Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana Public Service Commission vs Pardeep Kumar And Others on 3 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. LPA-1397-2025 (O&M)
Reserved on 3rdSeptember, 2025
Date of Decision: 3rd November, 2025
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
PARDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS .......Respondent(s)
2. LPA-1827-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
HIMANSHU AND OTHERS .......Respondent(s)
3. LPA-1828-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
KALPANA YADAV AND OTHERS .......Respondent(s)
4. LPA-1829-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
MAMTA .......Respondent(s)
5. LPA-1830-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
ABHISHEK AND OTHERS .......Respondent(s)
6. LPA-1831-2025 (O&M)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
RASHMI YADAV ALIAS RASHMI HIRALAL YADAV AND OTHERS
.......Respondent(s)
7. LPA-1832-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
NACHITA AND OTHERS .......Respondent(s)
8. LPA-1833-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
SURBHI AND ANOTHER .......Respondent(s)
9. LPA-1845-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
MINU YADAV AND OTHERS ....Respondent(s)
1 of 45
::: Downloaded on - 10-11-2025 20:45:40 :::
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
Page 2 of 45
10.LPA-1846-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
BHARTI SHAKLA AND OTHERS .......Respondent(s)
11.LPA-1847-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
ANSHUL AND OTHERS .......Respondent(s)
12.LPA-1848-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
DEEPIKA AND OTHERS .......Respondent(s)
13.LPA-1850-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
NEELAM AND OTHERS .......Respondent(s)
14.LPA-1853-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
ANJALY AND OTHERS .......Respondent(s)
15.LPA-1855-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
VIPIN SINGLA AND OTHERS .......Respondent(s)
16.LPA-1857-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
PRIYANKA AND OTHERS .......Respondent(s)
17.LPA-1858-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
SHABNAM AND OTHERS .......Respondent(s)
18.LPA-1859-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
POOJA YADAV AND OTHERS .......Respondent(s)
19.LPA-1860-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
ATUL KUMAR AND OTHERS .......Respondent(s)
2 of 45
::: Downloaded on - 10-11-2025 20:45:41 :::
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
Page 3 of 45
20.LPA-1861-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
AAMIR SUHAIL AND OTHERS .......Respondent(s)
21.LPA-1862-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
SONAM SAINI AND OTHERS .......Respondent(s)
22.LPA-1840-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
PROMILA YADAV AND OTHERS .......Respondent(s)
23.LPA-1841-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
KALPANA YADAV AND OTHERS .......Respondent(s)
24.LPA-1852-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
ANUJ AND OTHERS .......Respondent(s)
25.LPA-1854-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
JYOTI AND NOTHER .......Respondent(s)
26.LPA-1856-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
LALITA AND OTHERS ... ....Respondent(s)
27.LPA-1864-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
BHANU KUMAR PANCHAL AND ANOTHER .......Respondent(s)
28.LPA-1865-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
BERKHA AND OTHERS .......Respondent(s)
29.LPA-1867-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
KARUNA AND OTHERS .......Respondent(s)
3 of 45
::: Downloaded on - 10-11-2025 20:45:41 :::
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
Page 4 of 45
30.LPA-1869-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
MANJEET KUMAR AND OTHERS .......Respondent(s)
31.LPA-1877-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
PRIYA AND ANOTHER .......Respondent(s)
32.LPA-1883-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
POONAM AND OTHERS .......Respondent(s)
33.LPA-1396-2025 (O&M)
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Appellant(s)
V/S
NEHA DHIMAN AND ANOTHER .......Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
ARGUED BY :-
Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal. Sr. Addl. A.G., Haryana with
Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Ms. Sheena Dahiya and Ms. Komal Klana,
Advocates for appellants-HPSC.
Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advocate assisted by
Ms. Sehar Navjeet Singh, Advocate for the respondents
in LPA-1397-2025.
Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate assisted by
Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Mr. Arjun Singh, Advocate,
Mr. Abhishek Premi, Advocate
for respondent No.1 in LPA Nos. 1855,1852,1859, 1831, 1841,
1860, 1848, 1862 and 1833 of 2025,
for respondents No.1 &2 in LPA Nos. 1827, 1853 & 1856 of 2025,
for respondents No.1 to 9 in LPA No.1869 of 2025,
for respondent No.2 in LPA No.1847 of 2025,
for respondent-Mamta in LPA No.1829 of 2025,
for respondents No. 5,7, 10 to 16, 18 to 20, 22 to 29, 31 to 32,
34 to 48, 50 to 70, 72 to 111, 113 to 120, 122 to 129, 131 to
135, 137 to 143, 145 to 171, 173 to 177 in LPA No.2451 of
2025 and
for respondents No. 649, 650, 653, 692, 703, 708, 743, 772,
774, 777, 785, 788,790,806,807, 822, 827,838, 864,869, 874,
878,888, 890, 894, 899, 906, 911, 916, 920, 937, 946, 1009,
4 of 45
::: Downloaded on - 10-11-2025 20:45:41 :::
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
Page 5 of 45
1014, 1044, 1048, 1064, 1074, 1089, 1091, 1102, 1022, 1026,
1144, 1161, 1173, 1192, 1219, 1235, 1239, 1241, 1250, 1253,
1256, 1258, 1280, 1297, 1330, 1342, 1374, 1379,1398, 1413,
1417, 1418, 1431, 1440, 1449, 1456, 1462, 1464, 1475, 1492,
1499, 1500, 1518, 1522, 1529, 1531, 1533, 1537, 1544, 1548,
1550, 1551, 1555, 1557, 1578, 1591, 1597, 1603,1617, 1627,
1635, 1637, 1640, 1641, 1644, 1662, 1665, 1679, 1689, 1697,
1702, 1712, 1727 in CWP No.17396 of 2025.
Mr. Kamal Kumar Mor and Mr. Ajay Putter, Advocates,
for respondents LPA-1858-2025.
Mr. Akshay Jindal and Mr. Bhavya Vats, Advocate for the
respondent in LPA-1396-2025.
Mr. Harkirat Singh and Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocates for the
respondent in LPA-1847-2025.
Mr. Balraj Singh Rathee and Mr. Vijay Deep Rathee, Advocates
for respondent-Priyanka in LPA-1827-2025.
Ms. Indu Bala and Ms. Anju Bansal, Advocate
for respondent No.1 in LPA-1854-2025.
Mr. Dixit Garg, Advocate,
for respondent No.1 in LPA-1864-2025.
Mr. Parveen Kumar Rohilla, Advocate
for respondent No.1-in LPA-1830-2025
Mr. Ankur Kaushik, Advocate
for respondent in LPA-1877-2025.
Mr. Naman Jain, Advocate and
Mr. Aneesh Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.10 in LPA-1396-2025.
Mr. Kamal Mor, Advocate
for respondent in LPA-1858-2025.
Mr. Mazlish Khan, Advocate
for respondents No. 1 to 3 in LPA-1861-2025.
******
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. These bunch of Appeals arises out of a composite judgment
dated 15.02.2025, passed by the learned Single Bench in a bunch of Writ
5 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
Petitions wherein a direction is issued to the Haryana Public Service
Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") to accord benefit
of reservation to the writ petitioners on the basis of their respective
certificates of different categories i.e. BC(A), BC(B) and EWS submitted
after the last date fixed for filing such certificates, along with their
applications, pursuant to the advertisement. Slight variance in facts in the
case of the petitioner, namely, 'Neha Dhiman' was noticed and dealt
with, separately by the learned Single Judge, Ultimately, the orders of
the Commission holding the petitioners ineligible, were set aside and all
the petitions were allowed.
2. The records reveal that the Commission issued an
advertisement No.16/2024 on 21.06.2024, inviting applications for
appointment to 805 posts of Ayurvedic Medical Officers (Group B) in
Health & Ayush Department, Haryana. The advertisement contained various
details required from the candidates as also the prescription of qualification
and specified the date for commencement of submission of online
applications as "22.06.2024" and closing date specified was "12.07.2024" at
5 P.M. The instructions accompanying the advertisement specified that
candidates were to register online on the Commission's website in order to
submit their application forms. After registration, they were to create a login
ID and complete the registration process using the login credentials. For the
purposes of authentication of candidate, Parivar Pehchan Patra (PPP), Adhar
Card and Virtual ID (VID) were admissible. After registration, the candidate
could apply as per their qualifications.
