Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kartik Saini vs State Of Haryana And Others on 17 February, 2026
CWP-38944-2025 1
239 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-38944-2025
Date of decision: 17.02.2026
KARTIK SAINI ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Ms. Preeti Chhikara, Advocate for
Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate
for respondent No.3-HPSC.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J (Oral):
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of
Certiorari for quashing the Final Result of Selected Candidates dated
15.12.2025 (Annexure P-8) for the post of Assistant Environmental
Engineer (Group-B) in Haryana Pollution Control Board in pursuance to
advertisement No. 20/2025 (Annexure P-1). A further prayer has been
made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to revise and re-declare the final result by including the name
of the petitioner in the list of selected candidates.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Haryana Public Service
Commission (respondent No.3) issued Advertisement No.20/2025 dated
13.08.2025 for filling up 29 posts of Assistant Environmental Engineer
(Group-B) in Haryana State Pollution Control Board. The petitioner being
1 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 02:15:31 :::
CWP-38944-2025 2
fully qualified, applied for the said vacancy under the BC-B category. The
selection process comprised three stages: Screening Test, Subject
Knowledge Test and Interview. The petitioner qualified the Screening Test
and Subject Knowledge Test and was called for an interview. However,
when the final result was declared on 15.12.2025, the name of the
petitioner was not included in the list of selected candidates.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that, one
Nikhil Yadav (Roll No.29116) belonging to BC-B category secured
“58.86” marks in the final merit which is higher than the last selected
General category candidate namely Abhimanyu Balyan who secured
“53.09” marks. According to the petitioner, Nikhil Yadav ought to have
been migrated to the General category and upon such migration, the
petitioner who secured “40.61” marks and is next in merit in the BC-B
category would have been selected. Learned Counsel has placed reliance
upon the judgments in Saurav Yadav vs. State of U.P., AIR 2021 (SC) 233
and the judgment of this Court in Parmila vs. State of Haryana (CWP
No.23917 of 2023 decided on 08.01.2024) as affirmed in LPA No.329 of
2024 decided on 09.04.2025. Learned counsel further submits that
Annexure P-3, which contains the scheme of examination and the
selection and shortlisting criteria, clearly stipulates that the marks obtained
in the screening test are not to be counted for the final selection, as the said
test is meant only for shortlisting purposes. It is further provided that the
final merit list is to be prepared by aggregating the marks obtained in the
subject knowledge test and the interview/viva-voce. Since the candidate
Nikhil Yadav had opted for relaxation only in the screening test, the result
whereof does not impact the final merit list, thus any relaxation granted to
2 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 02:15:31 :::
CWP-38944-2025 3
the said candidate is wholly inconsequential and immaterial to the final
selection process, consequently he should have been migrated to the
general category.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted
that Nikhil Yadav had secured “56.86” marks in the Screening Test whereas
the cut-off for General category was “61.8132.” He was selected for the
next stage only under the BC-B category by availing the benefit of
relaxation. Having availed relaxation at the Screening Test stage, he was
not liable to be migrated to General category. Reliance has been placed
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. G.
Kiran & Ors. (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.4743 of 2020
decided on 06.01.2026) and the judgment of this Court in Ajit Singh vs.
State of Haryana, 2011 (20) SCT 243.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
6. The principal question that falls for consideration in this writ
petition is whether a reserved category candidate who has availed
relaxation at the Screening Test stage can be migrated to the General
category on the basis of his performance in the subsequent stages of the
selection process.
7. Considering the factual position, it is undisputed that in the
Screening Test held on 02.11.2025, the cut-off for General category was
“61.8132”. Nikhil Yadav secured “56.86” marks which was below the
General category cut-off. He was shortlisted for the Subject Knowledge
Test only under the BC-B category by availing the relaxed cut-off
3 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 02:15:31 :::
CWP-38944-2025 4
applicable to his category. Thus, there is no manner of doubt that Nikhil
Yadav availed the benefit of relaxation at the Screening Test stage.
8. A screening test, when placed at the threshold of a multi-stage
selection process, operates as a filtering mechanism or a gateway, without
clearing which a candidate cannot progress to the subsequent stages of
examination and interview. It thus constitutes a mandatory eligibility sieve,
and not a mere formality. Any relaxation granted at the screening stage
directly confers a tangible and decisive advantage, as it enables a candidate
to cross the threshold and gain access to the subsequent stages of selection.
Even if no relaxation is availed at later stages, the fact remains that the
candidate could reach the next level only because of the initial relaxation,
without which he could have been eliminated at the threshold itself. In such
a scenario, the contention that the screening test is of no consequence,
merely because its marks are not carried forward to the final merit list, is
fundamentally misconceived.
9. The question whether a reserved category candidate who
avails relaxation at any stage of the examination can thereafter claim
allocation against an unreserved vacancy has been authoritatively settled
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent judgment in Union of India vs.
G. Kiran & Ors.2 026 INSC 15 decided on 06.01.2026), wherein while
speaking through Justice J.K. Maheshwari, the Hon’ble Apex Court
observed that:-
“22. In the above context, the word ‘any’ is relatable to relaxations
or concessions either in ‘eligibility’ or any ‘selection criteria’. It
further qualifies that such relaxation/concession can be availed at
‘any stage of exampination’ having relevance to Rule 1 which
indicates that all candidates would be required to qualify the
Preliminary Examination in order to appear in the Main4 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 02:15:31 :::
CWP-38944-2025 5Examination. Therefore, the proviso throw light by focusing on the
issue of relaxations and concessions in eligibility or selection
criteria at any stage of examination.”
“27. Rule 14(i) deals with preparation of merit list after a written
and interview for personality test. Thereafter, it deals with
recommending the candidates against unreserved vacancies
applying general standards with reference to number of unreserved
vacancies. Rule 14(ii) deals with the situation for the candidates of
SC, ST and OBC where discretion has been conferred upon UPSC to
grant relaxed standards to the fittest of these candidates for
selection to the service. While dealing with those relaxed standards,
it has been made clear in proviso that the candidates of SC, ST and
OBC recommended without resorting to ‘any’, ‘relaxation’ or
‘concession’ in ‘eligibility’ or ‘selection criteria’ at ‘any stage of
examination’ may be adjusted against the vacancies of unreserved
category. The natural corollary to the above makes it clear those
reserved category candidates who have availed of any relaxation
or concession at ‘any stage of the examination’ are not eligible to
be adjusted against unreserved vacancies.”
“32…….The Court affirming the proposition of law stated that once
relaxation has been taken by a reserved category candidate, they
cannot be considered for unreserved vacancies. Inescapably, the
aforesaid judgement also strengthens the view taken by us herein-
above interpreting the rules that if a reserved category candidate
takes benefit of relaxation though at initial stage, it will effectively
amount to taking relaxation even at the final stage of the selection
process because without giving relaxation to him, he was not in a
position to participate in the Main examination and to set forth his
claim of cadre allocation.”
“36. In the facts of the present case, the General category cut-off for
the Preliminary Examination was fixed at 267. Respondent No. 1
secured 247.18 marks. Had the Respondent No. 1 been put against
the general standard, his candidature would have been terminated at
the first stage i.e., the Preliminary Examination. His candidature
succeeded in the first stage of the examination because of the
relaxed standards allowed in the Preliminary Examination for SC
candidates i.e. 233 marks. After availing the benefit of this
relaxation for admission to the Main Examination, Respondent No. 1
cannot subsequently claim to have been selected on ‘General
Standard’ merely due to his performance in the subsequent stages
surpassed the general standard. Therefore, if a candidate who has5 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 02:15:31 :::
CWP-38944-2025 6resorted a relaxation at any stage of examination, would not fall
within the purview of the proviso to Rule 14(ii) of the Exam Rules,
2013 and in that situation, for the purpose of the applicable Policy
for cadre allocation, he would not fall within the list of candidates
selected on ‘General Standard’ claiming General Insider vacancy of
home state cadre as insider candidate..
“37. In light of the above exposition of law, we are of the opinion
that in the present fact situation, the ‘General Insider’ vacancy in
Karnataka was rightfully allocated to Respondent No. 3, who
qualified the Preliminary Examination, Main Examination, and
Interview on general standard. It is needless to say, Respondent No.
1, having qualified the Preliminary Examination availing ‘relaxed
standard’, becoming eligible for the Main Examination must be
considered against the reserved vacancies only and cannot be
considered on general/unreserved vacancies for the purpose of
cadre allocation.”
(emphasis added)
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Kiran‘s case (supra) has
clearly held that a reserved category candidate who avails relaxation at any
stage of the examination, including the preliminary/screening stage, cannot
thereafter claim allocation against an unreserved vacancy. The preliminary
examination, though qualifying in nature, is an integral stage of the
examination process and availing relaxed standards at that stage disentitles
the candidate from being treated as selected on “General Standards”.
11. The principle laid down in G. Kiran‘s case (supra) has been
consistently followed in other judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In
Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana vs. Gujarat Public Service Commission,
(2019) 7 SCC 383, it was held as under:-
“23. In the instant case, the State Government has framed policy for
the grant of reservation in favour of SC/ST and OBC by the
Circulars dated 21-1-2000 and 23-7-2004. The State Government
has clarified that when a relaxed standard is applied in selecting a
candidate for SC/ST, SEBC category in the age-limit, experience,
qualification, permitting number of chances in the written
examination, etc., then candidate of such category selected in the6 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 02:15:31 :::
CWP-38944-2025 7said manner, shall have to be considered only against his/her
reserved post. Such a candidate would be deemed as unavailable for
consideration against unreserved post.”
“34. There is also no merit in the submission of the learned counsel
for the appellant that relaxation in age at the initial qualifying stage
would not fall foul of the circulars. The distinction sought to be
drawn between the preliminary and final examination is totally
misconceived. It is evident from the advertisement that a person
who avails of an age relaxation at the initial stage will necessarily
avail of the same relaxation even at the final stage. We are of the
view that the age relaxation granted to the candidates belonging to
SC/ST and SEBC category in the instant case is an incident of
reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India.”
(emphasis added)
12. Similarly, in Gaurav Pradhan vs. State of Rajasthan, (2018)
11 SCC 352, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that candidates belonging to
SC/ST/OBC who had taken relaxation of age were not entitled to be
migrated to unreserved vacancies.
13. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in Saurav Yadav‘s case (supra) is clearly distinguishable. As, the
candidates there had not availed any relaxation or concession at any stage
of the selection process. The principle of migration laid down in those
judgments applies only to candidates who are selected on their own merit
without any relaxation. This distinction has been clearly recognized by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Kiran‘s case (supra).
14. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of this
Court in Parmila’s case (supra) is also of no avail for the simple reason
that the operation and effect of the Division Bench judgment dated
09.04.2025 in LPA No.329 of 2024 was stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court on 26.08.2025 in SLP (C) No.24552 of 2025 (Annexure P-15). The
advertisement in the present case was issued on 13.08.2025 and the
7 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 02:15:31 :::
CWP-38944-2025 8
selection process was conducted in November-December 2025. During this
entire period, the Parmila judgment was under stay and therefore could not
have been relied upon by the petitioner.
15. Even otherwise, the Parmila (supra) judgment dealt with the
question of whether migration should be applied at the screening test stage
or at the final stage. It did not overrule the fundamental condition that
migration is permissible only for those candidates who have not availed
any relaxation. The principle that a candidate who avails relaxation cannot
be migrated remains unaffected even by Parmila (supra).
16. It is also well settled that a candidate who participates in the
selection process without any protest and is unsuccessful cannot
subsequently challenge the process. The petitioner participated in all stages
of the selection process – Screening Test, Subject Knowledge Test and
Interview. He approached this Court only after being declared
unsuccessful. Such a challenge is impermissible in law. In this regard the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar (2010) 12
SCC 576, while speaking through Justice G.S Singhvi, observed that,
“14. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part
in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19%
marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not
entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if
the petitioner’s name had appeared in the merit list, he would not
have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner
invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not
figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct
of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the
selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to
entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made
to the judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J. & K. (1995) 3 SCC
486, Marripati Nagaraja v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and
others (2007) 11 SCC 522, Dhananjay Malik and others v. State of
Uttaranchal and others (2008) 4 SCC 171, Amlan Jyoti Borooah v.
8 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 02:15:31 :::
CWP-38944-2025 9
State of Assam (2009) 3 SCC 227 and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian
Airlines and others (supra).”
(emphasis added)
17. Reliance in this regard may also be placed on judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Sarana vs. University of Lucknow, (1976) 3
SCC 585, Madan Lal vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1995) 3 SCC 486
and Sadananda Halo and Others v. Momtaz Ali Sheikhand Others (2008)
4 SCC 619.
20. Further, at the foundation of the entire selection process and
procedure, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant clause in the
advertisement itself. Clause 16.(ix) of the Advertisement No.20/2025
(Annexure P-1) reads as under:-
“It is clarified that only such SC/BC-A (Non Creamy Layer)/BC-B
(Non Creamy Layer) candidates who are selected on the same
standards as applied to General candidates shall not be adjusted
against reserved vacancies. In other words, when a relax standard
is applied in selection of an SC/BC-A (Non Creamy Layer)/BC-B
(Non Creamy Layer) candidate, e.g. in the age limit, experience,
qualification, extended zone of consideration larger than what is
provided for general category candidate etc. the SC/BC-A (Non
Creamy Layer)/BC-B (Non Creamy Layer) candidates are to be
counted against reserve vacancies. Such candidates would be
deemed as unavailable for consideration against unreserved
vacancies.”
(emphasis added)
18. A bare perusal of the advertisement (Annexure P-1), clearly
stipulates that when a relax standard is applied in selection of a
9 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 02:15:31 :::
CWP-38944-2025 10
candidate, such candidates would be deemed as unavailable for
consideration against unreserved vacancies. It is trite law that
advertisement shall have the force of law and bind the parties,
consequently the candidate Nikhil Yadav would be deemed to be
unavailable for consideration against unreserved vacancies in terms of the
Clause 16.(ix) of the Advertisement (Annexure P-1). Reference in this
regard may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2023
INSC 145 wherein it was held that an advertisement, made pursuant to a
notification, binds the parties and has all the trappings of a statutory
prescription. Reliance in this regard may also be placed on the judgments
rendered by Full Benches of this court in Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State
of Punjab, (1993) 4 SLR 673, Raj Singh v. Maharshi Dayanand
University, 1994 (4) RSJ 289, Indu Gupta v. Director of Sports, Punjab
1999(4) S.C.T. 113.
19. Even assuming without admitting that there was any error in
the selection process, the petitioner has no vested right to appointment, as
crystallized by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tej
Prakash Pathak & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court 2024 INSC 847.
Selection confers only a right of consideration and not a right to
appointment. No arbitrariness, mala fide or statutory violation has been
shown in the present case.
20. In view of the above discussion, the following principles of
law emerge:-
(i) A reserved category candidate who avails relaxation at any stage
of the examination process, including the preliminary/screening
10 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 02:15:31 :::
CWP-38944-2025 11stage, cannot thereafter claim allocation against an unreserved
vacancy.
(ii) The expression “any relaxation at any stage of the examination”
includes relaxation in qualifying marks at the screening stage, even
though such stage is qualifying in nature and marks obtained therein
are not counted for final merit.
(iii) When a relaxed standard is applied in selecting a reserved
category candidate, such candidate shall be counted against reserved
vacancies and shall be deemed unavailable for consideration against
unreserved vacancies.
(iv) The distinction sought to be drawn between preliminary and
final examination for the purpose of migration is totally
misconceived. A person who avails relaxation at the initial stage will
necessarily avail the same relaxation even at the final stage.
(v) An advertisement has the force of law and binds the parties.
(vi) A candidate who participates in the selection process without
protest and is unsuccessful cannot subsequently challenge the
process.
(vii) A candidate has no vested right to appointment. Selection
confers only a right of consideration, not appointment.
21. As such Nikhil Yadav had availed relaxation at the Screening
Test stage by securing “56.86” marks against the General category cut-off
of “61.8132”. Having availed such relaxation, he was rightly treated as a
BC-B candidate throughout the selection process and could not have been
migrated to the General category. Consequently, the petitioner who secured
11 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 02:15:31 :::
CWP-38944-2025 12
“40.61” marks and was the fourth candidate in the BC-B category merit list
has no claim for selection against the three BC-B vacancies.
22. In view of the above the present petition is accordingly
dismissed. No order as to costs.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
17.02.2026
monika
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes /No
2. Whether reportable : Yes /No
12 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 02:15:31 :::
