AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent No.2 to consider the claim of the petitioners and grant notional benefits and consider the deemed date of appointment as per the recommendation list dated 19.10.2022 sent by the respondent/Commission against Advertisement No.09/2015 for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) English, Group-C Services (Annexure P-2) at par with their counterparts selected in the same advertisement. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondent No.2 to consider and decide the petitioners’ representation (Annexure P-12) in terms of the directions issued by this Court in CWP-4495-2026, titled as Sushil Kumar and others vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 13.02.2026 (Annexure P-11).
Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners had applied for appointment to the post of TGT English pursuant to Advertisement No.09/2015 under the Economically Backward Person in General (EBPG) category and, after undergoing the selection process, they were finally selected and included in the recommendation list dated 19.10.2022 issued by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) as discernible from Annexures P-1 and P-2, respectively. He submits that although the petitioners stood selected, however, their joining was delayed on account of the interim orders passed by this Court in CWP-18514-2016, which were subsequently modified on 18.05.2018 permitting the candidates of EBPG category to join subject to the final outcome of the said writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent No.2 thereafter issued the appointment order dated 14.06.2024 appointing the petitioners as TGT English, pursuant to which respondent No.4, vide Memo dated 19.06.2024, directed them to join as is evident from Annexures P-3 and P-4, respectively. He further contends that despite their selection in the year 2022, the petitioners have not been granted fixation of seniority and consequential benefits, including promotion, ACP and increments from the date applicable to similarly situated employees. He further submits that such benefits have already been granted to similarly situated EBPG category employees in the Forest Department, Chief Secretary's Office and School Education Department as discernible from Annexures P-7 to P-9, respectively.
Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment dated 13.02.2026 passed by this Court in Sushil Kumar’s case (supra), wherein in relation to the candidates selected pursuant to the very same advertisement, the petitioners therein were permitted to submit a representation and the competent authority was directed to decide the same within the stipulated period. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners submitted a representation (Annexure P-12) before respondent No.2, which has not been decided till date.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he would be satisfied if the representation (Annexure P-12) of the petitioners is decided by respondent No.2 by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner.
Learned State counsel, appearing on advance notice, submits that he has no objection, in case a direction is issued to the respondent No.2 for time-bound consideration and decision of the representation (Annexure P-12) of the petitioners by passing a speaking order.
Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation (Annexure P-12) of the petitioners and pass a speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within a period of 03 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioners. Needless to say, if the petitioners are found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent No.2.
Disposed of, accordingly.