Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep vs State Of Haryana And Others on 29 October, 2025
CWP-27672-2025 (O&M) 1 2025.PHHC: 150512 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.110 CWP-27672-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.10.2025 Kuldeep .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Himanshu Setia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate, and Mr. Ravindra Singh, Advocate, for respondents no.2 and 3/University. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)
The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari quashing advertisement 20/2023, Annexure P-2, whereby various non-teaching posts in the respondent University, earlier advertised vide advertisements 02/2022 and 02/2023, have been re-advertised.
2. The petitioner is an applicant for the post of Clerk as a General category candidate for which one post has been advertised. The grievance raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the process of selection as notified by the University vide advertisement 02/2022, was changed and a different selection criteria was followed, which prejudiced the petitioner's rights. Secondly, he contended that the petitioner appeared for the typing test and cleared the same. Thereafter, he appeared for the written test as well, and was shortlisted for Domain Knowledge and Computer Proficiency Test of twenty marks. Certain questions of the written test were wrong, however, he could not object to the same as the University did not permit him to retain the question paper. Lastly, it is contended that the procedure of recruitment laid MANINDER 2025.11.06 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-27672-2025 (O&M) 2 2025.PHHC: 150512 down by the Government vide memo dated 06.08.2024, Annexure P-8, has not been followed in carrying out the selection which renders it illegal.
3. Learned counsel for the University, at the outset, apologizes for the wrong statement made regarding non-appearance of the petitioner in the Domain Knowledge and Computer Proficiency Test, as recorded in the order dated 30.09.2025. It was made only on account of miscommunication in his office.
4. The apology being bona fide is accepted.
5. He, however, submits that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, dated 30.09.2025, a copy of the question paper has been given to the petitioner on 04.10.2025, but he has failed to submit objection regarding any of the questions of the written test so far. Besides, he has duly participated in the selection process and appeared for the Domain Knowledge and Computer Proficiency Test also; final result whereof is still to be declared. It is also contended that the criteria of selection laid down in advertisement 20/2023 has been followed, as by this advertisement the non-teaching posts earlier advertised vide advertisements 02/2022 and 02/2023 were re-advertised. In terms of the criteria of selection, the candidates were required to take type test of thirty-five marks; written test of forty marks, and Domain Knowledge and Computer Proficiency Test of twenty marks. He also contends that the guidelines/instructions issued by the State Government from time to time for carrying out the selection process have duly been followed. In this regard, he has referred to the following paragraphs of the affidavit, dated 13.10.2025, filed by the Registrar of the University:
5. That in the instant case, initially the Advertisement for various posts including for the posts of Clerk was issued in the year 2022 by the University. The posts were re-advertised in the year 2023 vide Advertisement No.20/2023 (Annexure P-2) with the condition that "candidates who have already applied vide 2025-11-06 10:15 Advt. Nos.02/2022 and 02/2023 need not to apply. However, they I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-27672-2025 (O&M) 3 MANINDER 2025.11.06 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 2025.PHHC: 150512 must check the latest qualification and selection criteria." The letter dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-8) was issued by the State Government after the advertisements issued by the University.
Hence, the letter dated 06.08.2024 is not applicable in the instant case. However, vide Office Order dated 25.07.2023, the State Government issued the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for filling up the vacant posts, conversion and creation of new teaching and non-teaching posts in the State Universities. The Office order dated 25.07.2023 was superseded by the Office order dated 13.09.2023 and again superseded by the office order dated 09.07.2024. Copies of the Office Orders dated 25.07.2023, 13.09.2023 and 09.07.2024 are appended herewith as Annexures A-1 to A-3. The University has followed the SOPs issued by the State Government in letter and spirit.
6. That in addition to the SOPs issued by the State Government and in order to make the entire selection process more fair and transparent, the University took the following conscious decision:
(i) |The University has published the Marks allotment Chart/Synopsis on the website of the University on 04.09.2025 and invited the objections from the candidates who have qualified both typing as well as written test by separately monitoring the marks obtained in the both tests.
7 days time was given to the candidates to file their objections.
(ii) The University has videographed all the selection process with regard to the posts of Clerk including Type Test, Written Test and Domain Knowledge and Computer Proficiency Test.
7. That in compliance to the order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Court, the petitioner was handed over the Question paper of the Written Test held on 02.08.2025 vide letter dated 04.10.2025 and the same was received by the petitioner. The letter dated 04.10.2025 with receiving of the petitioner is appended herewith as Annexure A-4. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the important conditions mentioned in the Admit Card (Annexure P-3) issued to the petitioner it was specifically mentioned that the evaluation of the OMR answer sheets of the CWP-27672-2025 (O&M) 4 2025.PHHC: 150512 candidate will be done through computer software and no manual evaluation will be done and there will be no provision of re- evaluation of OMR answer sheet. To conclude the recruitment process in a time frame, the petitioner was denied the question paper and the OMR sheet etc. during the ongoing selection process.
6. Heard.
7. Considering the facts apparent on record, there is no substance in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason the selection criteria notified pursuant to the earlier advertisements is not required to be followed. The posts have been re-advertised vide the impugned advertisement 20/2023 and the selection criteria laid down therein has been duly followed. The petitioner has himself taken the test and participated in the selection process; final result whereof is awaited. He cannot, therefore, be allowed to turn around and challenge the process in which he willingly participated without any objection. Besides, the petitioner has already been furnished a question paper of the written test, but has failed to raise objection to any of the questions. Still further, the instructions, dated 06.08.2024, are not required to be followed as the same have been issued subsequent to the advertisement in question. At the same time, the SOPs issued by the Government from time to time for filling up vacant posts have been duly followed. These facts have not been disputed by the petitioner.
8. In view thereof, finding no merit in the petition, it stands dismissed.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHTYA) JUDGE 29.10.2025 Maninder Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MANINDER 2025.11.06 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment