Bhateri Bai v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-19036-2026 Date of decision: 01.07.2026 Bhateri Bai ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Ms. Dhamanpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Nain, DAG, Haryana.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1.

The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and promote the petitioner to the post of PGT English/Lecturer English as she possesses the requisite essential qualification with more than 50% marks from recognized University and experience. Further, for directing the respondents to grant relaxation to the petitioner from the requirement of two years' teaching experience as TGT English under Rule 17 of the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group-B) Service Rules, 2012 particularly when similar relaxations/exemptions were earlier granted by the Government in respect of HTET/STET and B.Ed. qualifications vide notifications (Annexures P-6 to P-8). 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner became eligible under the 1998 Rules, as such, 2012 Rules cannot be retrospectively applied to the petitioner to her disadvantage. Further, similarly NEHA 2026.07.02 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

CWP-19036-2026 -2situated persons have been granted relaxations but the petitioner has been denied the same relief. Further, under Rule 17, the respondents have power to relax the conditions.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that she would be satisfied if the representation (Annexure P-9) of the petitioner is decided by respondent No.2 by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner. 4.

Learned State counsel, appearing on advanced notice, submits that he has no objection in case a direction is issued to respondent No.2 for timebound consideration and decision of the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking order.

5.

Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation (Annexure P-9) of the petitioner and pass a speaking order, after affording her an opportunity to be heard, within a period of 03 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent No.2. 6.

Disposed of, accordingly.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 01.07.2026 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No NEHA 2026.07.02 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh