The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the maintenance of status quo regarding the services of two school teachers who challenged their removal from the selection zone after a revised result was published nearly two years following their appointment as Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT-English).
Interim Order by Justice Manisha Batra
Justice Manisha Batra issued the interim order while hearing a petition filed by Pinki and another teacher against the State of Haryana and other respondents. The petitioners argued that they had applied for selection and appointment as TGT (English) under the general category, being fully eligible and qualified candidates.
Appointment and Revised Result
After clearing the written examination and securing 64.6 marks, they were selected and appointed. Appointment letters were issued, and they joined service on July 29, 2024. The dispute arose after a revised result was issued on May 28, 2026. According to the petitioners, the revised final list indicated that the last selected candidate in the relevant category also had 64.6 marks. Consequently, they were allegedly pushed out of the selection zone based on age.
“The petitioners have been ousted from the selection zone after joining and serving the respondents for about two years, on the ground that they are younger in age,” their counsel contended, while seeking directions to allow them to continue in service as TGT (English) teachers based on the first final selection list declared on July 27, 2024. They also sought protection against termination of their services.
Legal Arguments
Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Jasbir Singh Mor argued that the action of removing them from the selection zone after their appointment and continued service was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the principles of natural justice. He maintained that their services could not be terminated in such a manner. The counsel further relied upon a series of judicial precedents to contend that “cancellation of selection process after its completion and preparation of final selection list is not permissible in law.”
After issuing notice of motion, Justice Batra adjourned the matter to June 15. “In the meanwhile, status quo with regard to services of the petitioners is ordered to be maintained,” the Bench directed.
