Anju vs State Of Haryana And Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 1584 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Anju vs State Of Haryana And Another on 18 February, 2026

CWP-4191-2026
         2026                      -1-




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

130                                            CWP
                                               CWP-4191-2026
                                               Date of Decision: 18.02.2026

ANJU
                                                               ...Petitioner(s)

                                      Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
                                                               ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Present:-    Mr. Gaurav Arya,
                           Arya, Advocate (Through Video Conferencing)
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Amit Sahni, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

             Mr. Gurnoor S. Sandhu, Advocate
             for respondent no.2/HPSC.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA,
          DAHIYA J. (Oral)

The petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the

announcement dated 28.01.2026,, as well as the consequential communication

dated 29.01.2026, 29.01.2026 Annexures P-13 and P--14, respectively,, whereby the

petitioner's candidature for the post of Assistant Professor (College cadre) in the

subject of Geography against advertisement 51/2024, dated 02.08.2024,, has been

rejected on the ground that the certificate of Dependent Dependents of Ex-serviceman n

(DESM) category submitted by her was not valid in terms of the stipulation

contained in the advertisement. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought

directing the respondents to consider her candidature under DESM category and

allow her to appear for interview scheduled from 16.02.2026 to 26.02.2026.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had

uploaded a valid DESM certificate issued issued by the Zila Sainik Board, Sone Sonepat, pat,

1 of 7

CWP-4191-2026

dated 29.07.2020, Annexure P-2, P along with the application form which is in

terms of the requirement of clause 12(a) of the advertisement advertisement. But her

candidature has been rejected by referring to another DESM category certificate

dated 17.12.2025, which she submitted at the time of document documents verification. She

is eligible on the basis of her earlier certificate dated 29.07.2020, which was

annexed to her application form. Therefore, her candidature could not have been

rejected. Further, he has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by this

Court in CWP-1808-2022 CWP titled Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana and others,,

decided on 01.05.2024, 01.05.2024, wherein a candidate belonging to ESM category, who

had not uploaded a valid Dependent of Freedom Fighter (DFF) certificate along

with application form, and submitted the same at the time of scrutiny of

documents after the cut-off cut date, was allowed to participate in the selection

process by referring to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Dolly

Chhanda v. Chairman, Chairman JEE and others, 2005 (9) SCC 779.

3. Learned counsel for respondent no.2/Commission,, however,

pointed out that the ESM E M category certificate dated 29.07.2020, as uploaded by

the petitioner along with application form, could not have been considered valid

since the certificate itself clearly mentioned that it was not for job/service /service

purposes.. Accordingly, stipulation contained in clause 12(a)) of the advertisement

cannot be said to have been complied with and thus, her candidature has been

rightly rejected. He further contended that after the issuance of advertisement the

Commission, vide corrigendum dated 24.02.2025 24.02.2025, asked the candidates who had

wrongly mentioned their category or uploaded uploaded wrong documents along with

application form, form to make necessary corrections and apply afresh. A copy of this

corrigendum produced by learned counsel is taken on record as Annexure 'A'.

2 of 7

CWP-4191-2026

He also submits that the issue has already been considered by the Division Bench

of this Court in LPA-1397-2025 titled Haryana Public Service Commission v.

Pardeep Kumar and others, holding that any document uploaded after the

closing date is not to be considered in support of the candidature.

4. Heard.

5. Considering the submissions, this Court is not inclined to entertain

the petition for the reason the DESM certificate,, dated 29.07.2020 is not in terms

of stipulations contained in clause 12(a and b) of the advertisement which read as

under:

12. Definition of Ex-serviceman serviceman xxx xxx xxx

a) ESM candidates of Haryana claiming benefit under this category must have valid Ex Ex-serviceman serviceman Certificate issued by Zila Sainik Board showing the date of entry into military and date of release, on the Closing Date i.e. 27.08.2024 fixed for submission of on online line applications and will have to produce the same as and when required by the Commission.

b) Dependents of Ex-serviceman serviceman (DESM) candidates will be considered as General/SC/BC General/SC/BC-A/BC-B B category (their own category) candidates for all intends and purposes.

However, in case of non non-availability of suitable Ex--

servicemen (ESM) of Haryana, their dependent sons and daughters of the same category who fulfill all the conditions of qualifications, age etc. prescribed for the posts in question will also be considered d on merit against the reserved posts for ESM and this entitlement would be available to one dependent child only. Dependents of Ex Ex-serviceman serviceman (DESM) of Haryana claiming benefit must have valid eligibility certificate issued by Zila Sainik Board on the las lastt date of submission of online application form.

3 of 7

CWP-4191-2026

Although the certificate in question was issued by the Zila Sanik Board showing

the date of entry into military service and release of the Ex-serviceman, itt has a

declaration that the certificate cannot be used for job/service purposes,, which

read as under:

DECLARATION BY EX-SERVICEMAN EX SERVICEMAN I hereby certify that the information furnished by me is true. I am aware that if the above information is found to be false false.. I shall be liable for criminal action. The above certificate has been issued at my request for admission purpose only and is not for job/service purp purposes.

Accordingly, there was no occasion for the Commission to consider the

certificate valid for the post po in question, as that would have been contrary to the

very purpose for which the certificate had been issued to the petitioner. The

certificate subsequently submitted by her at the time of scrutiny of the

documents, dated 17.12.2025, Annexure P--5,, could also not have been

considered as it had been issued after the closing date for submission of

applications. The issue whether a certificate submitted after the closing date can

be considered in support of the candidature, candidature has already been dealt with in

Pardeep Kumar case (supra).. While laying down the law, the Division Bench

extensively considered the Supreme Court judgment in Dolly Chhanda case

(supra) as well and held as under:

5. ... The Court in that case was considering as to whether the candidates who fail to upload a valid certificate to claim reservation under BCA/BCB/EWS category along with the application form before the closing date, can be considered for selection. In that case also, the Commission had issued the advertisement ccontaining ontaining similar stipulations as contained in the advertisement in question.

Explaining the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE and others others,, (2005) 9 SCC 779, it was

4 of 7

CWP-4191-2026

held that it cannot be accepted that proof of eligibility is of no significance and can be produced at any stage, completely overlooking the cut-off cut off date fixed in the advertisement. Therefore, the Commission's decision to ignore the certificates furnished after the closing date was upheld. The observations in Pardeep rdeep Kumar case (supra) ( ) to that effect are as follows:

34. In Dolly Chhanda da Vs. Chairman, JEE and others 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.

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 avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage etc 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 elaxation 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

5 of 7

CWP-4191-2026

need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature."

35. to 37. xxx xxx xxx

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 doi doing ng 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 te 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.

40. In our understanding, the Hon'ble Supreme Co Court urt 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 cut--

off date fixed in the advertisement. 41 to 56 xxx xxx xxx

57. It is undisputed that all the respondents respondents-writ writ petitioners claimed reservation in BC(A)/BC(B) or EWS category but had not submitted their respective caste

6 of 7

CWP-4191-2026

certificate of the relevant period. In the leading case, the respondent No.1-Pradeep 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 g 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 ignored.

Since the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in Anil

Kumar case (supra) is at variance with the law laid down by the Division Bench,

the same cannot be cited as a precedent.

6. In view thereof, the petition stands dismissed.

(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA)) JUDGE 18.02.2026 Ad Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

7 of 7