RITU RANI v. STATE OF HARYANA & Ors.

law and arise out of a common set of facts. With the consent of the parties, the aforementioned writ petitions are taken up together for adjudication. For CWP Nos.20898 & 20924 of 2026 2 the sake of brevity and convenience, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.20898 of 2026.

#2. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned speaking order dated 10.01.2022 (Annexure P-28), passed by the respondent-Commission, declaring its arbitrary and void. Further directing the respondents to operate the merit list/waiting list against the 550 unfilled/unconsumed vacancies of PGT Hindi under advertisement No.1/2012 (Category No.13) in compliance with judgments dated 13.11.2017 and 23.08.2018 (Annexures P-25 and P-26) respectively. Further directing respondents to consider the claim of petitioner and offer appointment letter for post of PGT Hindi (BC category) with all consequential benefits from the date similarly situated candidates were appointed.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that Haryana School Teachers Selection Board issued Advertisement No.1 of 2012 dated 07.06.2012 (Annexure P-9) for recruitment to various posts of Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs), including 1700 posts of PGT Hindi, out of which 170 posts were earmarked for the Backward Class category. The petitioner, possessing the requisite qualifications including M.Phil. and having qualified STET (Annexures P-1 to P-8), applied for the post of PGT Hindi under the BC category pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. It is submitted that the final result was declared on 01.01.2014 (Annexure P-21), CWP Nos.20898 & 20924 of 2026 3 wherein the last selected candidate in the BC category secured 53.07 marks, whereas the petitioner secured 52.59 marks and remained short by merely

0.48 marks.

3.1 Learned counsel further submits that a substantial number of vacancies advertised under Advertisement No.1 of 2012 (Annexure P-9) remained unfilled/unconsumed as several selected candidates were allegedly found ineligible during the process of verification of documents on account of deficiencies in eligibility, invalid qualifications and other discrepancies. It is contended that despite availability of such vacancies, the respondents failed to operate the merit list and consider the candidates next in order of merit.

3.2 It is further contended that the selection process was conducted contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Gupta versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (1995) 5 SCC 173, inasmuch as candidates belonging to reserved categories who had secured marks sufficient for selection in the general category were not adjusted against general category vacancies, thereby adversely affecting the petitioner and other candidates belonging to the BC category.

3.3 Learned counsel submits that similarly situated candidates approached this Court by filing CWP No.12879 of 2014 and connected matters, which were allowed vide judgment dated 13.11.2017 (Annexure P- 25). The said judgment was modified by the Division Bench in LPA CWP Nos.20898 & 20924 of 2026 4 No.2435 of 2017 Haryana School Teachers Selection Board versus Arun Singh and others, decided on 23.08.2018 (Annexure P-26), whereby it was clarified that such candidates were entitled to be considered for appointment against existing vacancies. It is further submitted that the CM-3371-LPA- 2019 in LPA-2435-2017 preferred by the Commission came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.10.2019 (Annexure P-27).

3.4 Learned counsel contends that pursuant to the aforesaid directions, respondent No.4 passed the impugned speaking order dated

10.01.2022 (Annexure P-28) rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that there existed no provision for maintaining a waiting list in respect of Group-B Gazetted posts. The said order became subject matter of contempt proceedings including COCP No.2227 of 2021 (Annexure P-29), CACP No.10 of 2023 (Annexure P-30) and proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court arising out of SLP (Civil) No.17796 of 2023. Though the orders passed in contempt proceedings were ultimately set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 06.02.2026 (Annexure P-32), liberty was granted to the aggrieved candidates to avail substantive remedies in accordance with law. On the strength of the aforesaid liberty and the directions contained in Annexures P-25 and P-26, the petitioner claims consideration for appointment against the alleged unconsumed vacancies of PGT Hindi.

#4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the writ petition and submit that the claim raised by the petitioner already stands considered and CWP Nos.20898 & 20924 of 2026 5 rejected through a reasoned speaking order. It is contended that at the time of issuance of Advertisement No.1 of 2012, the instructions governing the recruitment process specifically provided that no waiting list was to be maintained in respect of Group-B posts. Since the post of PGT is admittedly a Group-B Gazetted post, no legal obligation existed upon the Commission to prepare or operate any waiting list. It is further submitted that while deciding LPA No.2435 of 2017, the Division Bench merely directed consideration of eligible candidates against existing vacancies and did not confer any enforceable right of appointment. Pursuant thereto, the claim of the petitioner was duly considered and rejected. It is argued that the contempt petitions were ultimately dismissed and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while setting aside the orders passed in contempt jurisdiction, did not recognize any substantive right in favour of the petitioner.

4.1 Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the instructions governing the recruitment process have never been challenged by the petitioner. It is also pointed out that subsequent recruitment processes for the post of PGT Hindi were initiated and concluded long ago and, therefore, the selection process initiated pursuant to Advertisement No.1 of 2012 attained finality years back. Further, after the advertisement No.1/2012 of Category No.13 wherein the petitioner applied, were advertised vide Advertisement No.4/2018 Category No.07 on 28.06.2015 and has already declared the final result and recommended the name of selected candidates to the indenting department. Further the Commission has again published CWP Nos.20898 & 20924 of 2026 6 Advertisement No.13/2019 for filling up various posts of PGT including 194 posts of PGT Hindi under Category No.7.

#5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, this Court finds that the entire claim of the petitioner is founded on the premise that a large number of vacancies advertised pursuant to Advertisement No.1 of 2012 remained unconsumed on account of disqualification of selected candidates and, therefore, the petitioner, being next in order of merit, is entitled to consideration and appointment against such vacancies.

