CWP-751-2023 & CONNECTED CASES 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

1. CWP-751-2023 (O&M)

Dr. Surender Singh and another

....Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others

....Respondents

2. CWP-673-2023 (O&M)

Dr. Abhinav Singh

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

....Respondents

3. CWP-11775-2023 (O&M)

Priyanka

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

....Respondents

4. CWP-8675-2023 (O&M)

Sunder Singh

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

....Respondents

1.Date when judgment was reserved14.07.2026

2.Date of pronouncement of

judgment

19.08.2026

3.Date of uploading judgment 19.08.2026

4.Whether operative part or full

judgment is pronounced

Full

5.Delay, if any, in pronouncing of

full judgment and reasons thereof

Not Applicable

CWP-751-2023 & CONNECTED CASES 2

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:Mr. Akshay Jindal, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Bhavya Vats, Advocate

for the petitioners in CWP-751-2023.

Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate

with Ms. Sehar Navjeet Singh, Advocate

and Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioner in CWP-8675-2023.

Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate

and Mr. Nipun Verma, Advocate

for the petitioner in CWP-673-2023.

Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate

for the petitioner in CWP-11775-2023.

Mr. Akshit Pathania, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate

with Ms. Seerat Saldi, Advocate

for respondent No.2/HPSC in CWP-751-2023.

Mr. Balvinder Sangwan, Advocate

with Ms. Enayat Dang, Advocate

for respondent/HPSC.

Mr. Himalya Makkad, Advocate

and Ms. Himani Makkad, Advocate

for respondent No.5 in CWP-8675-2023.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. With the consent of all the parties, the aforementioned writ

petitions shall be disposed of by this common order 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-751-2023.

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 for quashing the order/announcement dated

CWP-751-2023 & CONNECTED CASES 3

13.12.2022 (Annexure P-24) passed by respondent No. 2-Haryana

Public Service Commission, whereby fresh criteria/minimum

qualification was fixed for interview thereby changing ‘Rules of the

Game’ in the middle of the selection process. Further, for issuance of a

writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the Result dated 23.12.2022

(Annexure P-25) to the extent whereby the petitioners have not been

selected. It is further prayed that a writ in the nature of Mandamus be

issued directing the respondents to decide the representation of the

petitioners by passing a speaking order. Lastly, it is prayed that during

the pendency of the present writ petition one post of Assistant Professor

(Orthopaedics) and Assistant Professor (Anesthesiology) each, under

BCA category, be kept reserved.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. Respondent No.3-Director General Medical Education and

Research, Haryana (DGMER) issued an advertisement dated 31.05.2022

(Annexure P-1) for 189 vacant posts of Teaching Faculty (Assistant

Professor) in Super Speciality and Broad Speciality on regular basis in

Government Medical Colleges in the State. Petitioner No.1 applied

against one post of Broad Specialty (Medical)-Orthopaedics in BCA

category while petitioner no.2 applied against one post of Broad

Speciality (Medical)-Anesthesiology under BCA category as well.

According to the selection criteria laid down in the advertisement

(supra), 75 marks were to be awarded against pre-merit criteria while 25

marks were to be awarded on the basis of interview. Petitioner No.1

CWP-751-2023 & CONNECTED CASES 4

obtained 44 marks against the pre-merit criteria while petitioner no.2

obtained 40 marks, and both were called for interview vide orders dated

07.12.2022 and 08.12.2022 (Annexure P-23 and P-23A, respectively).

4. Thereafter, vide order dated 13.12.2022 (Annexure P-24),

minimum marks- 50% marks for General Category and 45% marks for

all the reserved categories, were prescribed for qualification of the

interview. The petitioners appeared for the interview and it was found

that no other candidate had reached this stage for the respective posts

against which they had applied. The result was declared on 23.12.2022

(Annexure P-25) and the petitioners were not selected. Consequently,

the petitioners submitted representations on 24.12.2022 and 30.12.2022

(Annexure P-26 and P-27, respectively) but no reply has been received

till date.

CONTENTIONS

5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners inter alia

contended that no minimum marks have been prescribed to qualify the

interview stage either in the advertisement or in the announcements

(Annexure P-23 and P-23A) vide which the petitioners were called for

interview. The respondent-HPSC has abruptly issued the impugned

announcement dated 13.12.2022 (Annexure P-24) prescribing a

minimum criteria for qualifying interview as 50% for General category

and 45% for all reserved categories. As such, prima facie, the

respondent-HPSC has changed the rules of the game after the selection

process had already started, which is expressly forbidden by the

CWP-751-2023 & CONNECTED CASES 5

Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Manjushree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

(2008) 3 SCC 512, Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi 2008 (2)

SCT 736 and Sivanandan C.T. and others vs. High Court of Kerala

and others 2023 INSC 709. He further argues that only 90 candidates

were called for interview against 189 posts of Teaching Faculty and,

under the BCA category, only one applicant qualified to this stage

against the posts of Assistant Professor (Orthopaedics) and Assistant

Professor (Anesthesiology) each. As such, unnecessary weightage has

been given to the interview while the academic career of post-graduate

doctors, assessed by means of the pre-merit criteria, is more important

to ascertain their capacity as Assistant Professors. Additionally, both the

petitioners have obtained their undergraduate and post graduate degrees

from government medical colleges and are currently working as Senior

Residents in Pandit B.D. Sharma Post Graduate Institute of Medical

Sciences, Rohtak (hereinafter ‘PGIMS’), which makes it suspicious as

to how they could not secure 45% marks, as subsequently prescribed by

the respondent-HPSC vide impugned announcement dated 13.12.2022

(Annexure P-24).

6. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for respondent-HPSC

submitted that the name of petitioner No.2 has been recommended for

appointment by the respondent-HPSC and thus, the present writ petition

deserves to be dismissed qua petitioner No.2. He further argued that the

contention of the petitioners with respect to modification of selection

criteria is without merit as the selection was carried out in terms of the

CWP-751-2023 & CONNECTED CASES 6

advertisement (supra) i.e. 75 marks for academic qualification, as per

the pre-merit criteria, and 25 marks for the interview. No fresh criterion

has been added to the same vide impugned announcement dated

13.12.2022 (Annexure P-24). The interview remains worth 25 marks, as

originally advertised. He further submitted that the respondent-HPSC

has been entrusted with the responsibility to conduct interviews for

these highly specialised posts and since the candidates were only

assessed on the basis of their academic qualifications, it was decided

that minimum qualifying marks should apply to the interview to

maintain high standard of competence.

7. Learned Senior counsel further contended that while the

condition of minimum qualifying marks in the interview was introduced

vide impugned announcement dated 13.12.2022 (Annexure P-24), the

petitioners only raised an objection qua the same three weeks after they

had been declared unsuccessful in the selection process. Moreover, it is

settled law that cut off marks can be fixed even at the stage of final

selection to maintain the quality of candidates. He also argued that

fixing minimum marks for the interview is akin to prescribing a cut-off.

Further still, an advertisement for recruitment is merely an invitation to

apply and thus, the State has no legal duty to necessarily fill vacancies

Since injury lies only where a statutory duty exists, in absence of such

obligation on the part of the State, petitioner No.1 does not possess an

indefeasible right to be appointed.

CWP-751-2023 & CONNECTED CASES 7

OBSERVATION AND ANALYSIS

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after

perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the respondent-

DGMER issued an advertisement on 29.04.2022 (Annexure P-1) for

recruitment of Teaching Faculty (Assistant Professor) on regular basis in

Government Medical Colleges in the State. The advertisement (supra)

provides a two-tiered selection scheme which includes award of 75

marks in accordance with the pre-merit criteria and 25 marks for the

interview. A Selection Committee consisting of various experts from

PGIMS was constituted by the State Government, for short-listing of

candidates on the basis of the pre-merit criteria. The State Government

had also decided to entrust the responsibility to conduct the interviews

to the respondent-Commission. Accordingly, respondent-HPSC issued

an interview schedule on 07.12.2022 (Annexure P-23).

9. The issue in the present writ petition(s) arose when the

respondent-HPSC issued the impugned announcement dated 13.12.2022

(Annexure P-24) imposing minimum qualifying marks to clear the stage

of interview i.e. 50% for general category and 45% for the reserved

categories. It is the case of the petitioner(s) that the respondent-HPSC

has changed the rules of the game by introducing such a condition when

the game was already in motion. Accordingly, the following issue arises

for adjudication before this Court:

Can the Haryana Public Service Commission, being the

recruiting authority, deviate from the criteria declared in

CWP-751-2023 & CONNECTED CASES 8

the advertisement dated 31.05.2022 (Annexure P-1) in the

absence of any rules or stipulation in the requisition, at

the last stage of the selection process i.e. the interview?