6 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
3. The duly filled application-form could be submitted only after
payment of requisite fee. The candidates, after making payment of requisite
fee, were required to take a print-out of their application form and upload the
same, after duly checking and signing its contents. The process of
submission of applications was to be completed only after uploading of duly
signed uploaded application form by the candidates. The last date for
submission of the application was "12.07.2024". Relevant portion of the said
advertisement is reproduced as under:-
"Item(s) Timeline
Date of Publication 21.06.2024
Opening date for submission of online applications 22.06.2024.
(Opening Date)
Closing date for submission of online applications 12.07.2024
(Closing Date)
1. XXXXXX
2. XXXXXXX
3. LATE DATE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS:
The online Applications can be submitted up to the Closing
Date till 5:00 P.M. The eligible candidates shall be issued an
e-Admit Card well before the commencement of the written
test, if any. The e-Admit Card will be made available on the
website http://hpsc.gov.in/en-us/ for downloading by the
candidates. No Admit Card will be sent by post."
4. Clauses 1 and 6 of the advertisement which specified the
eligibility for the post as also the essential qualification, reads as under:-
"1. CANDIDATES TO ENSURE THEIR ELIGIBILITY FOR THE
POST:
The candidates applying for the post should ensure that they
fulfill all eligibility conditions for the post. Their admission to
the recruitment process will be purely provisional subject to
satisfying the prescribed eligibility conditions. Mere issuance of
e-Admit Card to the candidate will not imply that his/her
7 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
candidature has been finally cleared by the Commission. The
eligibility of a candidate with reference to the documents
submitted by him/her is assessed only after the candidate has
qualified for the interview.
Note: The decision of the Commission with regards to the eligibility
of a candidate shall be final."
xxxxxxxx
6. ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS:
(i) A degree in Ayurvedic System of Medicine from any
University or Institution recognized of the Government.
(ii) Knowledge of Hindi up to Matric standard.
Note 1:
Candidate should be registered with Board of
Ayurvedic/Unani System of Medicine, Haryana (Now,
Indian Medical Council of Haryana).
Note2:
(i) The eligibility of the candidate with regard to
educational qualifications, experience etc. shall be
determined on the Closing Date fixed for submission of
online application forms.
(ii) All applicants must fulfil the essential requirements of
the post and other conditions stipulated in the
advertisement on the Closing Date. They are advised to
satisfy themselves before applying that they possess at
least the essential qualifications laid down for the posts.
No enquiry asking for advice regarding eligibility will be
entertained.
(iii) The certificates/ documents in support of educational
qualifications, experience, domicile, caste, category etc.
should be possessed by the candidates on or before the
Closing Date. The certificates issued after the Closing
Date will not be accepted by the Commission. The
qualification which is not claimed/mentioned by the
candidate in the online application form will not be taken
into consideration by the Commission.
8 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
(iv) The improvement in marks done by a candidate after the
Closing Date shall not be considered for any purpose in
this recruitment.
(v) The prescribed essential qualifications are the minimum
and mere possession of the same does not entitle
candidates to be called for interview.
(vi) In the event of number of applications being large,
Commission will adopt shortlisting criteria to restrict the
number of candidates to be called for interview to a
reasonable number by any or more of the following
methods:-
(a) On the basis of percentage of marks of the
candidates in the minimum educational qualification
prescribed in the advertisement.
(b) On the basis of percentage of marks of the
candidates in different educational qualifications, with
weightage as decided by the Commission.
(c) On the basis of desirable qualifications or any one
or all of the desirable qualifications if more than one
desirable qualification is prescribed.
(d) On the basis of higher educational qualifications
than the minimum/essential qualification prescribed in
the advertisement.
(e) On the basis of higher experience in the relevant
field than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement.
(f) By counting experience before or after the
acquisition of minimum/essential qualifications.
(g) By holding a Recruitment Test.
The candidate should, therefore, mention all his/her
qualifications and experience in the relevant field over
and above the minimum qualifications."
(Emphasis supplied by us)
5. It transpires that a writ petition was filed before this Court after
the last date fixed, raising the grievance that due to some technical glitch the
9 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
online application form of the petitioner therein, could not be uploaded. In
pursuance of the observations of this Court, the appellant-Commission
issued a corrigendum extending the date for filing of the application forms
from 16thAugust, 2024 to 20thAugust, 2024.
6. The essential qualifications for the post in question, reproduced
above, contained note(s) which specified that the eligibility of candidate
shall be determined on the closing date fixed for submission of online
application form. Essential requirements of the post must be fulfilled on the
closing date. The certificates/documents in support of educational
qualification, caste certificate etc. were to be possessed on or before the
closing date. Any improvement in the marks secured after the closing date
was not to be considered for recruitment.
7. Clause 11 of the advertisement provided for reservation and
Sub-clauses (i) to (iv) thereof are relevant and are reproduced as under:-
11. RESERVATION:
(i) The benefit of reservation will be given only to those
SC/BC-A/BC-B/EWS/PwBD/ESM category candidates
who are domiciles of Haryana State.
(ii) The women candidates seeking reservation under SC/BC-
A/BC-B category are required to submit the Caste
Certificate issued by the Competent Authority from
Parental Side (Father's side) only. It should be noted
that Certificate from in-laws (Husband Side) will not be
entertained.
(iii) It is clarified that State Government has decided to
specify the criteria for exclusion of persons with the
Backward Classes as Creamy Layer, regarding
reservation in Service and Admission as per notification
No. 491-SW(1) 2021 dated 17.11.2021. Therefore, the
candidates belonging to BC-A/BC-B category of Haryana
10 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
are required to attach latest/updated Certificate as per
notification No. 491-SW(1)2021 dated 17.11.2021 &
Govt. instruction No.22/132/2013-IGS-III dated
22.03.2022 (available on the website of C.S. Haryana i.e.
http://csharyana.gov.in) issued by the Competent
Authority during 2024-25 only.
(iv) Candidates who have in possession of OBC certificate.
The candidates are advised to submit BC-A/BC-B
certificate as per instructions detailed above."
8. Clause 13 of the advertisement related to certificate by
candidate belonging to EWS category of Haryana, which is reproduced as
under:-
"Certificate by the candidates belonging to Economically Weaker
Section (EWS) of Haryana:-
(i) The candidates belonging to EWS category of Haryana
are required to attach necessary CERTIFICATE as per
Haryana Govt. Instructions issued vide No. 22/12/2019-
1GS-III dated 25.02.2019 (Available on the website of CS
Haryana i.e. http://csharyana.gov.in/ issued by the
Competent Authority.
(ii) The EWS certificates should be valid for the year 2024-25
showing annual income of the family less than
Rs.6 Lacs."
9. Special instructions regarding submission of applications were
specified under Clause 16 of the advertisement, which inter alia required the
candidates to read all instructions and procedures carefully, before filling the
online application form and to check all the particulars in the form after
taking a print-out, to ensure the correctness of the particulars filled therein.
The candidates were mandatorily required to sign the application form after
checking all the particulars and thereafter upload the scanned copy. It was
11 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
also clearly stated that after the final submission of the application form, no
change will be allowed at any stage, and the candidate will be responsible
for any mistake in the same. It was further provided that the application form
had to be uploaded along with documents specified in the advertisement
itself. The relevant provisions of Clause 16 are extracted as under:
"16. Special Instructions Regarding Submission of Applications:-
XXX XXX XXX
(iii) Candidates are advised to fill their application forms
carefully such as Name, Father's/Mother's name, Date of
Birth, Category, Aadhar Card, Parivar Pehchan Patra
(PPP), Qualification, marks obtained, passing year, photo,
Signature, details & fee etc. The candidate should mention
the Category to which he belongs, in the application form.
