1 

CWP-28252-2024 and other connected cases 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA     

AT CHANDIGARHAT CHANDIGARHAT CHANDIGARHAT CHANDIGARH    

Date of decision: 06.08.2026

1. CWP-28252-2024 (O&M)  

NARESH KUMARI             .....Petitioner 

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS             

        ...Respondents

2. CWP-30314-2024 (O&M)

SAVITA RANI               .....Petitioner

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS             

        ...Respondents

3. CWP-30356-2024

UMED SINGH BOORA            .....Petitioner 

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA                

        ...Respondent

4. CWP-32026-2024 (O&M)  

HARJEET SINGH             .....Petitioner 

VERSUS

HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION         

        ...Respondent

2 

CWP-28252-2024 and other connected cases 

1. Date when judgment was reserved  22.07.202622.07.202622.07.202622.07.2026    

2. Date of pronouncement of judgment  06.08.202606.08.202606.08.202606.08.2026    

3. Date of uploading judgment   00007777.08.2026.08.2026.08.2026.08.2026    

4. Whether operative part or full

judgment is pronounced  

FullFullFullFull    

5. Delay, if any, in pronouncing of full

judgment and reasons thereof  

Not applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicable    

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present: Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate for the applicants/petitioners in CWP-

28252-2024 & 30314-2024.

Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-30356-2024.

Mr. Sunny Singla with Mr. Riti Aggarwal and Ms. Kamaljeet Kaur,

Advocates for the petitioner in CWP-32026-2024.

Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, DAG Haryana-State.

Mr. Kanwal Goyal with Ms. Sheena Dahiya, Advocates for

respondent(s)-HPSC.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR

, J. (Oral)

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the par ties, the

aforesaid writ petitions are being taken up together as they arise out of a

common set of facts and involve identical questions of law. However, for

the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP-28252-2024.

2. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227

of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of

certiorari to quash clause 10(ix) of the Advertisement dated 23.07.2024

(Annexure P-1) to the extent it provides for relaxation in upper age only for

3 

CWP-28252-2024 and other connected cases 

experience on an ‘equivalent post’. It is further prayed that a writ in the

nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents not to declare the

petitioner ineligible or cancel her candidature due to overage, and to

consider her eligible for the post of PGT Political Science by granting her

relaxation in upper age to the extent of her teaching experience, up to a

maximum of 5 years, in terms of Rule 5 of the Haryana State Education

School Cadre (Group B) Service Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the

‘2012 Service Rules’) and the judgment dated 06.01.2015 (Annexure P-10)

in CWP No. 20110 of 2014 titled as ‘Som Nath Vs. State of Haryana and

another.’

CONTENTIONS

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the

respondent-Commission invited applications for the post of PGT Political

Science for Rest of Haryana cadre and Mewat cadre vide Advertisement

dated 23.07.2024 (Annexure P-1). One of the conditions, clause 10(ix) of the

advertisement, stipulated that relaxation in the upper age limit shall be

granted to candidates only to the extent of experience on an equivalent post

on an adhoc/contract/work-charged/daily wages basis.

3.1. It is contended that the petitioner is in possession of the

educational qualifications of B.A., B.Ed., and M.A. in Political Science with

more than 50% marks and has also qualified the Haryana Teachers

Eligibility Test (HTET) in the year 2011. The petitioner has been working as

a Primary Teacher on a regular basis from 02.05.2017 till date, thus having

4 

CWP-28252-2024 and other connected cases 

more than 7 years of teaching experience to her credit. However, since the

petitioner was overage (more than 42 years) and the relaxation of age under

Clause 10(ix) of the advertisement was restricted only to candidates

possessing experience on an equivalent post, she submitted a representation

dated 12.08.2024 (Annexure P-3) to the respondent-Commission.

3.2. Thereafter, the respondent-Commission issued a notice dated

16.08.2024 and provisionally allowed candidates, who were overage or did

not possess the required qualifications, to submit hard copies of their

application forms. The petitioner, being duly eligible and qualified in all

other respects, submitted her application form (Annexure P-7).

Subsequently, the petitioner appeared in the Subject Knowledge Test on

14.09.2024. It is submitted that the respondent-Commission declared the

result on 26.09.2024 (Annexure P-9), and the name of the petitioner figured

in the list of successful candidates.