● Supremacy of Selection Criteria laid down by the Employer

10. The opportunities for public employment are scarce and

highly coveted. For most of the populace, the promise of financial

stability and upward social mobility such employment opportunities

bring is rather sacrosanct. The significance thereof is also illustrated by

the fact that equality in the matters of public employment has been

listed as a fundamental right in the Constitution of India. As such, it is

of the utmost importance that the recruiting authorities ensure that the

selection processes to such posts remains transparent and free from the

vice of arbitrariness.

11. On that note, it appears that the advertisement (supra) has

been issued by the respondent-DGMER. A perusal thereof would also

indicate that a rather detailed selection criteria has been published for

the benefit of the candidates. The pre-merit criteria worth 75-marks is

further subdivided into various heads, which further range from 0.5 to

15 marks. However, as far as the interview is concerned, the

advertisement (supra) merely indicates that this stage shall be worth 25

marks. A corrigendum dated 27.09.2022 (Annexure P-2) was

subsequently published, however, no alteration was made with respect

to the selection criteria as far as the interview is concerned. Notably, the

task of conducting the said interview, for candidates short-listed by the

CWP-751-2023 & CONNECTED CASES 9

Selection Committee, was entrusted to the respondent-HPSC. In

furtherance thereof, the respondent-HPSC issued announcement dated

07.12.2022 (Annexure P-23) and 08.12.2022 (Annexure P-23/A)

whereby the list of short-listed candidates was published and it was

informed that the interviews shall be held on 19.12.2022 and

20.12.2022.

12. This Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent-

HPSC has erred in prescribing the minimum qualifying marks for

interview, especially after announcing the list of short-listed candidates.

The scheme as provided in the advertisement (supra) makes it clear that

selection shall be made in terms of marks obtained per the pre-merit

criteria (worth 75 marks) and in the interview (worth 25 marks). It must

be duly noted that the scheme of selection has been laid by the

respondent-DGMER i.e. the employer. The respondent-HPSC was

merely engaged for conducting interviews. Neither the advertisement

(supra) nor any other material available on the record indicates that the

respondent-HPSC was allowed to make modifications to the existing

selection criteria. Additionally, the respondent-DGMER, being the

employer as well as a specialised body entrusted with regulating

medical education, ought to be perceived as the best judge for deciding

upon suitability of candidates for the advertised roles. A two-Judge

bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Public Service

Commission through its Secretary vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and

CWP-751-2023 & CONNECTED CASES 10

others (2019) 6 SCC 362, speaking through Justice Navin Sinha, has

made the following observations in this regard:

“10. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post

are for the employer to decide. The employer may

prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including

any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best

suited to decide the requirements a candidate must

possess according to the needs of the employer and the

nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions

of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with

regard to desirable qualifications being at par with the

essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the

advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall

outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of

the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court

cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an

ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules

or law the matter has to go back to the appointing

authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in

accordance with law. In no case can the Court, in the garb

of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing

authority to decide what is best for the employer and

interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to

the plain language of the same.”

(emphasis added)

● Modification of the Rules of the Game

13. Further still, the respondent-HPSC introduced the minimum

qualifying marks for the interview vide announcement dated 13.12.2022

(Annexure P-24). However, at that time, the list of selected candidates

and the dates for interview (19.12.2022 and 20.12.2022) was already

made public vide announcement dated 07.12.2022 and 08.12.2022

(Annexure P-23 and P-23A, respectively). It is the case of the

respondent-HPSC that the prescription of minimum marks was made

CWP-751-2023 & CONNECTED CASES 11

before the actual interview, with the intention to maintain high standards

in the recruitment. Certainly, if expressly mentioned in the

advertisement, the recruiting authority can suggest parameters for where

the rules are silent. However, it is necessary that such additions are

neither arbitrary nor contrary to the applicable rules and the scheme of

process. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgement

rendered by the Constitutional 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:

“(A) COMMENCEMENT/END OF THE

RECRUITMENT PROCESS

13. The process of recruitment begins with the issuance

of advertisement and ends with the filling up of notified

vacancies. It consists of various steps like inviting

applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection of defective

applications or elimination of ineligible candidates,

conducting examinations, calling for interview or viva

voce and preparation of list of successful candidates for

appointment.

[11]

[11 A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra,

(1990) 2 SCC 669; and Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi,

(2010) 2 SCC 637.]

xxx xxx xxx

30. …a degree of discretion is necessary to be left to the

employer to devise its method/ procedure to select a

candidate most suitable for the post albeit subject to the

overarching principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of

CWP-751-2023 & CONNECTED CASES 12

the Constitution as also the Rules/Statute governing

service and reservation. Thus, in our view, the appointing

authority/recruiting authority/competent authority, in

absence of Rules to the contrary, can devise a procedure

for selection of a candidate suitable to the post and while

doing so it may also set benchmarks for different stages

of the recruitment process including written examination

and interview. However, if any such benchmark is set, the

same should be stipulated before the commencement of

the recruitment process… The decision in K. Manjusree

(supra) does not prescribe setting of benchmarks for

various stages of the recruitment process but mandates that

it should not be set after the stage is over, in other words

after the game has already been played.”

(Emphasis added)

14. At this stage, it may be profitable to refer to the judgment

rendered by a two-Judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hemani

Malhotra (supra) where a reference has been made to K. Manjusree

(supra) and speaking through Justice J.M. Panchal, the following has

been held:

“9. From the proposition of law laid down by this Court in

the above mentioned case it is evident that previous

procedure was not to have any minimum marks for vive-

voce. Therefore, prescribing minimum marks for vive-voce

was not permissible at all after written test was conducted.

There is no manner of doubt that the authority making

rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the

minimum marks both for written examination and vive-

voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for vive-

voce before the commencement of selection process, the

authority concerned, cannot either during the selection

process or after the selection process add an additional

CWP-751-2023 & CONNECTED CASES 13

requirement/qualification that the candidate should also

secure minimum marks in the interview. Therefore, this

Court is of the opinion that prescription of minimum

marks by the respondent at vive-voce, test was illegal.”

(Emphasis added)

15. Additionally, the advertisement (supra) makes it clear that

the interview shall be worth 25 marks in the overall scheme, but this

stipulation does not, by itself, imply the existence, or the permissibility

of subsequent introduction of a minimum qualifying threshold for that

component. Learned Senior counsel has argued that it is the prerogative

of the respondent-HPSC to introduce cut-off marks at any stage of

selection. However, the respondent-HPSC has not merely added a

routine cut-off but significantly altered the manner in which the game

shall be played. While the weightage of a stage pertains to how much a

component counts towards the aggregate, the qualifying threshold

answers a different question i.e. whether a candidate can be eliminated

from consideration, regardless of aggregate merit. The interview may

still be worth 25-marks, however, eligibility of the candidates has been

altered by this subsequent prescription (Annexure P-24) irrespective of

their merit. In setting minimum qualifying marks for the interview, the

respondent-HPSC has attempted to nullify the effect of the marks

obtained in terms of the carefully curated pre-merit criteria. The

selection scheme provided in the advertisement (supra) makes it clear

that selections will be made based on the aggregate marks secured in

both the stages. Thus, the respondent-HPSC cannot unilaterally alter the

CWP-751-2023 & CONNECTED CASES 14

criteria in a manner where one stage is rendered irrelevant, especially in

absence of relevant authorisation in this regard.

16. It may also be profitable to refer to the judgement rendered

by a two-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salam Samarjeet

Singh vs. High Court of Manipur at Imphal, 2024 INSC 632, wherein

it was opined that when the selection scheme calls for aggregate marks

in viva-voce and written examination to be considered for final

selection, in terms of statutory rules therein, the same cannot be

overcome by means of administrative instructions. Speaking through

Justice Hrishikesh Roy, the following was observed:

“23. Applying the above legal proposition, it is seen that in

this matter, the mode of evaluation was provided for in the

Rules. This is not a case where the Rules were silent. Mr.

