CRM-M-19040-2021(O&M) ​ ​ -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH 232 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ CWP-19040-2021 Date of Decision: 09.07.2026 Renu Rawal​ ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY. **** Present:​ Mr. Deepanshu Matya, Advocate for the petitioner. ​ ​ Ms. Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana.​ ​ **** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1.​ ​ Prayer made in the present petition is for directing the respondents to recruit the petitioner, as he had obtained more marks than the last selected candidate. 2.​ ​ The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that 07 marks ought to have been granted to her on account of having graduation and post graduation degrees in Electronic and Communication Engineering, Annexure P-6 and P-7, subjects of which were almost similar to that of Computer Science or Computer Engineering, as was prescribed in the Advertisement dated 16.04.2018, Annexure P-1, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the prerogative to decide the essential qualifications lies with the employer, which best suits the requirements that a candidate must possess according to the needs and the nature of the work. The question of RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.07.10 17:04 I am the author of this document CRM-M-19040-2021(O&M) ​ ​ -2-

equivalence thereof falls outside the domain of judicial review as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the judgment passed in Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade, (2019) 6 SCC 362, amongst many others rendered on same issue. 3.​ ​ In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JULY 09, 2026.​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ JUDGE Rajender ​Whether speaking/reasoned​ : Yes/No ​ ​ Whether reportable​ ​ : Yes/No RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.07.10 17:04 I am the author of this document

CRM-M-19040-2021(O&M) ​ ​ -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH 232 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ CWP-19040-2021 Date of Decision: 09.07.2026 Renu Rawal​ ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY. **** Present:​ Mr. Deepanshu Matya, Advocate for the petitioner. ​ ​ Ms. Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana.​ ​ **** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1.​ ​ Prayer made in the present petition is for directing the respondents to recruit the petitioner, as he had obtained more marks than the last selected candidate. 2.​ ​ The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that 07 marks ought to have been granted to her on account of having graduation and post graduation degrees in Electronic and Communication Engineering, Annexure P-6 and P-7, subjects of which were almost similar to that of Computer Science or Computer Engineering, as was prescribed in the Advertisement dated 16.04.2018, Annexure P-1, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the prerogative to decide the essential qualifications lies with the employer, which best suits the requirements that a candidate must possess according to the needs and the nature of the work. The question of RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.07.10 17:04 I am the author of this document CRM-M-19040-2021(O&M) ​ ​ -2-

equivalence thereof falls outside the domain of judicial review as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the judgment passed in Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade, (2019) 6 SCC 362, amongst many others rendered on same issue. 3.​ ​ In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JULY 09, 2026.​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ JUDGE Rajender ​Whether speaking/reasoned​ : Yes/No ​ ​ Whether reportable​ ​ : Yes/No RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.07.10 17:04 I am the author of this document