3.3. Learned counsel argues that the petitioner apprehended that she

was likely to be declared ineligible on account of her being overage in view

of Clause 10(ix) of advertisement (Annexure P-1) and therefore, filed the

present writ petition. It is submitted that the aforesaid stipulation contained

in Clause 10(ix) of Advertisement is contrary to Rule 5 of the 2012 Service

Rules, as amended from time to time, which provides for grant of relaxation

in the upper age limit to the extent of the experience rendered by eligible

teachers, subject to a maximum of five years. It is argued that in the event of

any inconsistency between the conditions contained in the advertisement and

5 

CWP-28252-2024 and other connected cases 

the statutory service rules, the statutory rules would prevail over the terms of

the advertisement. Learned counsel also places reliance on the judgment of

the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Som Nath (supra) (Annexure P-10),

wherein it was observed that it would be too harsh to interpret the rules to

mean that relaxation would mean only in the first advertisement issued after

framing of the rules; rather, it would mean that the relaxation is available to

a candidate once for his/her appointment.

3.4. Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to the interim

orders passed by this Court, the petitioners, except the petitioner in CWP-

32026-2024, were provisionally permitted to participate in the selection

process. The petitioners have been successful in the selection process and

the result thereof was produced before this Court in a sealed cover, as is

evident from the order dated 28.01.2025. Insofar as the petitioner in CWP-

32026-2024 is concerned, his candidature came to be rejected vide order

dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-9 in CWP-32026-2024) and therefore there

was no occasion for this Court to pass an interim order in his favour. It is

further submitted that vide order dated 24.02.2025, this Court directed that

three posts under the General Category, namely, one post of PGT Political

Science in CWP-28252-2024 and two posts of PGT Physical Education in

CWP-30314-2024 and CWP-30356-2024, be kept vacant during the

pendency of the present writ petitions.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel adopts the stand taken by the

respondent-Commission and submits that the entire selection process has

6 

CWP-28252-2024 and other connected cases 

been conducted by the respondent-Commission. It is, thus, submitted that

since the respondent-Commission has undertaken the recruitment process, it

is the respondent-Commission which is competent to explain the reasons for

non-consideration of the claim of the petitioners.

4.1. Learned counsel for the respondent-Commission submits that

Advertisement dated 23.07.2024 (Annexure P-1) was issued on the basis of

the requisition received from the State Government and the conditions

contained therein, including Clause 10(ix) relating to age relaxation, were

incorporated in terms of the Government Instructions dated 25.03.2022

(Annexure R-3/1). It is submitted that in terms of the said instructions, the

benefit of age relaxation is admissible only to candidates possessing

teaching experience on an ‘equivalent post’. Consequently, the petitioners,

being more than 42 years of age and not possessing experience on an

equivalent post, have rightly been held ineligible. It is further submitted that

though the petitioners have challenged Clause 10(ix) of Advertisement as

being contrary to Rule 5 of the 2012 Service Rules, they have not challenged

the Government Instructions dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure R-3/1), on the

basis whereof the said clause has been incorporated in the advertisement.

4.2. It is contended that Rule 5 of the 2012 Service Rules has no

applicability to the case of the petitioners, as the said Rule applies to

teachers working in privately managed Government-aided, recognised and

Government schools. Insofar as the petitioner in CWP-28252-2024 is

concerned, she is working in Government Model Sanskriti Senior Secondary

7 

CWP-28252-2024 and other connected cases 

School, Sector-26, Panchkula, and is admittedly holding the post of

JBT/PRT, which is not equivalent to the advertised post of PGT. Therefore,

she cannot claim the benefit of Rule 5 of the 2012 Service Rules. Reliance is

also placed on the judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches of this

Court in Aruna Mehta v. Haryana School Teachers Selection Board,

2017(4) SCT 223 and Kamla Rani v. State of Haryana, 2015(2) SCT 227.

5. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

Paragraph 8 of the Advertisement (Annexure P-1) itself stipulates that the

recruitment shall be governed by the applicable service rules and, therefore,

the provisions of the 2012 Service Rules would prevail over any contrary

stipulation contained in the advertisement.

OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

perused the record with their able assistance. The controversy involved in

the present writ petitions is whether Clause 10(ix) of Advertisement

(Annexure P-1), restricting the benefit of age relaxation only to candidates

possessing experience on an equivalent post, is contrary to the provisions of

the 2012 Service Rules. The issue assumes significance in view of

Paragraph 8 of Advertisement, which itself stipulates that the recruitment

shall be made strictly in accordance with the relevant Service Rules, namely,

the 2012 Service Rules, as amended from time to time, and the existing

Government instructions issued up to the date of issuance of the

advertisement. The question, therefore, is whether the petitioners are entitled

8 

CWP-28252-2024 and other connected cases 

to be considered in accordance with the statutory Rules by ignoring any

stipulation in the advertisement which is inconsistent therewith.

7. It is a settled principle of law that where there is any

inconsistency between the terms of an advertisement and the governing

statutory rules, the statutory rules must prevail. Thus, any part of the

advertisement which is contrary to the statutory rules has to give way to the

statutory prescription. A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Ashish Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2018(3) SCT 290, speaking

through Justice Ashok Bhushan, has observed as follows in this regard:

“20. The above rules clearly indicate that qualification for

Psychologist is M.A. in Psychology. There is no other column in

which Psychologist can be read in the entire rule. The B.Ed. is a

preferential qualification and essential qualification is only M.A. in

Psychology according to 1991 Rules. It is relevant to note that

although learned Single Judge has referred to 1991 Rules but he

observed that 1991 rules lays down the qualification as trained

graduate along with L.T./B.T. B.Ed., the above observations of

learned Single Judge are not sustainable in view of the qualification

as prescribed in 1991 Rules as extracted above.

21. In the counter affidavit filed in this court by the state, 1991 rules

have been accepted to be the relevant rules regulating the recruitment

as has been noted in the Paragraph Xiii extracted above. The

qualification prescribed in the Rules does not provide for L.T./B.T.

B.Ed. as essential qualification. Thus nonpossession of L.T./B.T.

B.Ed. does not make him disqualified for the post as per Statutory

Rules of 1991. Appellant is postgraduate in psychology and thus,

also fulfill the qualification prescribed in the 1991 Rules. The

9 

CWP-28252-2024 and other connected cases 

respondent in counter affidavit had themselves come with the case

that the appointment has to be made in accordance with the

statutory rules. When under the statutory rules, 1991, appellant

fulfill the qualification; there is no occasion to deny appointment to

him.

22. Any part of the advertisement which is contrary to the statutory

rules has to give way to the statutory prescription. Thus, looking to

the qualification prescribed in the statutory rules, appellant fulfills

the qualification and after being selected for the post denying

appointment to him is arbitrary and illegal. It is well settled that

when there is variance in the advertisement and in the statutory

rules, it is statutory rules which take precedence. In this context,

reference is made in judgment of this Court in the case of Malik

Mazhar Sultan & Anr. v. U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors.,

2006(2) S.C.T. 303 : 2006 (9) SCC 507. Paragraph 21 of the

judgment lays down above proposition which is to the following

effect:

"21. The present controversy has arisen as the advertisement

issued by PSC stated that the candidates who were within the

age on 01.07.2001 and 01.07.2002 shall be treated within age

for the examination. Undoubtedly, the excluded candidates

were of eligible age as per the advertisements but the

recruitment to the service can only be made in accordance with

the Rules and the error, if any, in the advertisement cannot

override the Rules and create a right in favour of a candidate if

otherwise not eligible according to the Rules. The relaxation of

age can be granted only of permissible under the Rules and not

on the basis of the advertisement. If the interpretation of the

Rules by PSC when it issued the advertisement was erroneous,

no right can accrue on basis thereof. Therefore, the answer to

10 

CWP-28252-2024 and other connected cases 

the question would turn upon the interpretation of the Rules."”

(Emphasis added)

8. Furthermore, it is trite law that executive or administrative

instructions cannot amend or override statutory rules, nor can any such

instructions be issued in derogation of the statutory framework. This is for

the reason that administrative directions, being non-statutory in character, do

not carry the force of law. On the contrary, statutory rules, framed under the

authority of an enabling statute, have the binding force of law, provided they

are consistent with and not repugnant to the parent Act. Thus, while

statutory rules occupy the field with full legal sanctity, mere executive

instructions cannot operate to curtail, modify, or expand their scope.