Hansaria, placed considerable reliance on the decision of

this Court in Kavita Khamboj(supra), where a three-judge

bench of this Court while upholding the prescription of

minimum 50% marks in interview for promotion as District

Judges, observed that the rules can be supplemented to fill

in the gaps. However, it particularly distinguishes the

instances where the Rules specifically provide for the mode

of evaluation. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the

Supreme Court speaking through DY Chandrachud CJI,

itself notes that the matter would have been entirely

different if the Rules specifically provided that the final

merit list would be on the basis of aggregate marks:

“52. Moreover, the Rules in the present case are

entirely silent in regard to the prescription of a

minimum eligibility for clearing a competitive test,

on the one hand, and the viva voce, on the other

hand. If the Rules were to specifically provide in a

given case that the criterion for eligibility would be

on the combined marks of both the written test and

the viva voce, the matter would have been entirely

CWP-751-2023 & CONNECTED CASES 15

different. [P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India,

(1984) 2 SCC 141, para 44 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 214]

Rule 6(1)(a) and Rule 8 being silent as regards the

manner in which merit and suitability would be

determined, administrative instructions can

supplement the Rules in that regard. This is not a

case where the Rules have made a specific provision

in which event the administrative instructions cannot

transgress a rule which is being made in pursuance

of the power conferred under Article 309 of the

Constitution. For instance, if the Rules were to

provide that there would be a minimum eligibility

requirement only in the written test, conceivably, it

may not be open to prescribe a minimum eligibility

requirement in the viva voce by an administrative

instruction. Similarly, if the Rules were to provide

that the eligibility cut-off would be taken on the

basis of the overall marks which are obtained in

both the written test and the viva voce, conceivably,

it would not be open to the administrative

instructions to modify the terms.”

xxx xxx xxx

26. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the

executive instructions cannot override statutory Rules

where the method of final selection by combining the

cumulative grade value obtained in the written and the

viva-voce examinations is specified categorically.”

(Emphasis added)

● The Test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

17. Article 14 recognises that arbitrariness and fair play are

sworn enemies and thus, strikes at the heart of arbitrary State action by

demanding that exercise of any public power only be guided by reason

and equality. Moreover, the overt display of fair play is integral to the

idea of natural justice and a failure to abide by the same would not

CWP-751-2023 & CONNECTED CASES 16

merely amount to an administrative misconduct but would be a direct

affront to the Rule of Law. This principle was further enunciated by a

Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rojer Mathew vs.

South Indian Bank Ltd. and others, (2020) 6 SCC 1, where, speaking

through Justice Deepak Gupta, the following was held:

“352. If Rule of law is absent, there is no accountability,

there is abuse of power and corruption. When the Rule of

law disappears, we are ruled not by laws but by the

idiosyncrasies and whims of those in power.”

18. On that note, admittedly, vide announcement dated

13.12.2022 (Annexure P-24), a qualifying benchmark directly impacting

eligibility of candidates, has been introduced for the stage of interview

that was set to commence in about 06 days i.e. 19.12.2022 onwards. Not

only does such eligibility-limiting modification defy the legitimate

expectation in the candidates to be judged per the notified criteria but

also creates a perception of arbitrariness. Tritely, legitimate expectations

of individuals can be superseded by public interest, however, it is on the

State to establish how the latter is being served by its decisions. It is the

case of the respondent-HPSC that the additional checkpoints merely

ensure that the best available faculty is provided to Government

Medical Colleges. Nevertheless, the defence of public interest does not

exempt the actions of the respondent-HPSC to be scrutinised from the

lens of Article 14 of the Constitution. The 75-marks awarded under pre-

merit/academic criteria were not distributed in an unstructured or

nebulous manner, rather, the candidates were assessed using a detailed,

CWP-751-2023 & CONNECTED CASES 17

multi-dimensional formula, devised by experts of respondent-DGMER.

As such, mere absence of a written exam does not in itself diminish the

quality of the recruitment, especially when the selection scheme actually

employed has been recommended by experts. As such, considering that

the selection scheme was complete and express, it does not satisfy the

objective standards of reason and justice for the respondent-HPSC to

modify the selection criteria as provided in the advertisement (supra) by

introducing minimum qualifying marks at the interview stage.

19. The arbitrariness of the act and conduct of the respondent-

HPSC is supplemented by the timing of the modification. At the time of

introduction of the minimum qualifying marks were introduced i.e. on

13.12.2022 (Annexure P-24), the respondent-HPSC was already aware

of all the candidates short-listed for the interview. A specific argument

has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the selection

criteria was modified vide announcement dated 13.12.2022 (Annexure

P-24) in order to discount the petitioner from the zone of consideration.

Even though no direct evidence of mala fide has been brought to the

fore, the surrounding circumstances raise concern. The modification

made by the respondent-HPSC discounts certain candidates, including

the petitioner, from the zone of consideration solely on the basis of

interview marks while the original selection scheme sought for

selections to be made on the basis of aggregate merit i.e. marks obtained

under the academic criteria and the marks obtained in the interview.

Altering the criteria, while being aware of the details of the shortlisted

CWP-751-2023 & CONNECTED CASES 18

candidates, merely 06 days before the interview process was scheduled

to commence, has cast an air of doubt around the methodology adopted

by the respondent-HPSC. Being a State-run recruiting agency, the

respondent-HPSC cannot afford such doubts regarding its credibility as

Caesar’s wife must remain above all suspicion.

● Maintainability

20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v.

Union of India, (2019) 20 SCC 17 has categorically held that the

doctrine of estoppel would not bar a candidate from challenging

misconstruction of statutory rules or the constitutional scheme, in spite

of participation in the selection process. Speaking through Justice

Dipankar Datta, the following was observed:

“17. However, we must differentiate from this principle

insofar as the candidate by agreeing to participate in the

selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure

and not the illegality in it. In a situation where a

candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and

discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the same

cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has

partaken in it. The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct

and its violation in any manner is impermissible. In fact,

a candidate may not have locus to assail the incurable

illegality or derogation of the provisions of the

Constitution , unless he/she participates in the selection

process.”

(Emphasis added)

Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.

2103 of 2020, titled as ‘Ramjit Singh Kardam and others vs. Sanjeev

Kumar and others,’ has laid down that a candidate unaware of criteria

CWP-751-2023 & CONNECTED CASES 19

of selection under which they were subjected in process of selection

cannot be estopped from challenging it.

21. Thus, the petitioner(s) cannot be said to have waived their

right to challenge the impugned announcement dated 13.12.2022

(Annexure P-24) merely because they appeared for the interview on

19.12.2022 and 20.12.2022, pursuant to the announcements dated

07.12.2022 and 08.12.2022 (Annexure P-23 and P-23/A, respectively).

Moreover, where an administrative action is void for want of authority,

or for being ultra vires the very scheme under which it presents to have

been issued, the question of delay or laches on the part of the person

challenging such action pales into insignificance. A void act does not

acquire validity merely by efflux of time as the vice goes to the very

root of the authority to act, which cannot be cured by acquiescence.

CONCLUSION

22. In view of the discussion above, all the aforementioned writ

petitions are allowed in the following terms:

(i) The order/announcement dated 13.12.2022 (Annexure

P-24) passed by respondent No. 2-Haryana Public Service

Commission, whereby fresh criteria/minimum

qualification was fixed for interview is hereby quashed.

(ii) The Result dated 23.12.2022 (Annexure P-25) is set

aside to the extent of exclusion of the petitioner(s) for the

reason of failure to meet the minimum qualifying marks

in the interview i.e. 50% for the unreserved category and

45% for the reserved categories.

(iii) The respondent-HPSC is directed to re-evaluate and

finalize the selection process afresh, solely on the basis of

the criteria originally stipulated in the advertisement

CWP-751-2023 & CONNECTED CASES 20

dated 31.05.2022 (Annexure P-1), i.e., by calculating

aggregate merit out of 100 marks (75 marks for pre-merit

academic credentials and 25 marks for interview) without

applying any minimum qualifying cut-off for the viva

voce.

(iv) In the event that the petitioner(s) are found

successful upon such aggregate evaluation, the

respondents/competent authority shall issue the

consequential appointment letter to them, if they are

found otherwise eligible. Such selected

candidates/petitioner(s), if any, shall be entitled to pay

only from the day of joining service but the notional

benefits shall be calculated from the date of such benefits

being disbursed to their batch-mates.

22. Insofar as petitioner No. 2 in CWP-751-2023 is concerned,

since her name has already been recommended for appointment by

respondent-HPSC, no further directions are required, and the writ

petition (CWP-751-2023) qua her stands disposed of having been

rendered infructuous.

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

24. A photocopy of this order be placed on the paperbooks of

the connected matters.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)

JUDGE

19.08.2026

yakub

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No