Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder vs State Of Haryana And Others on 6 May, 2026
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
CWP-24324-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-24324-2025
RAVINDER
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
....RESPONDENTS
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 06.03.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 06.05.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded 07.05.2026
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment and reason thereof.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.
Present: Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana
****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J
Prayer
1. This Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed praying for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction especially in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order
dated 24.07.2025 (P-23) issued by Respondents whereby the appointment of
the Petitioners to the post in question has been illegally and arbitrarily
cancelled.
MEENU
2026.05.07 19:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-24324-2025 -2-
Brief Facts
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner applied under the BCB
category pursuant to CET-2022 and appeared in the examination conducted
on 05.11.2022 and 06.11.2022. Respondent Commission issued Advt. No.
3/2023 dated 07.03.2023, advertising various Group-C and Group-D posts
along with qualifications in Appendix-B (later amended on 20.03.2023). The
petitioner, being eligible, applied for multiple posts including Fire Operator-
cum-Driver (Cat. No. 243, Group No. 30). The petitioner qualified
the Physical Measurement Test held on 03.08.2023; gave post preference,
placing the post in question at Preference No. 1 and appeared in the written
examination held on 30.12.2023.
3. The petitioner was declared successful in the final result and was
issued an appointment letter dated 15.03.2024, pursuant to which he joined
and discharged duties satisfactorily.
4. Subsequently, the Commission issued public notices dated
04.03.2024 and 11.03.2024, introducing lists of recognized/unrecognized
institutions after declaration of result. The petitioner’s institute, i.e., National
Institute of Fire and Safety Engineering, Nagpur, was categorized
as unrecognized, leading to issuance of a show cause notice dated 11.06.2024.
Despite submission of a detailed reply asserting recognition by
the Government of Maharashtra, the respondents passed impugned
termination order dated 24.07.2025, holding the petitioner ineligible. The
petitioner had already rendered more than one year of service before
termination.
MEENU
2026.05.07 19:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-24324-2025 -3-
Contentions
On behalf of petitioner
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the criteria regarding
recognition of institutions cannot be altered after completion of the selection
process and declaration of results. It is his submission that the advertisement
only required diploma from an institution recognized by the Government/
Government of India and the petitioner’s diploma is from an
institute recognized by the Government of Maharashtra, thus fulfilling the
prescribed condition. He further submits that the impugned lists dated
04.03.2024 and 11.03.2024 were issued midway/after selection, rendering the
action arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
6. He has placed reliance on various judgments i.e. CWP No. 17558
of 1999; CWP No. 12161 & 12187 of 2006; CWP No. 12589 of 2013; CWP
No. 884 of 2023 decided on 17.08.2023 stating that diplomas recognized
by any State Government or Central Government are valid in view of
instructions dated 18.03.1975.
7. He has argued that respondents failed to consider these binding
principles, moreover, the petitioner, having successfully cleared all stages and
being appointed, had a legitimate expectation of continuity in service. He has
further argued that the petitioner cannot be penalized for any alleged
deficiency in recognition when no such list existed at the time of
advertisement.
8. He has vehemently argued that termination at this stage causes the
petitioner severe financial hardship, loss of livelihood, irreparable prejudice to
future employment prospects, therefore, the termination order
MEENU
2026.05.07 19:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-24324-2025 -4-
dated 24.07.2025 is illegal, arbitrary, and liable to be set aside.
On behalf of respondent
9. Learned State counsel submits that the present writ petition is
wholly misconceived and devoid of merit, as the petitioner admittedly did not
possess the essential qualification prescribed under the Haryana Fire (Group-
C) Service Rules, 2016 and Advertisement No. 3/2023 on the cut-off date. It is
contended that the requirement of having passed a basic fire-fighting course
from an institution recognized by the Government or Government of India
necessarily implies recognition by the Government of Haryana or the Union of
India, and not by any other State Government. Since the petitioner obtained
his diploma from an institute which does not fall within the list of recognized
institutions finalized by the Commission, he was rightly held ineligible.
10. It is further argued that the appointment offered to the petitioner was
purely provisional and subject to verification of eligibility conditions, and
upon scrutiny, when it was found that the petitioner lacked the requisite
qualification, the respondents were fully justified in withdrawing the
appointment after affording due opportunity of hearing and considering his
reply. Reliance is placed upon the terms of the advertisement, particularly
clauses relating to rejection of candidature and cancellation even after
appointment, to contend that no vested right accrues in favour of a candidate
who is ineligible.
11. Learned State Counsel further contends that the issue is no longer
res integra, as a similarly situated matter has already been dismissed by this
Court in CWP No. 26881 of 2025 titled as ‘Deepak Malik vs. State of
MEENU
2026.05.07 19:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-24324-2025 -5-
Haryana and others‘, and the present case is squarely covered by the said
judgment. Reliance is also placed upon the judgments of the Supreme Court
in ‘Ravinder Sharma vs. State of Punjab‘ and ‘State of Gujarat vs. Arvind
Kumar Tiwari‘ to argue that eligibility must be possessed on the last date of
application and that any appointment made in violation of statutory rules is
void ab initio and cannot be protected on equitable grounds.
12. It is thus submitted that since the petitioner lacked the essential
qualification, his candidature was rightly cancelled, the provisional
appointment letter was validly withdrawn, and no interference is warranted
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis
13. The controversy in the present petition lies in a narrow compass
whether the respondents were justified in cancelling the appointment of the
petitioner on the ground that the diploma possessed by him was from an
institute subsequently declared “unrecognized,” despite the fact that such
condition was neither expressly stipulated nor clarified at the time of
advertisement or during the selection process.
