Advertisement Cannot Restrict Statutory Age Relaxation to Experience on ‘Equivalent Post’ When Service Rules Require Only Teaching Experience: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Naresh Kumari v. State of Haryana and Others & Connected Cases
Date of Judgment: 6 August 2026
Citation: CWP-28252-2024 & Connected Cases
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that conditions in a recruitment advertisement or executive instructions cannot override or restrict statutory service rules. Where Rule 5 of the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group B) Service Rules, 2012 grants age relaxation based on teaching experience, the HPSC could not introduce an additional requirement that such experience must be on an “equivalent post.”
The Court clarified that executive instructions may supplement statutory rules but cannot supplant, amend or curtail them.
Summary: The petitions concerned recruitment to various PGT posts in Haryana. The petitioners possessed teaching experience but were over the prescribed upper age limit of 42 years. HPSC denied them age relaxation because Clause 10(ix) of the advertisement restricted such relaxation to experience gained on an “equivalent post.”
The petitioners relied upon Rule 5 of the 2012 Service Rules, which grants teachers working in privately managed Government-aided, recognised and Government schools age relaxation equivalent to their teaching service, subject to a maximum of five years and as a one-time measure. Importantly, Rule 5 contains no requirement that the teaching experience must have been acquired on an equivalent post.
The High Court held that reading the words “equivalent post” into Rule 5 would impermissibly restrict the statutory benefit and defeat its object. It reiterated that whenever an advertisement conflicts with governing statutory rules, the statutory rules must prevail.
Decision: All writ petitions were allowed. The orders rejecting the petitioners’ candidature for lack of experience on an “equivalent post” were quashed. HPSC was directed to reconsider them after granting age relaxation under Rule 5, provided they had not previously availed the one-time relaxation for regular appointment. If found eligible and meritorious, they were to be offered appointment with consequential notional benefits.