Neha & Ors. vs State Of Haryana & Ors.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

The present application has been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC praying for impleading the applicants i.e. Vaibhav Bhatt, Ajay Kumar, Sahil Lohan and Pushpender as respondents No.3 to 6.

In view of the grounds mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and applicants are hereby impleaded as respondents No.3 to 6. Amended memo of parties is ordered to be taken on record. Registry is directed to do the needful.

The present application has been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC praying for impleading the applicants i.e. Vaibhav Bhatt, Ajay Kumar, Sahil Lohan and Pushpender as respondents No.4 to 7.

In view of the grounds mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and applicants are hereby impleaded as respondents No.4 to 7. Amended memo of parties is ordered to be taken on record. Registry is directed to do the needful.

The present application has been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC praying for impleading the applicants i.e. Vaibhav Bhatt, Ajay Kumar, Sahil Lohan and Pushpender as respondents No.4 to 7.

In view of the grounds mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and applicants are hereby impleaded as respondents No.4 to 7. Amended memo of parties is ordered to be taken on record. Registry is directed to do the needful.

The present application has been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC praying for impleading the applicants as respondents No.4 and 5.

In view of the grounds mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and applicants are hereby impleaded as respondents No.4 and 5. Amended memo of parties is ordered to be taken on record. Registry is directed to do the needful.

With the consent of the parties, all the aforementioned writ petitions shall be disposed of vide this common judgment, as they arise from a similar factual matrix and pose identical questions of law. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP No.1866 of 2026.

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned announcement dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure P-7) issued by respondent No.2-Haryana Public Service Commission whereby a new arbitrary condition was imposed retrospectively with respect to their NET certification for proving their eligibility. Further, for quashing the rejection letters dated 07.01.2026 (Annexure P-9) whereby candidature of the petitioners for the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) has been rejected on the hyper-technical ground that they did not upload the specific NET-certificate/scorecard that validates their General/Unreserved category eligibility, with their online application. A writ in the nature of mandamus has also been sought directing the respondents to consider the valid NET certificate of the petitioners and to allow them to participate in the subsequent stages of the recruitment process pursuant to advertisement dated 02.08.2024 (Annexure P-1).

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent-HPSC issued an advertisement dated 02.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professor (College Cadre) in various subjects. Subsequently, a corrigendum dated 24.02.2025 (Annexure P-2) was issued, reopening the application portal from 01.03.2025 to 15.03.2025. The petitioners applied to the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi), as evident from their application forms available at Annexure P-3. They appeared for the Subject Knowledge Test held on 05.10.2025 and cleared the cut-off prescribed for General/Unreserved category. Consequently, their roll numbers figured in the list of candidates shortlisted for Document Verification by the respondent-HPSC, as discernible from announcements dated 11.12.2025 and 16.12.2025 (Annexure P-6).

He further submits that respondent-HPSC, vide impugned announcement dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure P-7) declared that the candidates falling under reserved categories but hailing from States other than Haryana must produce their National Eligibility Test (NET) certificates “as claimed and uploaded by them”, scorecards and category-wise cut-offs, in order for them to be checked at par with General/Unreserved category. Learned counsel contends that vide the impugned announcement (Annexure P-7), the respondent-HPSC has implicitly stated that if the specific proof of General Category eligibility was not uploaded initially, it would not be accepted later. At the time of submission of online applications, no stipulations for attaching a General Category NET scorecard and cut-off proof were made. Thus, the petitioners uploaded the NET certificate (Annexure P-4) they had at hand as it sufficiently established their eligibility.

Learned counsel further submits that respondent-HPSC declared the results on 02.01.2026 (Annexure P-8) and announced the roll numbers of the candidates who had qualified for the next stage-Interview/Viva Voce. However, the roll numbers of the petitioners were excluded therefrom. Subsequently, respondent-HPSC issued the impugned rejection letters (Annexure P-9) to the petitioners stating that the primary ground for rejection of their candidature was failure to upload a valid certificate in terms of Clause 16(vii) of the advertisement (supra). Learned counsel argues that this action of the respondent-HPSC is arbitrary, illegal and amounts to changing the rules of the game after the game has commenced, in terms of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak and others vs. Rajasthan High Court and others, 2024 INSC 847 and K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 3 SCC 512. Further, even as per Haryana Education (College Cadre) Group B Service Rules, there is no stipulation that in order to be considered under General/Unreserved category, the candidate must have cleared the NET under General/Unreserved category cut-off. This rigorous condition has been introduced vide impugned announcement dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure P-7) by the respondent-HPSC, of its own accord, after the selection process had already commenced.

Learned counsel argues that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE and others, 2004 INSC 573 has held that if a candidate possesses the requisite qualification on the cut-off date, the mere failure to upload the proof of the same at a specific stage should not be a ground to deny public employment. Moreover, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ravish vs. State of Haryana in CWP No.22498 of 2022 has categorically held that where the advertisement does not specify any restriction, a candidate clearing NET under a reserved category cannot be denied the right to compete for a General/Unreserved category post. Considering that the petitioners have cleared the Subject Knowledge Test by crossing the cut-off identified for General/Unreserved category, it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to deny them consideration merely because they acquired NET qualification, which is only qualifying in nature, under the cut-off for reserved categories. The purpose of NET certification is to determine the eligibility for the post of Assistant Professor, however, it does not initiate a recruitment process, which only commences with an advertisement issued by respondent-HPSC. This principle has also been affirmed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Deepika Kunwar Chundawat vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.31 of 2024). Learned counsel also submits that the advertisement (supra) was silent on this aspect and only required the candidate to be NET-qualified simplicitor. As such, the petitioners legitimately expected their NET qualification to be sufficient and cannot be denied consideration at this stage.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-HPSC submits that the respondent-Commission is well within its rights to deny reservation benefits to candidates from other States like petitioners No.2 to 4. Since the other candidates from General/Unreserved category have cleared NET in terms of the cut-off determined for General/Unreserved category, the candidates from other states, otherwise falling under reserved categories, ought to clear that same threshold. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Govt. of NCT and others vs. Pradeep Kumar and others (2019) 10 SCC 120 to buttress his case. However, he could not controvert the claim of the petitioners that such requirement did not form a part of the advertisement (supra) and no similar condition is reflected in the Haryana Education (College Cadre) Group B Service Rules.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record it transpires that the following question arises for adjudication before this Court:

Before delving further, it is necessary to study the relevant stipulations in the advertisement (supra). The same are reproduced below:

(Emphasis added)

A perusal of the above makes it evident that as per the advertisement (supra) candidates from other States could apply to the advertised posts of Assistant Professor, however, they shall not be granted any benefits with respect to the reserved category they fall under. The benefit of such reservation was only sought to be provided to candidates hailing from the State of Haryana. The State is well within its competence to include such stipulation. A Constitution bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. The Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College, (1990) 3 SCC 130 has categorically held that the benefit of reservations to members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes cannot be made available country-wide, as they are dependent on State-specific social conditions. Speaking through Justice Sabyasachi Mukherjee, the following was observed:

(Emphasis added)

However, an issue arose when the respondent-HPSC issued the impugned announcement dated 26.06.2025 with respect to advertisement No.42 to 67 of 2024 stating as follows:

It appears that the respondent-HPSC has introduced another eligibility condition. While it is not explicitly worded, the impugned announcement (Annexure P-7) begs the inference that the reserved-category candidates hailing from other States are required to demonstrate that they have qualified NET by clearing the cut-off determined for General/Unreserved category. Notably, neither Clause 6 of the advertisement (supra), which deals with eligibility criteria, nor the Haryana Education (College Cadre) Group B Service Rules, 1986 lay down any such condition.

In the absence of any such stipulation in the governing Service Rules, it is difficult to discern the basis on which the respondent-HPSC has sought to introduce an additional condition which has a direct and substantial bearing upon the eligibility of a candidate for appointment. The relevant provisions of the Haryana Education (College Cadre) Group B Service Rules, 1986, as amended by the Haryana Education (College Cadre) Group B Service (Amendment) Rules, 2024, are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

Moreover, while the respondent-HPSC is entitled to conduct the selection process efficiently and in line with the State policy, any additions to the prescribed eligibility criteria must not be arbitrary or contrary to the applicable rules and the scheme of process, and be prescribed ahead of commencement of the selection process. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High Court, 2024 INSC 847 wherein it has been clarified that any benchmark sought to be set by a recruiting authority must be stipulated before the commencement of the recruitment process. Speaking through Justice Manoj Misra, the following was opined:

(Emphasis added)

Further still, the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018 prescribe NET as a minimum qualification for recruitment as Assistant Professor. These UGC Regulations have been framed under Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, which in turn has been created by the Parliament in furtherance of the Entry 66, List-I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule, Constitution of India. No stipulations have been made therein whereby NET certification can be temporarily disenfranchised based on the category against which a candidate has applied. In other words, when one has been considered NET-qualified by the UGC, the matter is not up for reinvestigation during a recruitment process, especially when neither the relevant Service Rules nor the advertisement (supra) calls for it.

Where NET is prescribed solely as a threshold eligibility condition, and the advertisement specifies that comparative merit will be determined on the basis of the Subject Knowledge Test and interview, those notified criteria constitute the governing selection criteria. The candidate is therefore entitled to have her merit assessed exclusively by reference to them. The NET score cannot subsequently be converted into an additional merit criterion, a source of preferential weightage, or a disqualifying threshold for appointment against an unreserved post. To do so would amount to a post facto alteration of the notified conditions of selection and the impermissible introduction of a criterion of which candidates had no prior notice. Reliance on the candidate’s lower NET score would accordingly be legally impermissible and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Moreover, this Court is of the considered view that the reliance placed on the judgment in Pradeep Kumar (supra) is misplaced. While distinguishing the said judgment, a two-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chaya and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and another, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 457 has opined that reserved category candidates who avail relaxation in qualifying examination can migrate to general category on the basis of merit in the absence of any explicit prohibition in the applicable Rules or the advertisement. Speaking through Justice Alok Aradhe, the following was held:

In the instant case, the requirement of obtaining 60% marks in TET is not an essential eligibility condition as the guidelines issued by the NCTE itself permits such relaxation. Such relaxation only enables a candidate belonging to reserved category to participate in TAIT. The inter se merit of the candidates including the respondents has solely been determined on the basis of performance in TAIT. Therefore, the Commissioner (Education), Government of Maharashtra erred in placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Pradeep Kumar (supra) and in issuing the consequential directions for preparation of the merit list. The Commissioner (Education) ought to have appreciated that Office Memorandum dated 04.04.2018 issued by Government of India (Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension) applies in direct recruitments to Central Government jobs and services and, therefore, could not have been relied upon. The High Court also erred in placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Pradeep Kumar (supra).

(Emphasis added)

It is a fundamental principle of service jurisprudence that where the field is occupied by statutory Rules, the rights, obligations and eligibility of the parties must be determined primarily with reference to the express provisions of such Rules. The general principles enunciated in judicial precedents may be pressed into service only where the governing Rules are silent, ambiguous or incapable of providing an answer to the controversy; they cannot be invoked to override, supplement or supplant an express and unambiguous statutory prescription. Thus, where the Rule-making authority has consciously laid down a specific and exhaustive eligibility criterion, the Court must give effect to the rule as it stands and cannot introduce, by judicial interpretation, an additional condition of eligibility or disqualification which finds no place in the statutory scheme.

A perusal of the NET score card of petitioner-Saurabh Verma, who hails from the State of Uttar Pradesh, as available at Page 78 of the paper book, indicates that he falls under the category of OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) and verifies that he has obtained the certification. However, the impugned rejection letter (Annexure P-9) issued by the respondent-HPSC to the petitioner-Saurabh Verma reads as follows:

(Emphasis added)

Thus, it is clear that the respondent-HPSC has cancelled the candidature of the petitioners despite their having cleared the cut-off for the Subject Knowledge Test, solely for not having cleared NET against General/Unreserved cut-off, which is an arbitrary condition introduced subsequent to commencement of the selection process. In doing so, the respondent-HPSC has essentially barred other-State reserved category candidates from consideration in the selection process, which is expressly violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. At the risk of reiteration, it is clarified that NET-qualification merely makes a candidate eligible to be considered for the post of Assistant Professor. However, his/her selection would only be based on their performance in the actual selection process. In terms of the advertisement (supra) and the applicable Service Rules, the marks obtained in NET or the cut-off against which a candidate has qualified do not contribute to computation of the merit list. Thus, not only has the respondent-HPSC acted in an unconstitutional fashion by depriving other-State reserved category candidates from being considered against the advertisement (supra), it has also fallen in grave error by inserting the arbitrary condition regarding validity of NET certification and making it applicable retrospectively as the selection process had already commenced. The issue framed above, is therefore, answered accordingly.

At this juncture, it would be apposite to note that the petitioners in the present bunch of writ petitions broadly fall into two distinct categories, having regard to their domicile status, the category under which they have applied, and the nature of the NET certification possessed by them:

a. Category I comprises those petitioners who possess NET certification obtained on relaxed norms, and who fall within either of the following sub-categories:

b. Category II comprises petitioners who are domiciles of Haryana, have applied under the General/Unreserved category, and possess NET certification obtained by securing marks equal to or above the cut-off prescribed for the General/Unreserved category. These petitioners seek exclusion from consideration under the said category, of candidates possessing NET certification obtained by availing the benefit of relaxed norms.

In view of the foregoing discussion, all the above-mentioned writ petitions are disposed of in the following terms:

a. Insofar as the petitioners falling under Category I are concerned:-

b. Insofar as the petitioners falling under Category II are concerned, their prayer seeking a direction to respondent-HPSC to weed out candidates possessing NET certification obtained on relaxed norms from consideration under the General/Unreserved category runs contrary to the findings recorded hereinabove. Accordingly, no relief can be granted in these cases.

c. In case any grievance of any petitioner in the present bunch of petitioners, other than those falling within the aforementioned two categories, still survives, such petitioner shall be at liberty to submit an appropriate representation before the respondents/competent authority. Upon receipt thereof, the respondents/competent authority shall consider and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.

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

A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of the connected cases.