After final submission of application form, no change will be
allowed and no request for change of any particular/s in the
online application form shall be entertained by the
Commission after submission of application form.
(iv) The application form will finally be submitted only
after paying the requisite application fee. After final
submission of application form, no change will be allowed
and no request for change of any particular(s) in the online
application form will be considered / entertained by the
Commission at any stage.
XXX XXXX XXXX
XXXX XXXX XXXX
(vii) Candidate will be responsible for any mistake in the
application for and fees paid by him/her. In case candidate
feels that he/she has filled up the form erroneously, he/she
should fill up a fresh online application form along with fresh
requisite fee before the closing date.
XXX XXX XXX
(x) Documents to be uploaded with Application Forms:
12 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
5. Scanned Copy of BC(A) and BC(B) certificate should
be issued for the year 2024-25 as per Govt.
Instructions dated 17.11.2021 and 22.03.2022.
6. Scanned copy of EWS certificate valid for year 2024-
2025 as per Govt. instruction dated 25.02.2019.
11. Scanned copy of Privar Pehchan Patra (if a candidate
availing benefits of reservation)........"
10. Since there is a variance in the facts and issues involved in the
case of the writ-petitioner, 'Neha Dhiman', the same shall be dealt with
separately. As regards all other writ-petitioners, it transpires, that they
applied pursuant to the advertisement claiming reservation under
BC(A)/BC(B) and EWS category. The writ petitioners, who had claimed
reservation under BC(A) and BC(B) categories, had not appended their
certificates of Non-Creamy Layer as per the requirement mandated under the
advertisement for the year 2024-2025. Similarly, the candidates belonging to
the EWS category, had also not submitted their EWS certificates in terms of
Clause 13 of the advertisement.
11. The Commission, therefore, did not treat the applications of the
petitioners as valid applications, however, before rejecting the same, issued a
notice on 26.12.2024, the contents whereof read as under:-
"Kindly refer to your online application form for the post
of AMO. On checking/scrutiny of your online application form to
adjudge your disability, your candidature has found
provisionally liable for rejection due to the following reasons-
1. You have not submitted BAMS Registration certificate,
which is required as per the advertisement on or before
closing date of 12.07.2024.
2. You have not submitted the marksheets & Degree of BAMS.
13 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
3. You have attached the certificate of BC(A) category dated
31.12.2019 as per the Govt, letter No. 1470-SW(1)-95
dated 07.06.1995, 22/36/2000-3GS-III dated 09.08.2000
& Nd. 213-SW(L)-2010 dated 31.08,2010 whereas as per
the clause 11 (ii) of the advertisement, the certificate of
BC(A) category is required as per Govt. notification No.
491-SW(I) 2021 dated 17.11.2021 & Govt: instruction No
22/132/2013-1 GS-I dated 22.03.2022 during 2024-25
only.
You are, therefore, directed to submit your
representation, if any, against your proposed rejection along
with documentary proof latest by 03.01.2025 on Email i.e.:Sr1-
[email protected], failing which, it will be assumed that you have
nothing to say against your proposed rejection and your
candidature will finally be rejected. The representation' without
any supporting documents and received after the due date / time
will not be considered by the Commission and no
correspondence in this regard will be entertained by the
Commission."
12. The writ petitioners, who had not annexed their respective
BC(A), BC(B) and EWS certificates for the year 2024-2025 responded vide
their representation by claiming entitlement to the reserved category on the
strength of certificates which were issued to them for the previous years. The
writ petitioners, moreover, also annexed caste certificates, issued to them
after 12.07.2024, along with such representation. These certificates have not
been taken into consideration by the Commission as they were issued after
12.07.2024, which was the last date fixed in the advertisement for
entertainment of the application.
13. The terms of the advertisement provided that the eligibility of a
candidate would be examined only if a candidate cleared the written
14 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
examination. All the petitioners were allowed to appear in the examination,
and they cleared it. As such the eligibility of all the writ petitioners was
examined after they cleared the written examination. It was at this stage, that
the Commission declared the writ petitioners to be "not eligible" since their
applications were not found in order. The writ petitioners then approached
this Court by filing Writ Petitions, wherein, interim orders were issued
permitting the petitioners to appear in the interview. The petitioners
consequently appeared in the interview and in terms of the interim orders,
posts were kept reserved for them. The Writ Petitions ultimately came to be
allowed by the learned Single Bench vide the order impugned in these bunch
of Appeals.
14. Learned Single Judge has allowed the claim of the writ
petitioners holding them eligible in terms of the advertisement as well as the
Office Memorandum issued by the State Government on 22.03.2022.
15. The Writ Petitioners, before the learned Single Judge,
contended that the certificate required to be submitted by the candidate was
only the document evidencing the proof of eligibility and was not the
eligibility itself. It was urged that the eligibility certificate is valid for a
given financial year irrespective of date when such certificate was issued. It
was, therefore, argued that if the candidate is in a position to satisfy that
he/she fulfills the requisite Non Creamy Layer requirement for the given
financial year, he/she should be considered under the respective category in
which the applications were made ; Clause 1 of the advertisement since
specified that the eligibility of the candidate with reference to the documents
submitted by him/her is assessed only after the candidate qualified for the
15 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
interview, therefore, it was argued that the closing date for submission of
online applications was not sacrosanct.
16. It was further contended that as per the backward class
certificate appended by the petitioners along with the application, the unique
PPP number ID had been duly mentioned therein. Attention of this court is
drawn to B.C. "non-creamy layer" certificate pertaining to one of the
candidates, which reflects the PPP number and specifically records that the
said certificate has been issued as per the Haryana State Notification dated
17.11.2021 for the year 2023-24 and that the same was issued on
07.04.2023. The same was found lacking only on the aspect of being non-
compliant of the instructions dated 22.03.2022 issued by the Government of
Haryana, on the subject matter regarding caste certificates including the
certificates for Scheduled Caste, Deprived Scheduled Caste, Backward
Class, Other Backward Class, Tapriwas, Vimukt Jati and Nomadic tribe
through the Saral portal. He refers to Clause 4 of the said Government
Instructions, which reads thus:
"4. Further, it is directed that no Government Department
of Haryana shall obligate any Haryana resident to submit caste
related documents if he/she provides PPN and his/her caste and
caste category is marked as verified in Family Information Data
Repository (FIDR)."
17. Referring to the above, petitioners contended that Government
of Haryana had notified all the departments including the Public Service
Commission as well as the Staff Selection Commission, that in the event a
candidate attaches his PPP or gives the PP number, the authorities or the
departments shall not obligate such resident to submit any other caste related
16 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
proof. He thus submits that the petitioners had mentioned their unique ID/PP
number in the application form and that all other details pertaining to their
caste as well as their eligibility criteria were automatically available with the
Commission. Hence, submission of the backward class certificate was only a
duplicacy of an information, notwithstanding that the said information was
already available with the Commission.
18. Further submission on behalf of the writ petitioners was that
earlier the creamy layer income/wealth criteria had been fixed @ 6 lakhs per
annum or assets of Rs.1 crore and that the income limit had eventually been
enhanced to 8 lakhs per annum as per the new instructions. He thus submits
that once the petitioners were already fulfilling the criteria for claiming
benefit under the backward class 'non-creamy layer' category having their
annual income below 6 lakhs, they were in any case complaint with the
requirement of having an income below 8 lakhs. Hence, it was only that the
backward class 'non-creamy layer' certificate was to be issued in a new
format. Thus, formatting of the certificate should not be made a basis for
rejecting a candidate, especially when there is no dispute with respect to the
eligibility otherwise on the closing date.
19. It has further been argued that the respondent-Commission
itself issued a notice to the candidates who had appended backward class
certificate pertaining to a different year or where the certificate was not as
per the format and granted them an opportunity to submit a representation
and for removal of defects, if any. Once the petitioners had responded to the
said requirement and furnished fresh eligibility document in the
proforma/format as prescribed by the respondent-authorities, there was no
17 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
occasion for rejection of their candidature. The said act on the part of the
respondent-Commission amounts to defeating their own decision of calling
for representation by giving a show cause notice to rectify the defects.