However, if the statutory rules are silent on any particular point, instructions

can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules. In other words, instructions

can be issued only to supplement the statutory rules but not to supplant

them. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgements of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yash Charitable Trust vs. Union of India, 2026

INSC 96; Paluru Ramkrishnaiah vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 166;

State of U.P. vs. Babu Ram Upadhyaya, AIR 1961 SC 751; Swapan Kumar

Pal vs. Samitabhar Chakraborty, 2001(2) SCT 1104 (SC); and Ram

Ganesh Tripathi vs. State of U.P., 1997(1) SCT 494 (SC).

9. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the Advertisement

dated 23.07.2024 (Annexure P-1) expressly provided that the recruitment

will be made strictly in accordance with the Haryana State Education School

11 

CWP-28252-2024 and other connected cases 

Cadre (Group-B) Service Rules 2012 and Mewat District School Education

(Group-B) Service Rules 2012, as amended from time to time and as per the

existing Government instructions issued upto the date of issuance of the

Advertisement. It was further provided that the candidate should not be less

than 18 years and not more than 42 years as on the closing date fixed for

submission of application forms, i.e., 14.08.2024. However, relaxation in

maximum age for various categories was also available under the

advertisement, including relaxation for persons who have already worked or

are presently working on an equivalent post on adhoc/contract/work-

charged/daily wage basis in any

Departments/Boards/Corporations/Government-aided institutions under the

Haryana Government. Relevant portion of the Advertisement dated

23.07.2024 (Annexure P-1) is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

“8. SERVICE RULES OF THE POSTS:

The Recruitment will be made strictly in accordance with the relevant

Service Rules [Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group-B)

Service Rules 2012 and Mewat District School Education (Group-B)

Service Rules 2012] as amended from time to time and as per existing

Govt. instructions issued by the Govt. upto the date of issuance of this

Advertisement. The relevant Service Rules are available on the

website of www.schooleducationharyana.gov.in/service-rules/page/3/

xx xx

xx

10. AGE LIMITS: Candidate should not be less than 18 years and

not more than 42 years, as the closing date fixed for submission of

online application forms to the commission i.e. 14.08.2024.

12 

CWP-28252-2024 and other connected cases 

The relaxation in maximum age for various categories is available as

under:-

Sr.

No.

Categories where relaxation

is admissible

No. of years of relaxation

(i) to

(viii)

xx xx

(ix) Persons who have already

worked or presently working

on adhoc / contract / work-

charged / daily wages basis

in any Department / Board /

Corporation of Haryana

Government including

Government-aided

institutions under Haryana

Government.

Relaxation in age Equal to the

number of completed years

only on equivalent post on

adhoc/ contract/ work-

charged/ daily wages basis

excluding the period of break,

if any, including any other age

relaxation admissible, if any,

subject to maximum age of 52

years and also subject to the

condition that if once a person

has been appointed on regular

basis in any Department /

Board / Corporation etc. of

Haryana Government with the

benefit of relaxation in age he

will not be entitled to avail the

same again for any subsequent

appointment.

Note:-

The experience certificate(s)

of equivalent post issued by

the Appointing Authority of

respective Department /

Board / Corporation /

Government-aided Institution

only shall be valid. Before

grant of benefit of relaxation

in age, the experience

certificate(s) shall be got

verified by the HPSC from

13 

CWP-28252-2024 and other connected cases 

the concerned Appointing

Authority(ties).”

10. Reference must also be made to the Proviso to Rule 5 of the

2012 Service Rules, which grants teachers serving in privately managed

Government-aided, recognized, and Government schools relaxation in the

upper age limit to the extent of the service rendered by them, subject to a

maximum of five years. The said Rule is reproduced as follows:

“5. No person shall be appointed to the post in the service by direct

recruitment on contract basis who is less than eighteen years or more

than forty years of age or such age as fixed by the Government, from

time to time on the last date of submission of application to the

recruiting agency.

Provided that teachers working in privately managed

Government aided, recognized and Government schools, shall be

given age relaxation in upper age limit to the extent of service

rendered by them as a teacher subject to a maximum of five years.

