CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 1 of 15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 127 CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.08.2026 Shubham Rana ...Pe11oner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and another ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Rohit K. Arora, Advocate and Ms. Yashika Walia, Advocate for the pe oner. Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, D.A.G., Haryana. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Pe on has been (led by the pe oner for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Cer orari for quashing the impugned shortlist/result dated 21.09.2024 (Annexure P-6), speaking order dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure P-14) and 25.09.2024 (Annexure P-7) issued by respondent no. 2 under Adver sement no. 9/2024, Category nos. 115 and 119 as respondent no. 2 excluded the pe oner despite securing marks higher than the prescribed cut-o8 for both General and EWS Categories; and/or issue a writ in the nature of mandamus direc ng the respondents to consider the candidature of the pe oner for shortlis ng under General or EWS category and call him for the next stage of selec on under Adver sement no. 9/2024, Category nos. 115 and 119, DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 2 of 15 in accordance with law and without applying the uncons tu onal Socio-Economic Criteria.

2. It is inter alia submi=ed by learned counsel for the pe oner that in pursuance to Advt.No. 9/2024 dated 02.08.2024 (Annexure P-2) issued by Haryana Sta8 Selec on Commission (hereina?er referred to as ‘HSSC’), Pe oner had applied for direct recruitment to Group-C posts under the EWS Category. Pe oner had submi=ed his applica on form dated 15.08.2024 (Annexure P-3) for the post of Estate Manager (Cat. No. 115) and for the post of Execu ve ODcer (Cat.No.119) under the EWS Category. Pe oner had duly appeared in the CET (Group C) exam held on 06.11.2022. As per the Score Card (Annexure P-4), pe oner had secured 53.7740781 normalized marks out of 95 alongwith 5 marks against Socio Economic Criteria; thereby securing total marks of 58.7740781. 3. Learned counsel submits that as per the shortlis ng of the candidates (Annexure P-6), cut o8 marks for Category No. 115 under General Category are 51.207748. As per impugned Revised Result dated 25.09.2024 (Annexure P-7), cut o8 marks for the said Category was further reduced to 50.254860. Learned counsel submits that accordingly pe oner had submi=ed a Representa on dated 18.06.2025 (Annexure P- 9) seeking clari(ca on as to why pe oner was not shortlisted in Category No. 115. As no response was received, pe oner had (led CWP-24220-2025 tled as Shubham Rana vs. State of Haryana and another; which was disposed of vide order dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure P-12) whereby respondents are directed to consider Representa on dated 18.06.2025.

DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 3 of 15 Pursuant thereto, speaking order dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure P-14) has been passed sta ng that case of the pe oner was not considered as no post was adver sed under EWS Category in which pe oner had applied. 4. Learned counsel for the pe oner contends that as per Ar cle 16(6) of the Cons tu on of India and as per Haryana Government Policy, 10% reserva on is provided to EWS candidates in direct recruitment. In not doing so, the impugned Adver sement is in viola on of the Cons tu on of India. It is contended that despite 103rd Cons tu onal Amendment in Cons tu on of India and its implementa on, the respondent did not earmark 10% seats for EWS Category. It is argued that there is no ra onale behind not earmarking even one seat for EWS Category. The cut o8 under General Category was 51.207748 and subsequently revised to 50.254860. The respondents by not reserving 10% seats under EWS Category violated not only mandate of Cons tu on of India but also instruc ons and rules prescribed by State Government. As such, the impugned Adver sement (Annexure P-2) deserves to be set aside.

5. It is further submi=ed that as per his result (Annexure P-11), pe oner has secured 53.77 marks which are more than cut o8 marks for the General Category in Cat.No. 115, hence, the pe oner should be permi=ed under the General Category. The exclusion of the Pe oner despite securing 53.77 marks well above 50.254860 UR cut-o8 reJects gross administra ve irregularity qua which the pe oner su8ers the most. The denial of fair opportunity to a meritorious EWS candidate, defeats the DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 4 of 15 principles of transparency and equity in the process of recruitment which provides an opportunity to the those skilled and educated candidates who are in need of job and pe oner also comes from a moderate family background and is s ll trying hard to get job but the act and conduct of the respondent against the pe oner being eligible candidate for the said post is unjus (able and against the se=led principle of law. 6. Learned counsel for the pe oner further relies upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 'Munindra Kumar and others v. Rajiv Govil and others, (1991) 3 SCC 368'; wherein it is held that candidates who have remained unsuccessful in the selec on process cannot be estopped from challenging the Rules which are arbitrary and viola ve of Ar cle 14 of Cons tu on of India.

