Rakhi v. Additional Chief Secretary & Ors.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Ravinder Bangar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

#1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents, especially, respondent No.3 to consider the candidature of the petitioner under the BC-A category for the post of PGT (English) pursuant to Advertisement No.22 dated 23.07.2024 (Annexure P-1) and to permit the petitioner to rely upon and submit the BC-A certificate

26.06.2013 (Annexure P-6) along with the BC-A 07.10.2024 (Annexure P-8) in view of the recent Government decision/policy dated in May, 2026 (Annexure P-9). Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the final result dated 11.05.2026 (Annexure P-4) to the limited extent it adversely affects the petitioner and directing the respondents to revise/reconsider the result in light of the subsequent Government decision/policy dated May, 2026 CWP-20005-2026 -2- (Annexure P-9) and further directing the respondents to keep one post of PGT (English) vacant/reserved for the petitioner. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

#2. The factual matrix, as emerging from the pleadings, is that the Haryana Public Service Commission issued Advertisement No.22 dated

23.07.2024 (Annexure P-1), inviting online applications for 174 posts of PGT (English). Out of said post 96 post were embarked for the General category and 6 post were embarked for the BC-A category. The opening date for the submission of online applications was 25.07.2024 while the closing date was

14.08.2024 up to 11:55 p.m.

#3. The petitioner belongs to the BC-A category and was in possession of a BC-A certificate dated 26.06.2013 (Annexure P-6). However, Notification No.40/13/2024-ISW dated 16.07.2024 (Annexure P-7) required submission of a fresh BC-A certificate for the relevant period by the closing date, she applied under the General Category. She subsequently obtained another BC-A certificate dated 07.10 2024 (Annexure P-8). It is in these circumstances that the petitioner applied under the General category.

#4. The respondent-Commission declared the final result for the post of PGT (English) on 11.05.2026 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner secured 49.56 marks, whereas the last selected candidate in the General category secured

49.57 marks. The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite belonging to the BC-A category, her candidature was considered only under the General category.

#5. Thereafter, the State of Haryana issued a policy in May, 2026 (Annexure P-9), relaxing the requirements regarding fresh BC certificates in CWP-20005-2026 -3- relation to Advertisement No.22 dated 23.07.2024. On the said policy, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 27.05.2026 (Annexure P-10), seeking consideration of her candidature under BC-A category. The said representation has remained unheeded. CONTENTION

#6. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner admittedly belongs to the BC-A category and possessed BC-A certificates dated 26.06.2013 and 07.10.2024, annexed as Annexures P-6 and P- 8, respectively. It is argued that, in view of the subsequent policy issued by the State of Haryana in May 2026, relaxing the requirement regarding submission of a fresh BC certificate, the petitioner is entitled to be considered under the BC-A category. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner missed selection in the General category by a margin of merely 0.01 marks and, therefore, her candidature deserves reconsideration against a BC-A vacancy.

#7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the petitioner consciously applied under the General category and cannot, after declaration of the final result, seek migration to the BC-A category on the strength of a subsequent policy. It is further submitted that the petitioner secured 49.56 marks, whereas, the last selected candidate in the general category secured 49.57 marks. It is further submitted that the petitioner was required to possess the requisite certificate for the relevant period by the cut-off date prescribed in the advertisement. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner's claim to contend that eligibility must be determined with reference to the prescribed cut-off date and that a candidate who consciously participates in a selection process cannot subsequently challenge the conditions or CWP-20005-2026 -4- methodology and further contends that eligibility must be determined with reference to the prescribed cut-off date and that a candidate who consciously participates in a selection process cannot subsequently challenge the conditions or methodology thereof. OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS

#8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner admittedly applied under the General category as she did not possess the requisite BC-A certificate for the relevant period in terms of the notification dated 16.07.2024. Having consciously participated in the selection process under the General category, the petitioner cannot, after declaration of the result, seek consideration under the BC-A category solely on the basis of a policy issued subsequently in May, 2026.

#9. The issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra and is squarely covered by a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rekha Sharma v. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr 2024 SCC Online 2109, speaking through Justice Bela M. Trivedi, opined as under: “16. As well settled, the candidates who consciously took part in the process of selection cannot be permitted to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the respondents for making selection, on their having been declared as unsuccessful in the Preliminary Examinations. The appellants after they having found that their names do not appear in the list of successful candidates of Preliminary Examination, could not have questioned the result on the ground that the respondents had not declared the cut off marks for the Persons with benchmark disabilities. As stated earlier, the respondents have declared the cut off marks for the persons falling under Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation and not for the Overall Horizontal CWP-20005-2026 -5- Reservation under which the appellants fall. Such action could neither be said to be arbitrary nor violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”

#10. Furthermore, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Divya vs. Union of India, 2024(1) SCC 448 wherein it was held that candidates must possess requisite Income and Asset Certificate for the relevant Financial Year before the cut-off date given in the advertisement and the respondent- Commission therein was justified in rejecting candidature of candidates who failed to meet these requirements, speaking through Justice K.V. Viswanathan, opined as under: “46. It is also very well settled that if there are relevant rules which prescribe the date on which the eligibility should be possessed, those rules will prevail. In the absence of rules or any other date prescribed in the prospectus/advertisement for determining the eligibility, there is a judicial chorus holding that it would be the last date for submission of the application. (See Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan [1993 Supp (3) SCC 168]; Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab [(2000) 5 SCC 262]; Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India [(2007) 4 SCC 54].”

#11. In view of the foregoing, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner was aware of the requirement prescribed by Notification No.40/13/2024-1SW dated 16.07.2024 and, for that very reason, chose to apply under the General category. Her subsequent certificate dated 07.10.2024 was obtained after the closing date for submission of applications. The policy issued in May, 2026, after completion of the application process and declaration of the final result, cannot be invoked to alter the category under which the petitioner had consciously submitted her application. Permitting such a change after CWP-20005-2026 -6- conclusion of the selection process would amount to modifying the eligibility criteria retrospectively. CONCLUSION

#12. In view of the discussion above, this Court finds no merit in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and, thus, the present petition is hereby dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

06.07.2026 Neha (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No