20. It has therefore been submitted that the respondent-
Commission, as a matter of practice and practicality, has been adhering to
the same principle uniformly for all selection processes initiated at different
points in time by them earlier. Reference is also made to the selection
process pertaining to the Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs) (referred to in
CWP-1902-2025) wherein under similar circumstances, the notices were
sent to the candidates conveying the reasons for their tentative
disqualification and that on the candidates submitting their fresh certificates
as per the requirement prescribed, their candidature has been considered
valid and their names had been recommended by the respondent-
Commission for appointment. It is thus submitted that the respondent-
Commission cannot apply two different yardsticks on the basis of different
vacancies being advertised or the process of selection initiated by them. The
continued practice that had been followed by the respondent-Commission
for all the selection process(es) undertaken by them creates a legitimate
expectation in favour of the applicants as well, that a similar opportunity of
removing the technical defects shall also be extended to them and that their
candidature shall not be rejected solely on that ground.
21. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further argues that the
petitioners have otherwise secured more marks than the persons who are
now likely to be recommended by the respondent- Commission (due to the
petitioners having been declared ineligible), hence, equity as well as merit
18 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
demands that the petitioners should not be denied an opportunity of public
appointment on their own merit in their respective category, solely on the
account of certain defects especially when the said defects or errors do not in
any manner cast any aspersion or doubt on the fairness of the process of
selection. It is submitted that the validity/genuineness of the documents
submitted by the petitioners remains unchallenged and unblemished. Hence,
a meritorious candidate should not be ignored by the respondent-
Commission to give preference to the persons lower in the order of merit.
The same would otherwise be in violation of merit which governs public
appointment.
22. The claim of the writ petitioners was resisted by the
Commission on the ground that the terms of advertisement were binding
upon the writ petitioners and since they had not furnished requisite
documents to show their status as BC(A), BC(B) or EWS category, as such,
they could not have extended the benefit of reservation in such category.
23. The Commission also placed reliance upon various judgments
to contend that the terms of advertisement cannot be violated and the
candidates who have not been able to produce the certificates, evidencing
their respective reserved category, would not be entitled to be considered.
24. Learned Single Judge, after considering the respective
submissions advanced by the rival parties, came to the conclusion that the
status of the writ petitioners as persons belonging to respective reserved
category was clearly established and merely because proof of eligibility was
submitted later, it would not be appropriate to deny them benefit of
reservation.
19 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
25. Thus, aggrieved, the appellant-Commission is before this Court.
26. On behalf of the appellant-Commission, it is argued that the
closing date for submission of application in the advertisement is sacrosanct
and learned Single Bench has erred in discarding settled legal proposition on
this score. Reliance has been placed upon the terms of the advertisement in
support of such submissions.
27. It is further contended that the benefit of reservation to
candidates belonging to BC(A)/BC(B) category was available only if they
belong to Non-Creamy Layer. The determination of Non-Creamy Layer is
with reference to the income of a person in a particular financial year. It is,
therefore, urged that unless the certificate issued in the year 2024-2025,
certified that the income of candidate is below the specified amount/income
for financial year 2023-2024 (01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024) it cannot be said
that the status of Non-Creamy Layer of the candidate could be determined. It
is, therefore, submitted that the specification of the year of issuance of a
certificate is essential for determining the reserved category of the candidate
and the Commission has not erred in insisting upon such candidates to
furnish their caste certificate. Since their certificates are of a subsequent
date, as such, they have rightly been discarded from consideration.
28. Reliance is placed upon judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Divya Vs. Union of India and Others; (2024) 1 SCC 448 as well as
the judgment in Sakshi Arha Vs. Rajasthan High Court and Others; 2025
SCC Online SC 757 and Mohit Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others; 2025 SCC Online SC 1125.
20 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
29. Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the
respondents in LPA-1397-2025, relies upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Raj Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection
Board and another ;(2016) 4 SCC 754 as well as judgment of the Supreme
Court in Karan Singh Yadav Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others;
SLP(c) No. 14948 of 2016 decided on 28.09.2022. On the strength of
aforementioned judgments, it is contended that the candidates had clearly
established their status as belonging to the reserved category and merely
because the proof of eligibility was furnished after the cut-off date, it would
not mean that they would not be entitled to the benefit of reservation in the
category concerned.
30. It is pertinent to quote Clause 13 (xiii) of the notification dated
22.03.2022 issued by the Haryana Government, General Administration
Department in respect of validity of a Caste Certificate for based on creamy
layer criteria. The same reads as under:-
Clause 13 (xiii) Validity of a Caste Certificate.
(i) XXXXXXX
(ii) XXXXX
(iii) Certificates which include income and/or assets based
information like creamy layer criteria shall become invalid
after the validity period prescribed on the said certificate.
Such certificates shall be valid for the current financial
year, i.e. till coming 31st March (included) from the date it
has been issued.
(iv) XXXXX"
31. Records reveal that 805 posts of Ayurvedic Medical Officers
came to be advertised on 21.06.2024 by the appellant-Commission vide
21 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
advertisement No.16 of 2024. The advertisement specified the eligibility of
candidate for appointment to the post. It also specified that the eligibility of
the candidate with regard to educational qualification, experience etc. would
be determined on the closing date fixed for online application form. This
date, as per the advertisement, was 12.07.2024. Note-2 appended to Clause 6
of the advertisement, relating to "Essential Qualifications" specified that all
applicants must fulfill the essential requirement for the post and other
conditions stipulated in the advertisement on the closing date. Sub-clause
(iii) of Note 2 made it explicit that the certificates/documents in support of
educational qualifications, caste etc. should be possessed by the candidates
on or before the closing date. The condition that the certificates issued after
the closing date will not be accepted by the appellant-Commission, has been
made known to the candidates explicitly. Sub-clause (iv) of Note 2 also
provides that the improvement in marks done by a candidate after the closing
date shall not be considered for any purpose in the recruitment. This clarified
that the closing date was the decisive deadline by which the candidate must
possess all required eligibility criteria and supporting documents, including
those related to educational qualifications, experience, domicile, caste, and
degree. Taken collectively, the relevant clauses of the advertisement make it
abundantly clear that the closing date held critical importance, and any
material submitted thereafter was not to be considered.
32. Notwithstanding the specific terms of the advertisement,
learned Single Judge has proceeded to allow the claim of the writ petitioners
on the premise that the closing date was not sacrosanct and that what was
relevant was the fulfillment of eligibility on the cut-off date and not the
22 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
proof of eligibility. Learned Single Judge has also opined that inviting of
representations from the candidates on the aspect of eligibility by the
appellant-Commission, amounted to an opportunity given to a candidate to
establish his/her eligibility, and once such eligibility is established by the
candidate, mere delay in submission of proof of eligibility would not be
fatal. It has also been observed that by allowing the claim of the writ
petitioners, the merit of the candidate would be protected in as much as the
rejection of the petitioners' claim would result in less meritorious candidates
entering in the select list for appointment. The premises, aforesaid, are
questioned before us by the appellant-Commission in this bunch of LPAs.
33. At the outset, it would be worth referring to the relevant
proposition of law on this aspect.
34. In Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE and others ;(2005) 9
SCC 779, the issue came to be examined by the three Hon'ble Judges' Bench
of the Supreme Court in the context of denial of admission to the appellant
therein in the MBBS Course. The principle of law, culled out by the Apex
Court is contained in Para 7 of the said judgment, which is reproduced
hereinafter:-
"7. The general rule is that while applying for any
course of study or a post, a person must possess the
eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such
purpose either in the admission brochure or in
application form, as the case may be, unless there is an
express provision to the contrary. There can be no
relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the
requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This
has to be established by producing the necessary
certificates, degrees or marksheets. Similarly, in order to
23 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage etc.
necessary certificates have to be produced. These are
documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular
qualification or percentage of marks secured or
entitlement to benefit of reservation. Depending upon the
facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the
matter of submission of proof, and it will not be proper
to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain
of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to
submission of proof need not necessarily result in
rejection of candidature."
35. The Apex Court made it explicit that general rule, while
applying for any course for study or post, is that the person concerned must
possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose.
There can be no relaxation in this regard. It has to be established by
producing the necessary certificates/degrees or marksheets. To avail benefit
of reservation or weightage etc., necessary certificates would have to be
produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of a
particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement to
benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some
relaxation in the matter of submission of proof, and it will not be proper to
apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every
infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily
result in rejection of candidature.
36. The observation of the Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda
(Supra) has to be appreciated in the facts of that case. The appellant in the
case of Dolly Chhanda (Supra) had appeared in Joint Entrance Examination
(JEE) for admission to a Medical course in the MI category reserved for
24 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
wards of Ex-Servicemen. The appellant's father was discharged from armed
forces on the ground of permanent disability. The appellant's rank in JEE in
the reserved MI category was 20 and she was called for counseling for
admission to a Medical College. During the course of scrutiny of documents,
it was revealed that in the certificate given to her father by the Zila Sainik
Board in Column-3 pertaining to disabled/killed in war/hostilities, the
expression "not eligible" was mentioned. Since, the aforesaid certificate did
not satisfy the requirement of the reserved MI category, her candidature was
rejected and the candidates placed lower in Rank i.e. Ranks 24 and 26, were
given admission. The appellant produced the correct disability certificate
issued by the army authorities; however, this certificate was not accepted by
virtue of Clause 2.1.4 of the Information Brochure, requiring the certificate
to be submitted before the cut-off date. The appellant obtained fresh
certificate on 16.07.2003 wherein her father was shown to be "permanently
disabled". The appellant again appeared for next round of counselling on
account of increase in seats. Though persons securing Ranks between 27-30
were called for the counselling, but the appellant was overlooked. The
appellant's case was that it was the Zila Sainik Board, which had committed
a mistake in not issuing the correct certificate and said mistake having been
rectified in the subsequent certificate issued on 16.07.2003 as such, the
appellant claimed entitlement to admission. It was pointed out that the
person lower in rank than her were granted admission.
37. For ready reference, we reproduce hereinafter, the facts of the
case recorded by the Apex Court in para 3 of the said judgment: -
25 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
"3. The appellant passed 10+2 (Science) Examination
conducted by the Council of Higher Secondary Education,
Orissa, in First Class. As she was desirous of joining a medical
course, she appeared in the Joint Entrance Examination, 2003
(for short 'JEE-2003') under the reserved MI category being
daughter of an ex-serviceman NK Manoranjan Chhanda who
was discharged from armed forces on the ground of permanent
disability. Under Clause 2.1.4 of Information Brochure of JEE-
2003 certain percentage of seats are reserved for
children/widows of personnel of armed/paramilitary forces of
Orissa, killed/disabled in action during war or peace time
operation. Her rank in the JEE-2003 in the reserved MI
category in the medical stream was 20 and accordingly she was
called for counselling for admission to a medical college on
7.7.2003. During the course of scrutiny of papers, it was
revealed that in the certificate dated 29.6.2003 given to her
father by the Zilla Sainik Board in Column No.3 which pertained
to "Disabled/killed in war/hostilities" the words "not eligible"
were written. Since the aforesaid certificate did not satisfy the
requirement of the reserved MI category, her candidature was
rejected. The candidates who had secured ranks at 24 and 26 in
the aforesaid category were given admission. She produced the
disability certificate which was issued to her father by the army
authorities, but in view of requirement of Clause 2.1.4 of the
Information Brochure the same was not accepted. The
appellant's father then requested the Zilla Sainik Board,
Sambalpur to rectify the mistake, which issued a fresh certificate
on 16.7.2003 which mentioned "Permanently Disabled" in
Column No.3. The appellant then again approached respondent
no.1 with the aforesaid correct certificate, but no action was
taken. On coming to know that another round of counselling had
been fixed for 29.10.2003 on account of increase in seat, the
appellant went to the center concerned and requested for being
given admission on the basis of the fresh certificate issued by the
Zilla Sainik Board, which certified that her father had been
discharged from armed forces on the ground of permanent
26 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
disability. The candidates who had secured rank from 27 to 30
in the MI category were called for counselling, but the
appellant's candidature was not considered. The case of the
appellant thus is that it was the Zilla Sainik Board which had
committed the mistake in not issuing a correct certificate and the
said mistake having been rectified in the second certificate
issued on 16.7.2003, she was entitled to admission in a medical
college as candidates securing lower ranks had already been
admitted."
38. The observations made by the Court in Para 7, reproduced
hereinbefore, has to be read as a whole and the distinction carved out
between "eligibility" and "proof of eligibility" cannot be read in isolation so
as to doing away with the requirement of furnishing proof of eligibility by
the candidate. The exception clause in the paragraph, based on the peculiar
facts of the case cannot be read, in isolation, so as to do away with the
principle laid down in the said paragraph.
39. The eligibility of appellant in Dolly Chhanda (Supra) as a ward
of the personnel of army/paramilitary forces, killed/disabled in action was
clearly met by her. She had applied and obtained a certificate from the
competent authority. This certificate was wrong. A correct certificate was
later on issued by the competent authority. There was no error/fault on part
of the appellant therein in obtaining the requisite certificate which was to
furnish the proof of eligibility. It was in this context that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that there could be some relaxation in the matter of
submission of proof and it would not be proper to apply any rigid principle
as it pertains in the domain of procedure.
27 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
40. In our understanding, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dolly
Chhanda (Supra) did not lay down any principle of law that proof of
eligibility is of no significance and can be produced at any later stage,
completely overlooking the cut-off date fixed in the advertisement.
41. We may also refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Charles K. Skaria Vs. Dr. C. Mathew ;(1980) 2 SCC 752, wherein
the distinction between the 'eligibility' and 'proof of eligibility' was coined.
The context in which the issue figured before the Apex Court was noticed in
Para 1 of the judgment: -
"The universities in the country are often among the
contributories to the flood of litigation in the higher courts of the
country. This pathological condition, to which present bunch of
appeals bears testimony, must claim the healing attention of the
nation's educational leadership. The four appeals before us
present challenges to the scheme of admission to post graduate
courses in medicine in the colleges of the Kerala State. But since
that State is not alone in the tendency to temporise with
constitutional values and writ petitions for college admissions
are almost a hardy annual, we deem it our duty to permit
ourselves a few preliminary observations before proceeding to
the fact-situation and conflict-resolution."
42. Concern, which led to making of the observation by the Court,
is highlighted in para 5, which reads as under:-
"5. One of the bones of contention between the parties
in the High Court related to candidates from universities outside
Kerala. Articles 14 and 15 do not recognize state frontiers or the
cult of 'the sons of the soil', if we may speak generally and over-
simplistically. The necessary implication of the constitutional
mandate is that every basic degree- holder who fills the bill can
apply for admission for post- graduate courses. But the Kerala
28 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
State, in its wisdom, provided a niggardly quota of 2% of the
total number of seats for candidates from the entire country
minus Kerala- not a catholic approach informed by nationalist
generosity, if we may say so with some trepidation. By way of
aside we may observe that other States, observed with provincial
impulses, are equally parsimonious is no validation of a
violation of law, if it be so. Anyway, the prospectus provided that
"instead of open competition, 2% of the seats under general
merit are set apart for candidates coming from outside
Universities other than Kerala and Calicut."
43. Operating norms fixed by the State for admission, were also
taken note of in Para 8, which is reproduced hereinafter:-
"8. It is fair to state, now that we have sketched the
backdrop, what the further facts are and what the High Court's
verdict is. We may abbreviate the narration because we
substantially agree with the main legal point decided by the
High Court. Regrettably, its ultimate direction has thrown the
academic year in post-graduate Ophthalmology into disarray
and even wastage. Welfare-oriented judicial process must be
constructive in its objective, must be geared to order as its goal
and must pave the way for resultant contentment, avoiding
negative writs which, in practice, prove to be congealing
commands. Indeed, the High Court, on the crucial question, has
more or less correctly stated the law regarding denial of
opportunity for 'outsiders' and consequently found the admission
to the courses all wrong, but through its judgment, has jettisoned
students who are half-way through their courses and directed
fresh admissions on new policies yet to be evolved, with little
chance of any one getting through the examinations or even
admissions during this academic year consistently with the
university regulations and governmental tardiness. We cannot
countenance such negativity without some effort at rescue
through the court writ since a whole year of Ophthalmology
study at the post-graduate level may well be lost to the State,
what with the enormous investment in running such courses that
29 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
the universities have laid out and the people's need for such
specialists. The Full Bench decision of the High Court, in its
ultimate effect, has left behind it a fallout of demolition:
As a result of our above discussion and conclusion we
allow W.A. No. 222 of 1979 and set aside the judgment of the
learned Judge and the rank list for admission to the post-
graduate courses in Ophthalmology, and quash the selections
made on the basis of the said list.
We were rather distressed at having to quash the
selections of budding youngsters to the specialised courses. Such
thoughts prevailed with us in the Full Bench decision in State of
Kerala and Anr. v. Rafia Rahim (1978 KLT 369). While the
petitioners in those cases won the battle, they were denied the
fruits of victory. We see no ground for a repetition of the same
treatment to the petitioners before us. Particularly it is so,
because some of them had filed the writ petitions before the
selections, and some had obtained interim orders that the
selections shall be finalized only subject to the result of the writ
petitions in this court. We cannot lightly pass over these aspects.
We would accordingly quash the selections made and direct a
fresh selection to the courses, in accordance with law and in the
light of the observation contained in this judgment."
44. In Charles K. Skaria (Supra), admission was already offered to
the appellant therein and he had pursued the course for some time before he
was ousted on the ground that the proof of diploma was submitted
afterwards. This was to result in the seat being wasted for the entire year. It
was in this context that the observation made by the Court in Para 20,
reproduced hereinafter, has to be understood: -
"20. There is nothing unreasonable nor arbitrary in
adding 10 marks for holders of a diploma. But to earn this extra
10 marks, the diploma must be obtained at least on or before the
last date for application, not later. Proof of having obtained a
30 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
diploma is different from the factum of having got it. Has the
candidate, in fact, secured a diploma before the final date of
application for admission to the degree course? That is the
primary question. It is prudent to produce evidence of the
diploma along with the application, but that is secondary.
Relaxation of the date on the first is illegal, not so on the second.
Academic excellence, through a diploma for which extra mark is
granted, cannot be denuded because proof is produced only
later, yet before the date of actual selection. The emphasis is on
the diploma; the proof thereof subserves the factum of
possession of the diploma and is not an independent factor. The
prospectus does say:
(4)(b) : 10% to Diploma holders in the selection of
candidates to M.S., and M.D., courses in the respective
subjects or sub-specialities.
13. Certificates to be produced :- In all cases true copies
of the following documents have to be produced:
(k) Any other certificates required along with the
application.
This composite statement cannot be read formalistic
fashion. Mode of proof is geared to the goal of the qualification
in question. It is subversive of sound interpretation and realistic
decoding of the prescription to telescope the two and make both
mandatory in point of time. What is essential in the possession of
a diploma before the given date; what is ancillary is the safe
mode of proof of the qualification. To confuse between fact and
its proof is blurred perspicacity. To make mandatory the date of
acquiring the additional qualification before the last date for
application makes sense. But if it is unshakeable shown that the
qualification has been acquired before the relevant date, as is
the case here, to invalidate this merit factor because proof,
though indubitable, was adduced a few days later but before the
selection or in a manner not mentioned in the prospectus, but
still above board, is to make procedure not the handmade but
the mistress and form not as subservient to substance but as
superior to the essence."
31 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
45. Thus, both in Dolly Chhanda (Supra) and Charles K. Skaria
(Supra), the facts played a crucial role in the Courts making a distinction
between the 'eligibility' and 'proof of eligibility' to render justice on facts.
Therefore, divorced of the facts, the principle cannot be taken in isolation to
completely negate the requirement of 'proof of eligibility' be furnished by a
cut-off date. The underlying principle that the cut-off date fixed for
submission of certificates of proof of eligibility is sacrosanct, has been
reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a series of matters.
46. In the case of Divya (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
seized of a similar issue, wherein the Apex Court had the occasion to
interpret the Office Memorandum dated 19.01.2019 and 31.01.2019,
prescribing the eligibility for Economically Weaker Section (EWS)
category. The advertisement issued by the UPSC was examined by the Court
to hold as under: -
"14. What is clear from the above is, before the closing
date of application, the candidate has to be in possession of the
requisite certificate for Financial Year 2020-2021."
47. With regard to the requirement of possessing EWS certificate
for the relevant year, in favour of the candidate for grant of reservation in
EWS category, the Court proceeded to hold as under: -
"45. It is very clear that an EWS candidate acquired
eligibility to be an EWS candidate for the purpose of CSE-2022
only if the candidate met the criterion prescribed by the Central
Government and is in possession of the requisite I&AC based on
the income for the F.Y. 2020-2021. Read with Rule 28, the
candidate should also be in possession of the certificate as
on 22.02.2022. So it is beyond cavil that one cannot decide for
oneself that the candidate is an EWS candidate and only on the
32 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
fulfilment of the criteria and the issuance of the certificate
before 22.02.2022 will the eligibility as an EWS candidate,
ensure to the benefit of the candidate for the CSE-2022. The
argument of Shri K. Parameshwar, learned counsel, that being
from the "EWS" category is a status and the I&AC to be
produced is only a proof and as such the I&AC can be produced
at any stage cannot be accepted in the teeth of the clear
prescription in the Office Memoranda read with the CSE- 2022
Rules. Further, as required under Rule 13, at the stage of DAF-I
the document had to be submitted on-line before the prescribed
date (in the present case for CSE-2022 the date was 15.07.2022)
and that any delay in submission of DAF-I or document beyond
the prescribed date was not allowed. These clear stipulations
run counter to the submissions of learned counsel that on the
rectification of a certificate it relates back to the date of the
certificate."
48. In Divya (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the
case of Charles K. Sakaria (Supra) and noticed the distinctive features of the
case in para 47, which is reproduced as under: -
47. In Charles K. Skaria (supra), most candidates possessed
the eligibility viz. the diploma. Only the proof in the form of
certificate was awaited. The authorities had also accepted them
as eligible, expressly informing the selection committee that for
eligible candidates even if proof came later and before the final
selection, it should be considered as valid. This was also equally
the situation in Dolly Chhanda (supra), Alok Kumar Singh
(supra) and Dheerender Singh Paliwal (supra) where the factual
position about the eligibility was not in dispute. Those cases and
the cases of that ilk cannot support the petitioners in this case
for the purpose of claiming eligibility in CSE-2022 as an EWS
candidate."
49. Ultimately, the principles have been laid down by the Court in
Paras 50-51, which are also reproduced as under:-
33 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
"50. That is the fundamental distinction between the Charles
K. Skaria (supra) line of cases and the cases at hand. As pointed
out earlier, the eligibility for being categorized as EWS
candidate crystallizes only when the I&AC is issued and, in this
case, as required under the rules, it was to be issued and
possessed by the candidate before 22.02.2022.
51. It is also very well settled that if there are relevant rules
which prescribe the date on which the eligibility should be
possessed, those rules will prevail. In the absence of rules or any
other date prescribed in the prospectus/advertisement for
determining the eligibility, there is a judicial chorus holding that
it would be the last date for submission of the
application. (See Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of
Rajasthan [1993 Supp (3) SCC 168]; Bhupinderpal Singh v.