14. It is an admitted position on record that the petitioner applied
pursuant to Advertisement No. 3/2023, successfully cleared all stages of
selection including the Physical Measurement Test and written examination,
was declared successful in the final result, and was thereafter issued an
appointment letter dated 15.03.2024. The petitioner joined service and
discharged his duties for more than one year before the impugned order of
termination dated 24.07.2025 came to be passed.
MEENU
2026.05.07 19:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-24324-2025 -6-
15. A perusal of the advertisement reveals that the essential qualification
required was a diploma/course from an institution “recognized by
Government/Government of India.” The said stipulation, on its plain reading,
does not restrict recognition to any particular State Government, much less the
Government of Haryana alone. In the absence of any explicit restriction, the
expression “Government” has to be construed in a broader sense so as to include
any State Government, local authority or any of its instrumentalities and not
restricted to Government of Haryana.
16. The action of the respondents in issuing public notices dated
04.03.2024 and 11.03.2024, whereby a list of recognized/unrecognized
institutions was introduced after the declaration of results, amounts to altering the
eligibility criteria midstream. It is a settled principle of law that the rules of the
game cannot be changed after the game has begun.
17. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Rajendra Bhimrao
Mandve, 2001(10) SCC 51, wherein it was observed that ‘the rules of the game,
meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the
authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has
commenced.’
18. In ‘K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 3 SCC 512′,
wherein the Apex court held that selection criteria cannot be altered after the
selection process has commenced, while observing that:
We have referred to the proper interpretation of the earlier
resolutions dated 24.7.2001 and 21.2.2002 and held that what was
adopted on 30.11.2004 was only minimum marks for written
examination and not for the interviews. Therefore, introduction of
the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire
selection process (consisting of written examination and interview)MEENU
2026.05.07 19:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-24324-2025 -7-was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game
after the game was played which is clearly impermissible.
19. Similarly, in ‘Tej Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High Court,
(2013) 4 SCC 540′, the Supreme Court reiterated that any change in criteria
after initiation of the selection process would be arbitrary and violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It was observed that:
11. In the context of the employment covered by the regime of
Article 309, the ‘law’ – the recruitment rules in theory could be
either prospective or retrospective subject of course to the rule of
non- arbitrariness. However, in the context of employment under
the instrumentalities of the State which is normally regulated by
subordinate legislation, such rules cannot be made retrospectively
unless specifically authorised by some constitutionally valid statute.
12. Under the Scheme of our Constitution an absolute and non-
negotiable prohibition against retrospective law making is made
only with reference to the creation of crimes. Any other legal right
or obligation could be created, altered, extinguished retrospectively
by the sovereign law making bodies. However such drastic power is
required to be exercised in a manner that it does not conflict with
any other constitutionally guaranteed rights, such as, Articles 14
and 16 etc. Changing the ‘rules of game’ either midstream or after
the game is played is an aspect of retrospective law making power.
13. Those various cases3 deal with situations where the State
sought to alter 1) the eligibility criteria of the candidates seeking
employment or 2) the method and manner of making the selection of
the suitable candidates. The latter could be termed as the procedure
adopted for the selection, such as, prescribing minimum cut off
marks to be secured by the candidates either in the written
examination or viva-voce as was done in the case of Manjusree
(supra) or the present case or calling upon the candidates to
undergo some test relevant to the nature of the employment [such as
driving test as was the case in Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation (supra)].
X X X X X X X
19. No doubt it is a salutary principle not to permit the State or its
instrumentalities to tinker with the ‘rules of the game’ insofar as the
prescription of eligibility criteria is concerned as was done in the
case of C. Channabasavaiah v. State of Mysore [AIR 1965 Supreme
Court 1293] etc. in order to avoid manipulation of the recruitment
MEENU
2026.05.07 19:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-24324-2025 -8-
process and its results. Whether such a principle should be applied
in the context of the ‘rules of the game’ stipulating the procedure for
selection more particularly when the change sought is to impose a
more rigorous scrutiny for selection requires an authoritative
pronouncement of a larger Bench of this Court. We, therefore,
order that the matter be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of
India for appropriate orders in this regard.
20. Further, the contention of the respondents that recognition must
necessarily be by the Government of Haryana is not borne out from the terms
of the advertisement. The petitioner has placed on record that the institute
from which he obtained his diploma is recognized by the Government of
Maharashtra. In the absence of any restriction in the advertisement, such
qualification cannot be disregarded. Otherwise also, the qualifications
recognized by any State Government are to be treated as valid, particularly in
the absence of a contrary stipulation or specifically excluded.
21. Moreover, the petitioner had not only been selected but had also
been appointed and allowed to serve. At that stage, he had acquired a
legitimate expectation that his service would not be terminated except in
accordance with law. The doctrine of legitimate expectation, as explained by
the Supreme Court in ‘Navjyoti Co-op. Group Housing Society vs. Union of
India, (1992) 4 SCC 477′, squarely applies in the present case.
22. The reliance placed by the respondents on the provisional nature of
the appointment does not come to their aid. While it is true that an
appointment may be subject to verification, such verification must be in
consonance with the conditions as they existed at the time of advertisement. It
cannot be used as a tool to introduce new disqualifications retrospectively.
MEENU
2026.05.07 19:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-24324-2025 -9-
Conclusion
23. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned order dated 24.07.2025 (Annexure P-23) cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed.. The action of the
respondents in declaring the petitioner ineligible on the basis of criteria
introduced after the completion of the selection process is arbitrary,
unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
24. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents
are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith to the post applied
for by the petitioner, with continuity of service and all consequential benefits,
in accordance with law.
25. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
06.05.2026
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
MEENU
2026.05.07 19:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