5.1 The principal reliance of learned counsel for the petitioner is upon the judgment dated 13.11.2017 passed by this Court in CWP No.25682 of 2014 Arun Singh and others versus State of Haryana and others and connected matters (Annexure P-25). However, a perusal of the record reveals that the aforesaid judgment was carried in appeal by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission and the Division Bench in Haryana School Teachers Selection Board versus Arun Singh and others, LPA No.2435 of 2017, decided on 23.08.2018 (Annexure P-26), modified the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench specifically held that the writ petitioners did not acquire a vested right to appointment merely because vacancies were available and clarified that at best they could claim consideration for appointment against existing vacancies. CWP Nos.20898 & 20924 of 2026 7

5.2 It is not disputed before this Court that pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the matter was examined by the competent authority and the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected vide speaking order dated

10.01.2022 (Annexure P-28), primarily on the ground that there was no provision for maintaining or operating a waiting list in respect of Group-B Gazetted posts.

5.3 At this stage, it becomes relevant to notice that the petitioner has neither challenged the validity of the instructions governing the recruitment process nor sought any declaration regarding their illegality. The issue as to whether relief can be granted contrary to an unchallenged rule or instruction is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court in Dhani Ram Chaudhary versus State of Haryana and another, 2005 (1) SCT 571 held that since the relevant rule had not been impugned by the petitioner, it shall be presumed that the petitioner has accepted the same in its present form. The Court observed as under:- “12. Since the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, do not deliberate upon the limitation prescribed in the rule extracted above, we are satisfied that the same are inapplicable for adjudicating the claim raised by the petitioner finally. The vires of the rules under reference have not been impugned by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. Accordingly, it is imperative to conclude that the petitioner accepts the aforesaid rule as it presently exists. The rule clearly stipulates that alteration in the date of birth in the service book of a Government employee can be sought only within two years CWP Nos.20898 & 20924 of 2026 8 from the date of entry into service. Since the alteration, in the instance case, was sought long years beyond the date of entry into service, and just one year before attaining the age of retirement, it is not possible for us to accept the claim of the petitioner. The instant writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.”

5.4 The aforesaid principle was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan versus Sanyam Lodha, (2011) 13 SCC 262, wherein it was held:- “10. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the High Court has not declared Rule (5) to be invalid, but has merely read it down, to save it from being declared as unconstitutional and such reading down is permissible in law. It is true that any provision of an enactment can be read down so as to erase the obnoxious or unconstitutional element in it or to bring it in conformity with the object of such enactment. Similarly a rule forming part of executive instructions can also be read down to save it from invalidity or to bring it in conformity with the avowed policy of the Government. When courts find a rule to be defective or violative of the constitutional or statutory provision, they tend to save the rule, wherever possible and practical, by reading it down by a benevolent interpretation, rather than declare it as unconstitutional or invalid. But such an occasion did not arise in this case as there was no challenge to the validity of Rule 5 and the parties were not at issue on the validity of the said rule.

#11. We are therefore of the view that in the absence of any challenge to the Relief Fund Rules and an opportunity to CWP Nos.20898 & 20924 of 2026 9 the State Government to defend the validity of Rule 5, the High Court ought not to have modified or read down the said Rule.”

5.5 The ratio of the aforesaid judgments squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Once the instructions governing the recruitment process have not been challenged, the petitioner cannot seek a direction contrary thereto for preparation or operation of a waiting list.

#6. The issue can also be examined from another perspective. The claim of the petitioner essentially proceeds on the assumption that since some selected candidates did not ultimately become entitled to appointment, the vacancies ought to be offered to candidates lower in merit. Such a proposition does not find support from settled principles of service jurisprudence.

6.1 In Bihar State Electricity Board versus Suresh Prasad and others, (2004) 2 SCC 681, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that even where selected candidates fail to join, the employer is not bound to offer the resultant vacancies to candidates next below in merit. It was further held that in the absence of statutory rules, the employer is not under an obligation to prepare a waiting list in addition to the select list and make appointments therefrom. The same principle has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subha B. Nair and others versus State of Kerala and others, (2008) 7 SCC 210, Vallampati Satish Babu versus State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2022) 13 SCC 193 and State of Karnataka and others versus Bharathi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 6656, wherein it has CWP Nos.20898 & 20924 of 2026 10 consistently been held that inclusion in a merit list does not confer any indefeasible right to appointment and no vested right accrues merely because vacancies exist.

6.2 Another significant aspect which cannot be lost sight of is that the recruitment process in question pertains to Advertisement No.1 of 2012. The selection process stood concluded long ago. It has also come on record that subsequent advertisements for recruitment to the post of PGT Hindi were issued and the selections pursuant thereto have also attained finality. Reopening a recruitment process after more than a decade would be wholly impermissible in law and would unsettle rights which have already crystallized.

6.3 Even the proceedings initiated by the petitioner in contempt jurisdiction ultimately did not result in any substantive relief. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding Civil Appeal No.2490 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.17796 of 2023 vide judgment dated 06.02.2026 (Annexure P-32), set aside the orders passed in contempt proceedings and merely granted liberty to the candidates to avail an appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Such liberty cannot be construed as recognition of any substantive right in favour of the petitioner.

#7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish any enforceable legal right warranting interference under Articles 226/227 of CWP Nos.20898 & 20924 of 2026 11 Constitution of India. Consequently, finding no merit both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed.

#8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

#9. Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected case.

13.07.2026 Puneet Chawla (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Yes/No Whether Reportable. :