← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/25288/2025disposed of

Shalini Sharma v. State Of Haryana And Others

2025-08-28Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-25288-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.08.2025 Shalini Sharma ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Mr. Mazlish Khan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1.

Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing and setting aside the Final Result dated 15.03.2021 and 22.03.2021 (Annexure P-4 and P-4A), declared by respondent No.2, in respect of Category No.09 (Post of Divisional Accountant) advertised vide Advertisement No.11 of 2019 dated 05.07.2019 (Annexure P-2). Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondent No.2 to recompute/revised and republish the final result for Category Nos.09 (Divisional Accountant) under Advertisement No.11/2019 by entirely excluding the 10 marks earlier allocated under the SECE criteria, now-quashed and to redraw the merit list strictly on the basis of 90 marks allocated for the written

examination alone. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Divisional Accountant, Category No.09, if upon revision of the final merit list in accordance with law she fall within the zone of selection, and further direct that such appointments, if made, shall relate back to the date of initial appointments made pursuant to the original merit list, with consequential benefits including seniority, notional pay fixation, and pay parity with similarly placed candidates. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied if the legal notice dated 16.08.2025 (Annexure P-8) of the petitioner is decided by respondent No.2 by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner.

3.

Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3, appearing on advance notice, submits that they have no objection, in case a direction is issued to respondent No.2 for time-bound consideration and decision of the legal notice dated 16.08.2025 of the petitioner by passing a speaking order. 4.

Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No.2 is directed to consider the legal notice dated 16.08.2025 (Annexure P-8) of the petitioner in terms of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No.16904 of 2021, titled as Neeraj vs State of Haryana and another, decided on 06.08.2025 and in view of the Single Bench judgment of this Court passed in CWP No.22615 of 2025, titled as Ritu and others vs State of

Haryana and others, decided on 06.08.2025 and pass a speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, 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. 5.

Disposed of, accordingly.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 28.08.2025 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No