra) that a candidate is bound by the option exercised at the initial stage and cannot, at a later stage, seek to alter the same to claim a more beneficial category.

Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the petitioners, having consciously applied under the General Category and having participated in the selection process in the said category, cannot, after declaration/revision of the result, seek conversion of their candidature. The express conditions contained in the advertisement bind the candidates as well as the recruiting agency and cannot be permitted to be altered retrospectively to the prejudice of the selection process and other candidates.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the present writ petitions, being devoid of merit, are dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases.