The Punjab and Haryana High Court has protected serving teachers from displacement following the Haryana Staff Selection Commission’s revised recruitment result. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar held that the Commission travelled beyond the limited mandate of an earlier court order and the exercise, carried out without notice or opportunity of hearing to the affected appointees, violated the principles of natural justice.
The Bench had earlier stayed the operation of the revised final result for recruitment to the posts of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs) in Haryana after observing that it had led to adverse civil consequences for around 711 candidates, including 291 serving teachers allegedly ousted without notice, hearing or a reasoned order.
The Commission had issued advertisement dated February 21, 2023, inviting online applications for various posts of TGTs under the Department of Elementary Education, Haryana for the Rest of Haryana cadre and Mewat cadre. The petitioners received respective appointment letters from the department in July 2024 and joined duty rendering 18 – 22 months of continuous service since then.
As the matter came up for resumed hearing, Justice Brar quashed the revised final result dated May 28 to the extent that it displaced serving appointees, changed their posts or cadres, or reclassified their sub-categories
Justice Brar directed that teachers appointed pursuant to the original final result dated July 27, 2024, be allowed to continue in service in terms of their existing appointments. The court also protected their original seniority and ordered that no recovery be made of salary and allowances already drawn by them.
Justice Brar found that the Commission’s revised final result had ousted a large number of serving appointees and altered the post, cadre and sub-category of several others without notice or an opportunity of hearing.
“The petitioners, who have played no role whatsoever in the preparation of either the original or the revised answer key, are thus being made to bear the consequences of an exercise undertaken nearly two years after they entered service,” Justice Brar observed.
The dispute arose from an earlier order dated October 27, 2025, pursuant to which the Commission reopened the answer-key issue and subsequently issued the revised result. Justice Brar held that the earlier order had a limited scope and did not authorise the Commission to recast the entire select list or displace candidates who had already joined service.
“There was no direction, express or implied, to undertake an exercise which would recast the select list in its entirety, oust candidates who had already joined service, or alter the posts, cadres and sub-categories of serving appointees who were not even parties before the Co-ordinate Bench,” Justice Brar held.
The court said the liberty to revise the result had to be exercised “in a judicious manner, with due regard to the rights which had accrued to other candidates”. Instead, the revised result had caused “widespread disruption”, including the ouster of serving appointees and changes in their posts, cadres and sub-categories.
“This court is, therefore, of the considered view that the respondent-Commission has travelled beyond the limited mandate of the order dated October 27, 2025,” it held. Justice Brar further held that the affected employees could not have been displaced or had their posts and cadres altered without following due process.
“Unilaterally terminating or displacing such employees, or altering the post and cadre which they have joined, without issuing prior show-cause notices or recording reasons, violates the mandate of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India,” the court said.
Justice Brar added the impugned action, therefore, suffered from a clear violation of the principles of natural justice.” The court also relied on the settled position concerning appointments that had already taken effect in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation.
“Where appointments have taken effect without any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the incumbents, Courts have consistently leaned against disturbing settled positions,” it observed. Finding the revised exercise legally unsustainable, the court said the action had resulted in “the ousting, change of cadre/post and reclassification of sub-categories of the petitioners across eight categories” and was “arbitrary and wholly contrary to settled law”.
The court also questioned the transparency of the revised evaluation. It noted that the revised result merely provided fresh roll numbers and revised cut-off marks, without identifying the questions that had been re-examined, the corrections made to the answer key, if any, or the reasons for the revised evaluation.
“The lack of transparency on the part of the respondent-Commission is further evident” from the manner in which the revised result was issued, the court held. Justice Brar asserted the Court was of the view that the lackadaisical approach adopted by the Commission not only occasioned avoidable complications, but also unsettled an otherwise concluded recruitment process.
“The resultant uncertainty and lack of finality have affected the service and careers of a large number of serving teachers, left the newly selected candidates in a state of limbo, and generated avoidable litigation before this Court,” it observed.
Justice Brar added the consequences of such institutional lapses ought not to be borne by candidates who acted upon the faith and legitimacy of a result duly declared by the respondent-Commission itself. The Commission was expected to exercise “greater circumspection, diligence and institutional responsibility” in future recruitments.
Protecting the existing appointees, Justice Brar also directed that candidates recommended under the revised result be accommodated against available vacancies in their respective subjects, cadres and categories. In case of a deficit, the authorities were directed to create supernumerary posts. Such newly appointed candidates would be placed below the existing appointees in seniority and would not be entitled to back wages. Other consequential benefits were to be paid notionally from the date of joining of the earlier appointees.