7. He accordingly prays that the present Writ Pe on be allowed; and issue a writ in the nature of mandamus direc ng the respondents to consider the candidature of the pe oner for shortlis ng under General or EWS category and call him for the next stage of selec on under Adver sement no. 9/2024, Category nos. 115 and 119. 8. Per contra, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on advance no ce has vehemently opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the pe oner and pointed out that the impugned speaking order has been passed; wherein valid reasons have been given for exclusion of the pe oner. He further submits that legal posi on in this regard is very clear in-as-much as subsequent change of Category DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 5 of 15 a?er submiMng applica on form is not permissible. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ Pe on. 9. No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned counsel for the par es. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case (le in detail. I (nd no merit in the submissions of the pe oner.

10. It is to be noted that at the me of submiMng applica on form on 15.08.2024, pe oner was very well aware of the fact that there is no EWS Category in the Adver sement no.9/2024 for Category No. 115. Yet, pe oner applied in the said category; and par cipated in the selec on process. A?er having par cipated in the en re selec on process and a?er having been excluded, pe oner cannot challenge the Adver sement on the ground that EWS Category was not included in the Adver sement. A?er having par cipated in the process, the pe oner is estopped from laying challenge to the Category. Admi=edly, at no stage prior to the declara on of the result — indeed at no stage even therea?er — has the pe oner challenged the Adver sement. A candidate who par cipates in the selec on process without demur cannot, when confronted with an adverse consequence, turn round and ques on the criteria or supply his own. 11. In this regard, reference may be made to a judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohit Kumar v. State of UBar Pradesh, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2730841; the relevant para of which reads as under:- DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 6 of 15

“19. It is no longer res integra that terms of an adver sement issued in connec on with a selec on process are normally not open to challenge unless the challenge is founded on the ground of breach of Ar cle 16 of the Cons tu on or, for that ma-er, Ar cle 14. Once an adver sement is issued invi ng applica ons 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 0nds any of the terms ambiguous and there is scope for an inquiry inbuilt in the adver sement or is provided by any rule/regula on, an e1ort ought to be 0rst 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 representa on. Should such clarity be not provided, the aspirant may par cipate in the process without prejudice to his rights and may ques on the term even a4er he is not selected. However, if the aspirant does not make any such e1ort and takes a calculated chance of selec on based on his own understanding of the disputed term in the adver sement and later, he emerges unsuccessful, ordinarily, it would not be open to him to challenge the selec on on the ground that the disputed term is capable of being understood di1erently. In such cases, the courts should be loath to entertain such plea of ambiguity while preferring to accept the recrui ng authority's understanding of the said term. This is for the simple reason that the recrui ng authority is the best judge of what its requirements are and it is such understanding of the recrui ng authority that would ma-er most in cases brought up before the courts; hence, a4er commencement of the process wherein aspirants have par cipated without raising any demur as to what a par cular terms means, even if any

DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 7 of 15 of the terms be ambiguous, the courts should lean in favour of the recrui ng authority.” 12. Thus, it was the duty and responsibility of the pe oner to carefully read the terms of the adver sement and understand its requirements. In the present case, Pe oner had applied for the posts of Estate Manager/Cat.No.115 in Housing Board Haryana; and Execu ve ODcer/Cat.No.119 in Urban Local Bodies. Pe oner had applied for both the said posts under EWS Category. It is clearly stated in the impugned order that “the Commission vide Adver sement No. 9/2024 for the category No. 115 & 119 had not adver sed any post for EWS category.” 13. Further, as per Clause 7.2 of the Adver sement No. 2024, it is clearly men oned as under: - "7.2 The short-lis ng if candidates shall be done on the basis of par culars 0lled in the online applica on form for which suppor ng documents shall be uploaded. As candidates can update their par culars ll closing date, therea4er, nо change of par cular at any stage shall be entertained. In absence of documentary evidence or mismatch in claimed category and uploaded documents, candidature of candidate shall be considered under General category/Parent category, subject to his/her ful0lling eligibility in General category/Parent category."

14. Moreover, as per Clause 7.11 of the Adver sement if there is no vacancy in reserved category then the candidate of reserved category can apply under general category. The said clause Clause 7.11 of the Advt. DIVYANSHI No. 9/2024 is as under:-2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 8 of 15 "7.11 If for any post, there is no vacancy in reserved category, then the candidate of reserved category can apply under general category. However, such candidate will be considered as general category candidate and will be shortlisted as per merit of general category." 15. As such, pe oner was not supposed to apply for EWS category as it was clearly men oned in Clause 2 of the Advt. No. 9/2024 that there exists no vacancy in the EWS category under category No. 115 & 119. And even there is no post of general category in category No. 119. It is for this reason that the pe oner was not shortlisted for category No. 115 & 119, since no post was adver sed under EWS category vide Advt. No. 9/2024, whereas the pe oner has applied under EWS category. Thus, it is the own fault of the pe oner for not carefully reading the terms of the adver sement.

16. Furthermore, Clause 7.1 of the Adver sement no.9/2024 clari(es the implementa on of the reserva on policy as follows: – "7.1. Implementa on of reserva on policy, maintaining reserva on roster and earmarking of vacancies for di1erent categories comes under the domain of the concerned departments and Commission has nothing to do with the number of posts requisi oned under di1erent categories. Bene0t of reserva on to the persons of reserved category will be as per Haryana Government instruc ons contained in le-er No. 22/10/2013-1GS-III, dated 15.07.2014 and therea4er issued from me to me upto the date of adver sement shall be applicable. With regard to the PwD category posts, in case a par cular category of suitable PWD DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 9 of 15 candidate as per adver sement is not available, then the other suitable PwD category candidate may be accommodated, if permi-ed by the concerned department as per the instruc ons applicable."

17. The next prayer of the pe oner that pe oner be considered under the General Category as the pe oner has obtained more marks than the prescribed cut o8 for both the General and EWS Categories. However again, it is established posi on in law that change of a category is not permi=ed at subsequent stage. It is no longer res integra that once a candidate has applied in a par cular Category, he cannot be subsequently permi=ed to change his Category. In this regard, I rely upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur v. Neetu Harsh (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1571843; wherein it is held that “Judicial Service - A candidate applied for General Category cannot subsequently claim seat reserved for Disabled Candidates.” 18. In another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in J. & K. Public Service Commission v. Israr Ahmad, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 192290; it is held as under: - “6. We have considered the rival conten ons advanced by both the par es. The conten on of the 0rst respondent cannot be accepted as he has not applied for the selec on as a candidate en tled to get reserva on. He did not produce any cer 0cate along with his applica on. The fact that he has not availed the bene0t for the preliminary examina on itself is suCcient to treat him as a candidate not en tled to get reserva on. He passed the preliminary examina on as a DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 10 of 15 general candidate and at the subsequent stage of the main examina on he cannot avail the reserva on on the ground that he was successful in geDng the required cer 0cate only at a later stage. The nature and status of the candidate who was applying for the selec on could only be treated alike and once a candidate has chosen to opt for the category to which he is en tled, he cannot later change the status and make fresh claim. The Division Bench was not correct in holding that as a candidate he had also had the quali0ca on and the produc on of the cer 0cate at later stage would make him en tled to seek reserva on. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and allow the appeal.” (Emphasis added)

19. The aforesaid view has been followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Prabhjot Sharma vs. State of Punjab and others, Neutral Cita1on No. 2026:PHHC:043874, decided on 19.03.2026. The relevant paras of the said judgment are as under:-“1. Instant writ pe on has been 0led under Ar cles 226/227 of the Cons tu on of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of cer orari for quashing the adver sement No.20251 (Annexure P-1), being viola ve of the extant rules (Annexure P-2), applicable for issuance of adver sement and recruitment or in the alterna ve for issuance of writ of mandamus direc ng the respondents to allow the pe oner to change her category from General (71) to Economically Weaker Sec on - Punjab (92) in the recruitment process, ini ated vide adver sement No.20251 dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure P-1), in view of the subsequent changes by way of public no ces (Annexures P-5 and P-7). Further prayer has been made for staying the further process under the said DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 11 of 15 adver sement (Annexure P-1), during the pendency of the writ pe on. XX XX 7. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J & K Public Service Commission Vs. Israr Ahmad and others: 2005(12) SCC 498, no change in the category once applied for, can be done at a later stage. The relevant paragraph 6 of the said judgment is as under:-

"6. We have considered the rival conten ons advanced by both the par es. The conten on of the 0rst respondent cannot be accepted as he has not applied for the selec on as a candidate en tled to get reserva on. He did not produce any cer 0cate along with his applica on. The fact that he has not availed the bene0t for the preliminary examina on itself is suCcient to treat him as a candidate not en tled to get reserva on. He passed the preliminary examina on as a general candidate and at the subsequent stage of the main examina on he cannot avail the reserva on on the ground that he was successful in geDng the required cer 0cate only at a later stage. The nature and status of the candidate who was applying for the selec on could only be treated alike and once a candidate has chosen to opt for the category to which he is en tled, he cannot later change the status and make fresh claim. The Division Bench was not correct in holding that as a candidate he had also had the quali0ca on and the produc on of the cer 0cate at later stage would make him en tled to seek reserva on. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and allow the appeal."