State of Punjab [(2000) 5 SCC 262]; Ashok Kumar Sonkar v.
Union of India [(2007) 4 SCC 54]."
50. In Divya, the Court also dealt with the case of Ram Kumar
Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board; (2016) 4 SCC 754
and held as under in paras 61 to 64, which are reproduced hereinafter:-
"61. The strong reliance placed on Ram Kumar Gijroya case
(supra) also does not impress us. Not only was there no rule, like
we have in the present case, it was only while declaring the
result, the requirement of submitting the OBC certificate before
the cut-off date was introduced by the Selection Authority there.
Moreover, unlike the present, there was no contention or issue
raised in that case that eligibility ensures or crystallizes only on
the issuance of the certificate and on possession of the
certificate, before the prescribed cut-off date.
62. The judgment in Ram Kumar Gijroya case (supra)
is also directly in conflict with the judgment of three Hon'ble
Judges in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others vs. Chander
Shekhar and Another (1997) 4 SCC 18 wherein in para 6, it was
held as under:-
34 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
"... So far as the first issue referred to in our
Order dated 1-9-1995 is concerned, we are of the
respectful opinion that majority judgment (rendered
by Dr. T.K. Thommen and V. Ramaswami, JJ.) is
unsustainable in law. The proposition that where
applications are called for prescribing a particular
date as the last date for filing the applications, the
eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged
with reference to that date and that date alone is a
well-established one. A person who acquires the
prescribed qualification subsequent to such
prescribed date, cannot be considered at all. An
advertisement or notification issued/published calling
for applications constitutes a representation to the
public and the authority issuing it is bound by such
representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One
reason behind this proposition is that if it were known
that persons who obtained the qualifications after the
prescribed date but before the date of interview
would be allowed to appear for the interview, other
similarly placed persons could also have applied.
Just because some of the persons had applied
notwithstanding that they had not acquired the
prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they
could not have been treated on a preferential
basis....."
63. Apart from all of this, the correctness of Ram
Kumar Gijroya case (supra) was referred to a three-Judge
Bench in the case of Karn Singh Yadav. A perusal of
para six of the referral order clearly shows that the Bench was
echoing the ratio of the three-judge Bench in Ashok
Kumar Sharma's case (supra) though there is no express
reference to the said case. However, when the matter came
before a three- Judge Bench, the reference was not answered
and even after noticing that Ram Kumar Gijroya case (supra)
covered the case of Karn Singh Yadav, the Court, however,
35 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
denied relief to Karn Singh Yadav, the petitioner by holding that
since the appellant was never appointed to the post at that length
of time it was not possible to grant any relief to the
appellant. Ram Kumar Gijorya (supra) is clearly
distinguishable.
64. Be that as it may, we are bound by the judgment of
the three-Judge Bench in Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) and we
follow the said judgment and reiterate the principle laid
down thereon. It is also interesting to note that even in Deepak
Yadav (supra), a judgment, strongly relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the principle in Ashok Kumar
Sharma (supra) has been reiterated. However, because of what
the Court called an abnormal and cataclysmal year, an
exception was made due to the ongoing pandemic, lockdown and
restrictions imposed thereof. In Alok Kumar Singh (supra), no
rules like the ones present in this case are shown to have existed.
In the present case, there are clear prescriptions as to eligibility,
as has been discussed herein above."
51. The Court ultimately concluded as under in para 94.1:-
"94.1 The candidates claiming benefit of EWS Category
for the purpose of CSE-2022, acquire eligibility only if they meet
the criterion prescribed by the Central Government in the O.M.
dated 19.01.2019 and 31.01.2019 and are in possession of the
required Income and Asset Certificate (I&AC), based on the
income for the year 2020-21. Further, as required under Rule 28
of the CSE Rules, 2022 read with the O.M. of 19.01.2019 and
31.01.2019 the candidate should have been in possession of the
Income and Asset Certificate (I&AC) as on 22.02.2022. Any
candidate not in possession of the I&AC in the prescribed
format as mentioned herein above cannot claim the benefit of
EWS Category. Equally, as required under Rule 13 of the CSE
Rules, 2022 at the stage of DAF-I, the document in possession as
on 22.02.2022 in the prescribed format, had to be submitted
online before the prescribed date. The UPSC was justified in
rejecting the candidature of those candidates claiming benefit
36 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
under the EWS Category if they had submitted their I&AC
beyond the stipulated deadline. This conclusion has to be read
with the reasoning in the judgment, particularly in paragraphs
42 to 45 under the heading "Eligibility for EWS category
candidates for CSE-2022".
52. Recently, in Mohit Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others; 2025 SCC Online SC 1125, the issue came to be examined by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. The certificate relied upon by the candidate was not
on the format prescribed in the recruitment notification. The question before
the Court was as to whether non-consideration of the candidate for such
reason would be bad.
53. The issue came to be examined by the Court, and it was held
that all aspirants in a recruitment drive are entitled for the equal treatment.
Non-compliance with the terms of the advertisement/notification is bound to
trigger adverse consequences on rejection of the aspirant's claimed status.
The Court went on to hold, as under in paragraph 19, which reads as under:-
"19. It is no longer res integra that terms of an
advertisement issued in connection with a selection process are
normally not open to challenge unless the challenge is founded
on the ground of breach of Article 16 of the Constitution or, for
that matter, Article 14. Once an advertisement is issued inviting
applications for public employment, it is the responsibility, nay
duty, of an aspirant to read and note the terms and understand
what its requirements are. If any aspirant finds any of the terms
ambiguous and there is scope for an inquiry inbuilt in the
advertisement or is provided by any rule/regulation, an effort
ought to be first made to obtain clarity for understanding the
requirements accurately. If no such scope is available, nothing
prevents the aspirant from seeking clarity by making a
representation should such clarity be not provided, the aspirant
37 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
may participate in the process without prejudice to his rights
and may question the term even after he is not selected.
However, if the aspirant does not make any such effort and takes
a calculated chance of selection based on his own understanding
of the disputed term in the advertisement and later, he emerges
unsuccessful, ordinarily, it would not be open to him to
challenge the selection on the ground that the disputed term is
capable of being understood differently. In such cases, the courts
should be loath to entertain such plea of ambiguity while
preferring to accept the recruiting authority's understanding of
the said term. This is for the simple reason that the recruiting
authority is the best judge of what its requirements are and it is
such understanding of the recruiting authority that would matter
most in cases brought up before the courts; hence, after
commencement of the process wherein aspirants have
participated without raising any demur as to what a particular
terms means, even if any of the terms be ambiguous, the courts
should lean in favour of the recruiting authority."
54. The facts of the present LPAs are analyzed, and we find that the
advertisement clearly required the candidates to submit BC(A)/BC(B)
certificate. The advertisement was issued in June 2024 i.e. 21.06.2024.The
candidates, who claimed reservation for BC(A)and BC(B), were required to
belong to Non-Creamy Layer. The determination of Non-Creamy Layer is
with reference to the income and assets of a candidate. Certificate of
BC(A)/BC(B)are, therefore, based on changing financial status of the
applicant and therefore, it becomes necessary for the appellant-Commission
to require the candidate to submit the certificate issued before the cut-off
date.
55. We may note that under Section 5(1)(b) of the Haryana
Backward Classes (Reservation in Services and Admission in Educational
38 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
Institutions) Act, 2016 provides that 'no person belonging to creamy layer
or backward class, shall be entitled to claim reservation for appointment in
services under the State against the post reserved for the Backwards classes
specified in the schedule'.
56. The certificate of reservation is to be issued on the basis of
income of the applicant during the previous financial year and as assessed
during the last three financial years. The candidates, therefore, were directed
to submit a certificate based on the income during the period 01.04.2024 to
31.03.2025 and assets of last three financial years i.e. 2022-2023, 2023-2024
and 2024-2025.
57. It is undisputed that all the respondents-writ petitioners claimed
reservation in BC(A)/BC(B)or EWS category but had not submitted their
respective caste certificate of the relevant period. In the leading case, the
respondent No.1-Pradeep Kumar submitted the BC(A) certificate dated
31.12.2019. Similarly, BC(A)/BC(B) certificates of all other
candidates/respondents were not of the relevant period as per the
advertisement. The candidates were required to be possessed of the
certificates on the last date of making of application i.e. 12.07.2024. The
certificates annexed by them since were not in terms of the advertisement,
therefore, they were rightly ignored.
58. On facts, we also notice that a Writ Petition bearing No. CWP-
16790-2024, titled as Gita Vs. State of Haryana and Others, came to be filed
by a candidate belonging to the general category, wherein it was alleged that
there was some technical glitch in the portal of the appellant-Commission,
39 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
and consequently the petitioner therein could not upload her application
form before the closing date.
59. When the Writ Petition was taken up, following observations
were made by the Court on 14.08.2024, expressing concern on the plea
raised by the Writ Petitioner: -
"Status report on behalf of respondent No.4 has been
filed, which is taken on record.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Ahuja, Secretary, HPSC, appears in
person and assures that the matter will be looked into from all
aspects that are necessitated, keeping in view the future of the
candidates, who were seeking to apply for the post in question
pursuant to Adv. No.16/2024."
60. Although the appellant-Commission was of the view that there
was no glitch yet, respecting the observations of the Court, the appellant-
Commission proceeded to extend the date to allow submission of the
application forms from 16.08.2024 to 20.08.2024 and made the following
announcement on 16.08.2024: -
"This announcement is in continuation of Advertisements
N.16/2024 for the posts of Ayurvedic Medical Officer (Group-B)
in Health & Ayush Department, Haryana.
In view of the observations of the Hon'ble Punjab and
Haryana High Court dated 14.08.2024 in CWP-16790-2024, the
Commission has decided to allow submission of online
application forms from 16.08.2024 till 11.00 AM on
20.08.2024."
61. On behalf of the Writ Petitioners, it is contended that the date of
submission of application form stood extended from 12.07.2024 to
20.08.2024.
40 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
62. We are not much impressed by the argument inasmuch as the
appellant-Commission had merely permitted uploading of online application
forms by opening the portal between 16.08.2024 to 20.08.2024. This cannot
be construed as extending the date by when proof of eligibility had to be
obtained and uploaded along with the application form. The extension of
date of uploading of the application form was not to confer any benefit to
those who are not in possession of the certificate of relevant period. The
opening of the portal for the aforementioned period was only to enable those
candidates who were ready to upload their application form along with all
the eligibility certificates, before the earlier closing date, and could not
upload the same, due to the alleged technical glitch in the server.
63. Similarly, the action of the appellant-Commission in inviting of
representation could not have been construed as an act of extending the last
date fixed for submission of application forms. What was intended by the
appellant-Commission, as is apparent from its notice, was to give an
opportunity to the candidates to explain their position as to the proposed
ground of rejection. The intent was only to give an opportunity to clarify any
factual error in the proposed ground for rejection, the number of applications
being large. The perusal of the notice rather fortifies that the parameters on
which the entitlement/eligibility for reservation were to be adjudged, was to
be done strictly as per the provisions of the advertisement.
64. The argument that the persons lower in merit would stand
selected, also does not impress us, as on a careful analysis of a scenario,
inasmuch as a person once is not found entitled to reservation in
41 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
BC(A)/BC(B) category or EWS category, cannot impress upon his higher
merit to seek relaxation of the advertisement.
65. We are also of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has
wrongly taken note of an isolated instance in the case of post graduate
teachers having being allowed to submit fresh certificates, as a uniform
practice being followed by the appellant-Commission. There is nothing on
record to substantiate the same. Even otherwise, no parity can be sought in
violation of settled law regarding sanctity of the advertisement conditions.
66. As regards the facts and issues involved in the case of 'Neha
Dhiman', it was claimed by the said petitioner that although she
undisputedly belonged to the BCA category (Non-Creamy Layer), as
certified in the certificate dated 06.07.2024, which was issued in consonance
with the notification of the Government of Haryana, dated 17.11.2021,
however, inadvertently while filling up the application form, the category
was wrongly mentioned as BC(A) (Creamy Layer). It was claimed that
although she submitted a representation to the Commission about the
inadvertent error, however, her claim was rejected on the ground that no
change is permissible in the category furnished by a candidate, after the
closing date. The learned Single Judge, while considering the case of the
said petitioner, has held that the filling up of wrong category was inadvertent
and by mistake and the same deserved to be condoned.
67. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-
Commission has inter alia argued that it was specifically mentioned in
Clause 16 of the advertisement form, that no change in the category would
be permissible once the application form stood finally submitted. It was only
42 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
with the purpose to avoid any inadvertent mistake, that the candidates were
repeatedly cautioned to carefully check the particulars that they filled in the
application form, and a mechanism was set up wherein they were required to
mandatorily take a print-out of the online application form, recheck the
contents thereof, before signing and uploading the scanned copy of the same.
Despite such mechanism of repeated checking of particulars, if the candidate
still fills up a wrong category, as alleged, then the Commission cannot be
blamed for the same.
68. In support of his arguments, regarding change of category,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Commission, places
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
'J&K Public Service Commission vs. Ishar Ahmed and another', (2005) 12
SCC 498 and order dated 12.05.2022 passed by a Division Bench of this
Court in LPA-380-2022, titled as 'Suman Khatri vs. Haryana Public Service
Commission'.
69. The learned counsel for the said respondent-petitioner rebuts
the argument of the counsel for the appellant by submitting that the
judgments referred above would not be applicable, since the petitioner is not
seeking a change of category. It is contended that the specific document in
support of the category upon which she is claiming the benefit, had already
been appended with the application, which clearly establishes that the
mentioning of the Creamy Layer category, was only an inadvertent mistake.
Reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of 'Poonam
Devi vs. State of Haryana and another', reported as 2024 NCPHHC 95034
43 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
and in the case of 'Haryana Staff Selection Commission through its
Secretary vs. Sarla and others', 2019 SCC online P&H 5446.
70. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find force
in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-
Commission that the mechanism adopted by it, provided sufficient
opportunity to any candidate to rectify any such alleged inadvertent error as
would be clear from perusal of Clause 16 of the advertisement. Not only did
the candidate fail to rectify the error after taking the print out of the form and
before signing and uploading the scanned copy thereof, she did not take any
steps to submit a fresh application with the correct category as duly provided
for. Admittedly, she appeared in the screening test held on 23.09.2024, result
whereof was declared on 09.10.2024. It was only on 03.11.2024, that she
belatedly filed a representation.
71. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the said
petitioner are distinct on facts, where the mistake in selecting option
occurred on account of filling the application form with the aid of cybercafé,
for which, there was no provision for correction. In the facts of the instant
case, the concerned petitioner is an educated woman and does not allege that
she was incapacitated due to any such circumstances.
72. It has to also be borne in mind that in the peculiar facts and
circumstances, since a large number of applicants are involved, some finality
has to be given, otherwise some candidate or the other would claim further
relaxation, making it a never ending process, which would lead to
administrative chaos.
44 of 45
LPA-1397-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
73. On a careful analysis of the applicable principles of law and its
applicability in the facts of these LPAs, we are of the view that the
respondents-writ petitioners were not entitled to any relief in the matter
inasmuch as they have not furnished the proof of their eligibility/made
amends in their application, by the cut-off date, therefore, the contrary view
taken by the learned Single Bench in the Writ Petitions, in such
circumstances, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the LPAs stand allowed.
Order dated 15.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Bench in a bunch of
Writ Petitions (lead case CWP-1262-2025) is set aside. The Writ Petitions
filed by the respondents are consequently dismissed. No order is, however,
passed as to costs.
74. All pending applications, if any, in these cases are disposed of
accordingly.
[ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA]
JUDGE
[ROHIT KAPOOR]
JUDGE
November 3, 2025
Ess Kay/Neeraj
Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes / No
Whether Reportable : Yes / No
45 of 45
