AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HARPREET SINGH BRARHARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral), J. (Oral)
This Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the result dated 24.07.2026 (Annexure P-5) and the announcement/waiting list dated 09.08.2026 (Annexure P-6) issued in respect of Advertisement No. 05/2024 (Annexure P-1), Category No. 01, for the post of Primary Teacher (Mewat Cadre), and for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing respondent No.1 to rectify the result and select the petitioner against the post in the BC-A category, as the petitioner has secured higher marks than the last selected candidate in the said category.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the respondent No.1-HSSC issued Advertisement No.05/2024 dated 09.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) inviting applications for 1456 posts of Primary Teacher (Mewat Cadre), including 242 posts reserved for BC-A category. The petitioner, belonging to the Jogi caste, duly recognized as BC-A in the State of Haryana, applied under the BC-A (Non-Creamy Layer) category and submitted a valid BC-A certificate dated 27.02.2024 (Annexure P-3). She appeared in the written examination held on 28.09.2024 and secured 70.3 marks out of 95. However, despite the BC-A cut-off being 69.35 marks in the final result dated 24.07.2026 (Annexure P-5), her candidature was not considered. Even in the waiting list dated 09.08.2026 (Annexure P-6), wherein the BC-A cut-off was 68.4 marks, the petitioner, having secured 70.3 marks, was excluded.
Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner was never served with any deficiency memo, notice, show-cause notice or any reasoned order communicating the basis for rejection of her candidature. Upon enquiry, she came to know that her candidature was allegedly excluded on the ground that the BC-A certificate submitted with the application was not the “latest” certificate. Such exclusion is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable, particularly when the petitioner had submitted a valid BC-A certificate at the time of application and subsequently obtained further BC-A certificates dated 08.06.2025 and 09.05.2026 (Annexures P-7 and P-8), consistently affirming her BC-A status. The petitioner, having secured marks higher than both the final as well as waiting-list cut-offs, could not have been denied consideration without a specific notice and a reasoned decision in accordance with the terms of the advertisement and the applicable rules.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Commission opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner that terms and conditions of the advertisement (supra) are sacrosanct and binding on both the candidate and the recruitment agency. The Clause 4.5 read with 11.2 of the said advertisement creates an obligation on the candidate seeking appointment belonging to BC-A/BC-B categories to obtain the fresh/latest BC-A or BC-B certificate as the case may be as per Haryana Government instructions issued on 22.03.2022 and Government notification dated 16.07.2024 and as amended from time to time, as applicable. Further, it was clarified that OBC certificate issued for jobs in Central Government will not be considered irrespective of income mentioned in the certificate. The petitioner has uploaded the BC-A certificate dated 27.02.2024 (Annexure P-3). As such, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by judgment rendered by this Court in Pushpa RaniPushpa Rani Vs StateVs State ooof Haryana And Others, CWP-f Haryana And Others, CWP--24165-24165--20262026, decided on 05.08.2026.
He further submits that even the certificate attached was not in terms of the instructions duly incorporated in Clause 4.5 of the advertisement (supra). The certificate was not an income certificate issued in terms of instructions dated 22.03.2022. He submits that in case, the petitioner approaches the Commission by filing a representation, the same would be considered and decided by passing a reasoned speaking order.
In view of the above, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent-Commission and submit a fresh representation within a period of four weeks from today. On doing so, respondent-Commission/competent authority is directed to hear and decide the fresh representation filed by the petitioner, in a time-bound manner and pass a speaking order thereon within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same be granted to him forthwith by respondent-Commission/competent authority.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.