AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Harpreet Singh Brar, J.
The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the final result dated 27.07.2024 (Annexure P-9), to the limited extent whereby the petitioner, bearing Roll No.2231000726, has been excluded from selection to the post of TGT Sanskrit (ROH) under Advertisement No.2/2023 in the Unreserved Category despite having secured marks above the prescribed cut-off, as well as the public notice dated 28.07.2024 (Annexure P-10), to the extent it records the reason for rejection of her candidature as “Overage, experience claimed but supporting document not attached”; and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s candidature on merits, declare her selected and issue an appointment letter for the post of TGT Sanskrit (ROH) under the Unreserved Category with all consequential benefits, including notional seniority and arrears from the date candidates lower in merit to her were appointed. Further prayer has been made that during the pendency of the writ petition, one post of TGT Sanskrit (ROH) under the Unreserved Category be kept vacant.
On 09.07.2026, this Court passed the following order:-
“Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that respondent No.3-Commission advertised 615 posts of TGT Sanskrit (ROH) vide Advertisement No.2/2019 dated 14.01.2019 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner, being fully eligible for the said post, applied online on 16.03.2019 (Annexure P-2). He further submits that the aforesaid advertisement came to be cancelled vide public notice dated 31.05.2019 (Annexure P-3), wherein it was specifically stipulated that the candidates would be required to apply afresh against the posts to be advertised shortly, however, those candidates who had already applied pursuant to the earlier advertisement would be entitled to age relaxation and exemption from payment of the application fee.
It is contended that respondent No.3 re-advertised the said posts vide Advertisement dated 21.02.2023 (Annexure P-4), wherein Clause 11 specifically provided that the candidates who had earlier applied against the posts and whose particulars were available on the website of the Commission would be entitled to relaxation with regard to the HTET condition, age and exemption from payment of the application fee. Learned counsel further refers to Annexure P-5 and submits that a perusal of the online application form clearly reflects that the application fee of the petitioner stood waived, as is evident from the payment status, thereby substantiating the petitioner's claim that she had applied pursuant to the earlier advertisement. It is further contended that in terms of Clause 3.8 of Advertisement dated 21.02.2023 (Annexure P-4), the online application portal does not accept an application unless the candidate fulfils the prescribed eligibility conditions as on the cut-off date.
The petitioner thereafter appeared in the written examination and, having qualified the same, was called for scrutiny of documents vide notice dated 21.06.2023 (Annexure P-8). However, when the final result was declared on 27.07.2024 (Annexure P-9), the petitioner's roll number did not find mention therein despite her having secured marks equal to or above the prescribed cut-off. Subsequently, vide public notice dated 28.07.2024 (Annexure P-10), the petitioner's roll number was shown as rejected on the ground of being overage. It is contended that the aforesaid reason is wholly contrary to the record inasmuch as the petitioner was entitled to age relaxation in terms of the cancellation notice dated 31.05.2019 (Annexure P3) as well as Clause 11 of Advertisement dated 21.02.2023 (Annexure P-4).
In view of the above, respondent No.3 is directed to file an affidavit of a responsible officer, controverting each of the averments made in the present writ petition within a period of two weeks.”
In compliance of the aforesaid order, written instructions dated 12.08.2026 are produced in Court today, with a copy thereof to learned counsel for the petitioner, which are taken on record as Mark ‘X’. Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place.
Learned State counsel while referring to the same, submits that candidature of the petitioner was re-examined by the respondent-Commission and it was found that she was eligible for the post of TGT Sanskrit. Learned State counsel further submits that the issuance of recommendation in favour of the petitioner could not be finalized as the Secretary, Haryana Staff Selection Commission is on leave due to family circumstances. However, he assures that the same will be done within a period of two weeks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the stand taken by the respondent-State, nothing survives in the present writ petition and the same be disposed of having become infructuous.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Needless to say, the petitioner would be entitled to notional benefits from the date of joining of her batchmates strictly in terms of her merit.