8. While dealing with the similar issue in CWP-1721 of 2023- Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 23.02.2023, this Court has held as follows:-"7. In view of the speci0c s pula on under clause (5) of the recruitment no ce, at this stage, par cularly when the selec on process has already been completed for the general category, this Court does not 0nd it DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 12 of 15 appropriate to exercise its writ jurisdic on under Ar cle 226 of the Cons tu on of India. In such ma-ers, the Court can issue a writ only if the pe oner makes out a good case. Though, it may be harsh for the pe oner, however, any interference, at this stage, may result in opening a Pandora box which would not be in the interest of jus ce. 8. With the observa ons made above, the present writ pe on is disposed of." 9. Similarly, in CWP No.2907 of 2022 /tled as 'Bhupinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others' decided on 22.01.2025, this Court has held as under:-"2. Learned State counsel has referred to the judgment passed by this Court in "Arashdeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and another", CWP-17825-2020, decided on 18.10.2024, involving the same issue, as per which the present pe on is liable to be dismissed, relevant paras whereof read thus:-

"It is a conceded fact that as per the applica on form submi-ed by the pe oner, he had applied in the General Category and though he wanted to change the category but as per the condi ons of the Adver sement, which are sacrosanct, no change can be allowed. Further, the pe oner appeared in the examina on despite the fact that the Roll Number was issued in the General Category and pe oner par cipated in the selec on process under a Roll Number issued in General Category and it is therea4er, the pe oner had 0led the present pe on for change of his category from "General" to "Backward Class". In case, the pe oner had come to know that he had 0lled incorrect category, he should have approached this Court before the last date to 0ll the applica on form to claim the said bene0t, which claim was never raised by the pe oner. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "J&K Public Service Commission Vs. Israr Ahmad and Ors.", decided DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 13 of 15 on 07.01.2005, category once applied for cannot be allowed to be changed a4er par cipa ng in the selec on process. In the present case, the claim raised by the pe oner is contrary to the se-led principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "J & K Public Service Commission Vs. Israr Ahmad and others" as well as by the Co-ordinate Bench in Gurpreet Singh's case (supra).

No ground is made out by this Court to interference in the present pe on. Hence, the present pe on is dismissed." 10. It is a se-led proposi on of law that a candidate has to comply with all the condi ons/eligibility criteria as per the adver sement. In the present case, the pe oner applied under the general category and admi-edly did not possess the EWS cer 0cate, required as per the adver sement, at the me of submission of her applica on. Consequently, she cannot claim considera on under the EWS category. PermiDng the pe oner to alter her category would not only violate the terms of the adver sement but also unse-le the level playing 0eld amongst candidates. The pe oner, having submi-ed the applica on form with a speci0c category, is bound by the declara on made therein. No candidate has been allowed to change the category. Candidates belonging to Persons with Disability and Sports person Punjab categories, who are unable to prove their eligibility in these categories will be considered under their basic category. Such candidates are merely being considered in their basic category and their category has not been changed.” 20. Reference is also made to another judgment passed by a Predecessor Bench of this Court in Vinay Sharma v. State of Haryana (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1720774; wherein it is held as under:- DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 14 of 15

“6. Admi-edly, pe oner submi-ed the applica on form under the General Category. It is not the pleaded case of the pe oner that the requisite scanned copy of the EBPG Cer 0cate issued by the competent authority had been uploaded alongwith the applica on form. Under the adver sement there is no provision for change of category. The pe oner ought to have been very circumspect while 0lling the applica on. Even though pe oner may have been in possession of the EBPG Cer 0cate prior to the closing date men oned in the adver sement but he cannot be permi-ed to take bene0t of the same as he had applied under the General Category. Had the pe oner uploaded the scanned copy of the EBPG Category the case may have been di1erent. Pe oner having taken his chance in the General Category and having also appeared in the wri-en examina on on the basis of an Admit Card clearly men oning his category as General, he cannot now be permi-ed to turn around and to be considered under the reserved EBPG Category. Clearly the pe oner had submi-ed his applica on form men oning his category as General against the 170 posts of PGT (Chemistry) which were unreserved. A4er having par cipated in the wri-en examina on as a General Category Candidate and having failed to secure suCcient merit posi on he now wants to change his category and have his candidature considered under the reserved EBPG Category. This Court would have no hesita on in observing that the facts of the present case are not that of a bona 0de mistake being sought to be rec 0ed but it is essen ally a claim for change of category. The same is not permissible. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J & K Public Service Commission v. Israr Ahmed and others 2005 (12) SCC 498 had clearly held that once a candidate has

DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 15 of 15 chosen a par cular category he cannot change the same at a la-er date.” 21. Thus, the ra o of all the abovesaid judgments is that candidate/pe oner is bound to abide by the terms of the Adver sement; and subsequent change of category is not permi=ed. In the present circumstances, aforesaid judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the pe oner in Munindra Kumar’s case (supra) is dis nguishable on facts and law. Learned counsel for the pe oner is unable to controvert or dispute the above said factual and legal posi on. 22. Accordingly, the present Writ Pe on stands dismissed. 23. Pending applica on(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 18.08.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 1 of 15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 127 CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.08.2026 Shubham Rana ...Pe11oner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and another ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Rohit K. Arora, Advocate and Ms. Yashika Walia, Advocate for the pe oner. Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, D.A.G., Haryana. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Pe on has been (led by the pe oner for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Cer orari for quashing the impugned shortlist/result dated 21.09.2024 (Annexure P-6), speaking order dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure P-14) and 25.09.2024 (Annexure P-7) issued by respondent no. 2 under Adver sement no. 9/2024, Category nos. 115 and 119 as respondent no. 2 excluded the pe oner despite securing marks higher than the prescribed cut-o8 for both General and EWS Categories; and/or issue a writ in the nature of mandamus direc ng the respondents to consider the candidature of the pe oner for shortlis ng under General or EWS category and call him for the next stage of selec on under Adver sement no. 9/2024, Category nos. 115 and 119, DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 2 of 15 in accordance with law and without applying the uncons tu onal Socio-Economic Criteria.

2. It is inter alia submi=ed by learned counsel for the pe oner that in pursuance to Advt.No. 9/2024 dated 02.08.2024 (Annexure P-2) issued by Haryana Sta8 Selec on Commission (hereina?er referred to as ‘HSSC’), Pe oner had applied for direct recruitment to Group-C posts under the EWS Category. Pe oner had submi=ed his applica on form dated 15.08.2024 (Annexure P-3) for the post of Estate Manager (Cat. No. 115) and for the post of Execu ve ODcer (Cat.No.119) under the EWS Category. Pe oner had duly appeared in the CET (Group C) exam held on 06.11.2022. As per the Score Card (Annexure P-4), pe oner had secured 53.7740781 normalized marks out of 95 alongwith 5 marks against Socio Economic Criteria; thereby securing total marks of 58.7740781. 3. Learned counsel submits that as per the shortlis ng of the candidates (Annexure P-6), cut o8 marks for Category No. 115 under General Category are 51.207748. As per impugned Revised Result dated 25.09.2024 (Annexure P-7), cut o8 marks for the said Category was further reduced to 50.254860. Learned counsel submits that accordingly pe oner had submi=ed a Representa on dated 18.06.2025 (Annexure P- 9) seeking clari(ca on as to why pe oner was not shortlisted in Category No. 115. As no response was received, pe oner had (led CWP-24220-2025 tled as Shubham Rana vs. State of Haryana and another; which was disposed of vide order dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure P-12) whereby respondents are directed to consider Representa on dated 18.06.2025.

DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 3 of 15 Pursuant thereto, speaking order dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure P-14) has been passed sta ng that case of the pe oner was not considered as no post was adver sed under EWS Category in which pe oner had applied. 4. Learned counsel for the pe oner contends that as per Ar cle 16(6) of the Cons tu on of India and as per Haryana Government Policy, 10% reserva on is provided to EWS candidates in direct recruitment. In not doing so, the impugned Adver sement is in viola on of the Cons tu on of India. It is contended that despite 103rd Cons tu onal Amendment in Cons tu on of India and its implementa on, the respondent did not earmark 10% seats for EWS Category. It is argued that there is no ra onale behind not earmarking even one seat for EWS Category. The cut o8 under General Category was 51.207748 and subsequently revised to 50.254860. The respondents by not reserving 10% seats under EWS Category violated not only mandate of Cons tu on of India but also instruc ons and rules prescribed by State Government. As such, the impugned Adver sement (Annexure P-2) deserves to be set aside.

5. It is further submi=ed that as per his result (Annexure P-11), pe oner has secured 53.77 marks which are more than cut o8 marks for the General Category in Cat.No. 115, hence, the pe oner should be permi=ed under the General Category. The exclusion of the Pe oner despite securing 53.77 marks well above 50.254860 UR cut-o8 reJects gross administra ve irregularity qua which the pe oner su8ers the most. The denial of fair opportunity to a meritorious EWS candidate, defeats the DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 4 of 15 principles of transparency and equity in the process of recruitment which provides an opportunity to the those skilled and educated candidates who are in need of job and pe oner also comes from a moderate family background and is s ll trying hard to get job but the act and conduct of the respondent against the pe oner being eligible candidate for the said post is unjus (able and against the se=led principle of law. 6. Learned counsel for the pe oner further relies upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 'Munindra Kumar and others v. Rajiv Govil and others, (1991) 3 SCC 368'; wherein it is held that candidates who have remained unsuccessful in the selec on process cannot be estopped from challenging the Rules which are arbitrary and viola ve of Ar cle 14 of Cons tu on of India.