However, the said relaxation shall be as a onetime measure only.”

(Emphasis added)

11. Although the Proviso to Rule 5 stipulates that such relaxation is

available as a one-time measure, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Som

Nath (supra) has interpreted the provision to mean that the benefit is

available once for securing regular appointment and not merely in the first

recruitment process conducted after the Rules came into force. The

Coordinate Bench further observed that, in view of the prolonged absence of

regular recruitment and the prevalent practice of filling posts on a

14 

CWP-28252-2024 and other connected cases 

contractual basis, many eligible candidates were deprived of an opportunity

for regular appointment and consequently became overage. The age

relaxation was intended to benefit such experienced teachers who had served

in recognized educational institutions, and therefore must be construed in a

manner so as to advance, rather than defeat, the object of the Rule. The

relevant observations of the Co-ordinate Bench are reproduced hereunder:

“9. The issue under consideration in the present petitions is as to

whether the concession of age relaxation as provided in Rule 5 of the

Rules is admissible to the candidates in the first advertisement issued

after framing of the Rules or with reference to a candidate. The

relevant Rule 5 of the Rules is extracted below:-

xx xx

12. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the

relaxation is with reference to the candidates whereas the stand of the

State is that relaxation was provided in the first advertisement issued

after framing of the Rules. A perusal of Rule 5 of the Rules as

reproduced above shows that the age has been defined with reference

to the candidates to be appointed on the posts. The relaxation as

noticed above is with reference to the teaching experience subject to

maximum of five years in privately managed Government aided,

recognised and Government schools. Thereafter, it has been provided

that the relaxation shall be as one time measure only. The line in the

Rule which provided that relaxation shall be as a one time measure is

to be read in the context of the Rules which provide for age limit for

recruitment as a teacher, hence, has to be given interpretation in

terms thereof. It will be too harsh to interpret the Rules to mean that

relaxation would mean only in the first advertisement issued after

framing of the Rules rather it should be understood to mean that the

relaxation is available to a candidate once for his/her appointment.

15 

CWP-28252-2024 and other connected cases 

There has been adhocism in the State for quite some time as the

posts were being filled up on contract basis for quite some time and

there has been no regular recruitment, hence, lot of candidates in

the line could not get opportunity to be recruited on regular basis.

In the process, some became over age as well. This relaxation is

meant for these type of candidates, as experience always matters.

The experience, the relaxation for which is being granted is only for

teaching in privately managed Government aided, recognised and

Government schools and not in some small tutor types shops. In the

recognized, privately managed Government aided schools, there is

some control on the quality of teaching as well, hence, the

relaxation in age to these categories of candidates is to be granted

once for his/her selection and not for any subsequent selection.”

(Emphasis added)

12. The petitioner in CWP-28252-2024 has been working as a

Primary Teacher in Government Model Sanskriti Senior Secondary School,

Sector 26, Panchkula on a regular basis from 02.05.2017 till date. A plain

reading of Rule 5 of the 2012 Service Rules clearly shows that the petitioner

falls within the ambit of the said Rule and must be given the benefit of age

relaxation on the basis of her experience as a Primary Teacher. The action of

the respondent-Commission in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner

merely on the ground that she does not possess experience on an equivalent

post, is illegal and contrary to Rule 5. The term ‘equivalent post’ has not

been used in Rule 5 and cannot be read into the provision to restrict its scope

and applicability, as the same would defeat the very purpose and object of

the Rule. Furthermore, as noted above, it is settled law that where there is

16 

CWP-28252-2024 and other connected cases 

any inconsistency between the terms of an advertisement and the governing

statutory rules, the statutory rules must prevail.

13. Moreover, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the

respondents on the Government Instructions dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure R-

3/1) is misplaced and the same cannot be used to justify the aforesaid

approach. Executive or administrative instructions cannot amend or override

statutory rules, nor can any such instructions be issued in derogation of the

statutory framework.

14. Nonetheless, this Court is of the considered view that Clause

10(ix) of the advertisement as reproduced above, operates in a different

field. It grants a general age relaxation for persons who have already worked

or are presently working on an equivalent post on adhoc/contract/work-

charged/daily wage basis in any

Departments/Boards/Corporations/Government-aided institutions under the

Haryana Government. For this general class, the clause requires service on

an equivalent post and caps the resultant age at 52 years. The petitioner does

not claim relaxation under Clause 10(ix); rather, she is invoking the separate

and specific statutory concession created for teachers by Rule 5 of the 2012

Service Rules. As noted above, instructions can be issued only to

supplement the statutory rules but not to supplant them. Thus, this Court

holds that the Government Instructions dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure R-3/1)

may continue to operate and grant the benefit of age relaxation to employees

in whose favor they have been issued. However, they cannot override or

17 

CWP-28252-2024 and other connected cases 

restrict the statutory age relaxation conferred under Rule 5.

15. Furthermore, the reliance placed by learned counsel for the

respondents on the judgments of the Co-ordinate Benches in Aruna Mehta

(supra) and Kamla Rani (supra) is wholly misplaced, as both decisions are

clearly distinguishable on facts and do not govern the controversy involved

in the present case. In Aruna Mehta (supra), the petitioner had sought

exemption from the requirement of passing the HTET on the basis of her

experience as a College Lecturer. The Co-ordinate Bench declined the

claim, observing that under the relevant advertisement, the benefit of

exemption was available only to candidates who had served in Government

Schools, Privately Managed Government-Aided Schools, or Recognized

Schools and possessed the requisite teaching experience prior to 11.04.2012.

Since the petitioner did not satisfy the prescribed eligibility conditions, the

relief was rightly denied. Significantly, the issue relating to relaxation in the

upper age limit under Rule 5 of the 2012 Service Rules neither arose for

consideration nor was adjudicated upon in the said case.

16. In Kamla Rani (supra), the principal contention advanced on

behalf of the petitioner was that the expression “teacher” occurring in Rule 5

of the 2012 Rules ought to be interpreted broadly so as to include all

categories of teachers, irrespective of whether the teaching experience was

acquired in primary schools, secondary schools, or colleges. The Co-

ordinate Bench rejected the said contention and held that the petitioner’s

experience as a Lecturer (English) at the college level did not satisfy the

18 

CWP-28252-2024 and other connected cases 

requirement of teaching experience in Government Schools, Privately

Managed Government-Aided Schools, or Recognized Schools as

contemplated under Rule 5. Consequently, the claim for age relaxation was

declined. It was further observed that accepting such an interpretation would

amount to reading something alien into the statutory provision which is

otherwise clear and unambiguous. On the other hand, the petitioner in

CWP-28252-2024 has experience as a Primary Teacher in Government

Model Sanskriti Senior Secondary School, Sector 26, Panchkula and

therefore, squarely falls within the ambit of Rule 5 of the 2012 Service

Rules.

CONCLUSION

17. In view of the foregoing discussion, all the above-mentioned

writ petitions are allowed in the following terms:

a. The impugned orders whereby the candidature of the petitioners has

been rejected on the ground that they do not possess experience on an

“equivalent post” in terms of Clause 10(ix) of Advertisement dated

23.07.2024 are hereby quashed and set aside.

b. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the

petitioners after extending to them the benefit of relaxation in the

upper age limit in accordance with Rule 5 of the Haryana State

Education School Cadre (Group B) Service Rules, 2012. However,

such benefit shall be admissible only if the petitioners have not

previously availed the said one-time relaxation for securing

19 

CWP-28252-2024 and other connected cases 

appointment against a regular post.

c. Since the petitioner in CWP-32026-2024 was not interviewed owing

to the rejection of his candidature, the respondents are directed to

afford him an opportunity to participate in the interview and thereafter

consider his candidature for selection in accordance with law.

d. The petitioners, if found eligible and meritorious, shall be offered

appointment with consequential notional benefits in terms of their

merit. However, actual monetary benefits shall be given to the

petitioners only from the date of their actual joining. The respondents

are directed to complete the aforesaid exercise within a period of six

weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

18. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

19. Photocopy  of  this  order  be  placed  on  the  files  of  connected 

cases. 

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)    

                        JUDGEJUDGEJUDGEJUDGE 

06.08.202606.08.202606.08.202606.08.2026                              

parul verma  Whether speaking/reasoned. :   Yes/No 

Whether Reportable. :     Yes/No