7. He accordingly prays that the present Writ Pe on be allowed; and issue a writ in the nature of mandamus direc ng the respondents to consider the candidature of the pe oner for shortlis ng under General or EWS category and call him for the next stage of selec on under Adver sement no. 9/2024, Category nos. 115 and 119. 8. Per contra, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on advance no ce has vehemently opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the pe oner and pointed out that the impugned speaking order has been passed; wherein valid reasons have been given for exclusion of the pe oner. He further submits that legal posi on in this regard is very clear in-as-much as subsequent change of Category DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 5 of 15 a?er submiMng applica on form is not permissible. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ Pe on. 9. No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned counsel for the par es. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case (le in detail. I (nd no merit in the submissions of the pe oner.

10. It is to be noted that at the me of submiMng applica on form on 15.08.2024, pe oner was very well aware of the fact that there is no EWS Category in the Adver sement no.9/2024 for Category No. 115. Yet, pe oner applied in the said category; and par cipated in the selec on process. A?er having par cipated in the en re selec on process and a?er having been excluded, pe oner cannot challenge the Adver sement on the ground that EWS Category was not included in the Adver sement. A?er having par cipated in the process, the pe oner is estopped from laying challenge to the Category. Admi=edly, at no stage prior to the declara on of the result — indeed at no stage even therea?er — has the pe oner challenged the Adver sement. A candidate who par cipates in the selec on process without demur cannot, when confronted with an adverse consequence, turn round and ques on the criteria or supply his own. 11. In this regard, reference may be made to a judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohit Kumar v. State of UBar Pradesh, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2730841; the relevant para of which reads as under:- DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 6 of 15

“19. It is no longer res integra that terms of an adver sement issued in connec on with a selec on process are normally not open to challenge unless the challenge is founded on the ground of breach of Ar cle 16 of the Cons tu on or, for that ma-er, Ar cle 14. Once an adver sement is issued invi ng applica ons 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 0nds any of the terms ambiguous and there is scope for an inquiry inbuilt in the adver sement or is provided by any rule/regula on, an e1ort ought to be 0rst 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 representa on. Should such clarity be not provided, the aspirant may par cipate in the process without prejudice to his rights and may ques on the term even a4er he is not selected. However, if the aspirant does not make any such e1ort and takes a calculated chance of selec on based on his own understanding of the disputed term in the adver sement and later, he emerges unsuccessful, ordinarily, it would not be open to him to challenge the selec on on the ground that the disputed term is capable of being understood di1erently. In such cases, the courts should be loath to entertain such plea of ambiguity while preferring to accept the recrui ng authority's understanding of the said term. This is for the simple reason that the recrui ng authority is the best judge of what its requirements are and it is such understanding of the recrui ng authority that would ma-er most in cases brought up before the courts; hence, a4er commencement of the process wherein aspirants have par cipated without raising any demur as to what a par cular terms means, even if any

DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 7 of 15 of the terms be ambiguous, the courts should lean in favour of the recrui ng authority.” 12. Thus, it was the duty and responsibility of the pe oner to carefully read the terms of the adver sement and understand its requirements. In the present case, Pe oner had applied for the posts of Estate Manager/Cat.No.115 in Housing Board Haryana; and Execu ve ODcer/Cat.No.119 in Urban Local Bodies. Pe oner had applied for both the said posts under EWS Category. It is clearly stated in the impugned order that “the Commission vide Adver sement No. 9/2024 for the category No. 115 & 119 had not adver sed any post for EWS category.” 13. Further, as per Clause 7.2 of the Adver sement No. 2024, it is clearly men oned as under: - "7.2 The short-lis ng if candidates shall be done on the basis of par culars 0lled in the online applica on form for which suppor ng documents shall be uploaded. As candidates can update their par culars ll closing date, therea4er, nо change of par cular at any stage shall be entertained. In absence of documentary evidence or mismatch in claimed category and uploaded documents, candidature of candidate shall be considered under General category/Parent category, subject to his/her ful0lling eligibility in General category/Parent category."

14. Moreover, as per Clause 7.11 of the Adver sement if there is no vacancy in reserved category then the candidate of reserved category can apply under general category. The said clause Clause 7.11 of the Advt. DIVYANSHI No. 9/2024 is as under:-2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 8 of 15 "7.11 If for any post, there is no vacancy in reserved category, then the candidate of reserved category can apply under general category. However, such candidate will be considered as general category candidate and will be shortlisted as per merit of general category." 15. As such, pe oner was not supposed to apply for EWS category as it was clearly men oned in Clause 2 of the Advt. No. 9/2024 that there exists no vacancy in the EWS category under category No. 115 & 119. And even there is no post of general category in category No. 119. It is for this reason that the pe oner was not shortlisted for category No. 115 & 119, since no post was adver sed under EWS category vide Advt. No. 9/2024, whereas the pe oner has applied under EWS category. Thus, it is the own fault of the pe oner for not carefully reading the terms of the adver sement.

16. Furthermore, Clause 7.1 of the Adver sement no.9/2024 clari(es the implementa on of the reserva on policy as follows: – "7.1. Implementa on of reserva on policy, maintaining reserva on roster and earmarking of vacancies for di1erent categories comes under the domain of the concerned departments and Commission has nothing to do with the number of posts requisi oned under di1erent categories. Bene0t of reserva on to the persons of reserved category will be as per Haryana Government instruc ons contained in le-er No. 22/10/2013-1GS-III, dated 15.07.2014 and therea4er issued from me to me upto the date of adver sement shall be applicable. With regard to the PwD category posts, in case a par cular category of suitable PWD DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 9 of 15 candidate as per adver sement is not available, then the other suitable PwD category candidate may be accommodated, if permi-ed by the concerned department as per the instruc ons applicable."

17. The next prayer of the pe oner that pe oner be considered under the General Category as the pe oner has obtained more marks than the prescribed cut o8 for both the General and EWS Categories. However again, it is established posi on in law that change of a category is not permi=ed at subsequent stage. It is no longer res integra that once a candidate has applied in a par cular Category, he cannot be subsequently permi=ed to change his Category. In this regard, I rely upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur v. Neetu Harsh (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1571843; wherein it is held that “Judicial Service - A candidate applied for General Category cannot subsequently claim seat reserved for Disabled Candidates.” 18. In another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in J. & K. Public Service Commission v. Israr Ahmad, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 192290; it is held as under: - “6. We have considered the rival conten ons advanced by both the par es. The conten on of the 0rst respondent cannot be accepted as he has not applied for the selec on as a candidate en tled to get reserva on. He did not produce any cer 0cate along with his applica on. The fact that he has not availed the bene0t for the preliminary examina on itself is suCcient to treat him as a candidate not en tled to get reserva on. He passed the preliminary examina on as a DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 10 of 15 general candidate and at the subsequent stage of the main examina on he cannot avail the reserva on on the ground that he was successful in geDng the required cer 0cate only at a later stage. The nature and status of the candidate who was applying for the selec on could only be treated alike and once a candidate has chosen to opt for the category to which he is en tled, he cannot later change the status and make fresh claim. The Division Bench was not correct in holding that as a candidate he had also had the quali0ca on and the produc on of the cer 0cate at later stage would make him en tled to seek reserva on. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and allow the appeal.” (Emphasis added)

19. The aforesaid view has been followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Prabhjot Sharma vs. State of Punjab and others, Neutral Cita1on No. 2026:PHHC:043874, decided on 19.03.2026. The relevant paras of the said judgment are as under:-“1. Instant writ pe on has been 0led under Ar cles 226/227 of the Cons tu on of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of cer orari for quashing the adver sement No.20251 (Annexure P-1), being viola ve of the extant rules (Annexure P-2), applicable for issuance of adver sement and recruitment or in the alterna ve for issuance of writ of mandamus direc ng the respondents to allow the pe oner to change her category from General (71) to Economically Weaker Sec on - Punjab (92) in the recruitment process, ini ated vide adver sement No.20251 dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure P-1), in view of the subsequent changes by way of public no ces (Annexures P-5 and P-7). Further prayer has been made for staying the further process under the said DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 11 of 15 adver sement (Annexure P-1), during the pendency of the writ pe on. XX XX 7. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J & K Public Service Commission Vs. Israr Ahmad and others: 2005(12) SCC 498, no change in the category once applied for, can be done at a later stage. The relevant paragraph 6 of the said judgment is as under:-

"6. We have considered the rival conten ons advanced by both the par es. The conten on of the 0rst respondent cannot be accepted as he has not applied for the selec on as a candidate en tled to get reserva on. He did not produce any cer 0cate along with his applica on. The fact that he has not availed the bene0t for the preliminary examina on itself is suCcient to treat him as a candidate not en tled to get reserva on. He passed the preliminary examina on as a general candidate and at the subsequent stage of the main examina on he cannot avail the reserva on on the ground that he was successful in geDng the required cer 0cate only at a later stage. The nature and status of the candidate who was applying for the selec on could only be treated alike and once a candidate has chosen to opt for the category to which he is en tled, he cannot later change the status and make fresh claim. The Division Bench was not correct in holding that as a candidate he had also had the quali0ca on and the produc on of the cer 0cate at later stage would make him en tled to seek reserva on. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and allow the appeal."

8. While dealing with the similar issue in CWP-1721 of 2023- Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 23.02.2023, this Court has held as follows:-"7. In view of the speci0c s pula on under clause (5) of the recruitment no ce, at this stage, par cularly when the selec on process has already been completed for the general category, this Court does not 0nd it DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 12 of 15 appropriate to exercise its writ jurisdic on under Ar cle 226 of the Cons tu on of India. In such ma-ers, the Court can issue a writ only if the pe oner makes out a good case. Though, it may be harsh for the pe oner, however, any interference, at this stage, may result in opening a Pandora box which would not be in the interest of jus ce. 8. With the observa ons made above, the present writ pe on is disposed of." 9. Similarly, in CWP No.2907 of 2022 /tled as 'Bhupinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others' decided on 22.01.2025, this Court has held as under:-"2. Learned State counsel has referred to the judgment passed by this Court in "Arashdeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and another", CWP-17825-2020, decided on 18.10.2024, involving the same issue, as per which the present pe on is liable to be dismissed, relevant paras whereof read thus:-

"It is a conceded fact that as per the applica on form submi-ed by the pe oner, he had applied in the General Category and though he wanted to change the category but as per the condi ons of the Adver sement, which are sacrosanct, no change can be allowed. Further, the pe oner appeared in the examina on despite the fact that the Roll Number was issued in the General Category and pe oner par cipated in the selec on process under a Roll Number issued in General Category and it is therea4er, the pe oner had 0led the present pe on for change of his category from "General" to "Backward Class". In case, the pe oner had come to know that he had 0lled incorrect category, he should have approached this Court before the last date to 0ll the applica on form to claim the said bene0t, which claim was never raised by the pe oner. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "J&K Public Service Commission Vs. Israr Ahmad and Ors.", decided DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 13 of 15 on 07.01.2005, category once applied for cannot be allowed to be changed a4er par cipa ng in the selec on process. In the present case, the claim raised by the pe oner is contrary to the se-led principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "J & K Public Service Commission Vs. Israr Ahmad and others" as well as by the Co-ordinate Bench in Gurpreet Singh's case (supra).

No ground is made out by this Court to interference in the present pe on. Hence, the present pe on is dismissed." 10. It is a se-led proposi on of law that a candidate has to comply with all the condi ons/eligibility criteria as per the adver sement. In the present case, the pe oner applied under the general category and admi-edly did not possess the EWS cer 0cate, required as per the adver sement, at the me of submission of her applica on. Consequently, she cannot claim considera on under the EWS category. PermiDng the pe oner to alter her category would not only violate the terms of the adver sement but also unse-le the level playing 0eld amongst candidates. The pe oner, having submi-ed the applica on form with a speci0c category, is bound by the declara on made therein. No candidate has been allowed to change the category. Candidates belonging to Persons with Disability and Sports person Punjab categories, who are unable to prove their eligibility in these categories will be considered under their basic category. Such candidates are merely being considered in their basic category and their category has not been changed.” 20. Reference is also made to another judgment passed by a Predecessor Bench of this Court in Vinay Sharma v. State of Haryana (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1720774; wherein it is held as under:- DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 14 of 15

“6. Admi-edly, pe oner submi-ed the applica on form under the General Category. It is not the pleaded case of the pe oner that the requisite scanned copy of the EBPG Cer 0cate issued by the competent authority had been uploaded alongwith the applica on form. Under the adver sement there is no provision for change of category. The pe oner ought to have been very circumspect while 0lling the applica on. Even though pe oner may have been in possession of the EBPG Cer 0cate prior to the closing date men oned in the adver sement but he cannot be permi-ed to take bene0t of the same as he had applied under the General Category. Had the pe oner uploaded the scanned copy of the EBPG Category the case may have been di1erent. Pe oner having taken his chance in the General Category and having also appeared in the wri-en examina on on the basis of an Admit Card clearly men oning his category as General, he cannot now be permi-ed to turn around and to be considered under the reserved EBPG Category. Clearly the pe oner had submi-ed his applica on form men oning his category as General against the 170 posts of PGT (Chemistry) which were unreserved. A4er having par cipated in the wri-en examina on as a General Category Candidate and having failed to secure suCcient merit posi on he now wants to change his category and have his candidature considered under the reserved EBPG Category. This Court would have no hesita on in observing that the facts of the present case are not that of a bona 0de mistake being sought to be rec 0ed but it is essen ally a claim for change of category. The same is not permissible. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J & K Public Service Commission v. Israr Ahmed and others 2005 (12) SCC 498 had clearly held that once a candidate has

DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26180-2026 (O&M) 15 of 15 chosen a par cular category he cannot change the same at a la-er date.” 21. Thus, the ra o of all the abovesaid judgments is that candidate/pe oner is bound to abide by the terms of the Adver sement; and subsequent change of category is not permi=ed. In the present circumstances, aforesaid judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the pe oner in Munindra Kumar’s case (supra) is dis nguishable on facts and law. Learned counsel for the pe oner is unable to controvert or dispute the above said factual and legal posi on. 22. Accordingly, the present Writ Pe on stands dismissed. 23. Pending applica on(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 18.08.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document