Validity of Provisional Results in Educational Qualification Criteria

In a recent legal case, the court delved into the complex issue of the validity of provisional results in educational qualification criteria, leading to a significant legal analysis. The court’s decision has wide-reaching implications on the interpretation of such criteria in similar cases. Let’s explore the key takeaways from this insightful legal analysis.


  • The advertisement issued by the appellant specified that candidates applying for the post of Post-Graduate Teachers must have passed B.Ed. on the date of application submission.
  • Private respondents had appeared for the B.Ed examination and received provisional/confidential results from their respective Universities before the cut-off date of 12.10.2015.
  • The private respondents applied for the post based on the provisional/confidential results provided to them, meeting the requirement set by the advertisement.
  • The appellant rejected the candidature of private respondents solely on the ground that their results were not officially declared by the Universities before the application deadline.
  • Respondents filed writ petitions challenging the order of rejection from the advertisement dated 28.06.2015
  • The writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge
  • The decision of the Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court
  • The appellant/Commission filed intra court appeals against the decisions

Also Read: Court’s Jurisdiction in Re-appraising Arbitrator’s Findings


  • The issue raised is the validity of provisional/confidential results declared by Universities.
  • The question pertains to whether these results can be considered as valid declarations.

Also Read: Contrary Directions in Issuance of Letter of Intent


  • Mr. Maninder Singh pointed out that the High Court directed the appellant to amend its Rules regarding the date of eligibility.
  • Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel, represented the appellant.
  • Mr. P.S. Patwalia, along with Ms. Garima Bajaj, represented the contesting respondents or original writ petitioners.
  • The record was thoroughly examined by the court.

Also Read: Application for Stay in Civil Suit Rejected: Court’s Legal Analysis


  • High Court’s view on not interfering with the order of appeals
  • Confirmation of authenticity of provisional/confidential results by Universities
  • Justification of High Court’s decision based on confirmed results
  • Candidates’ qualification based on results before cut off date
  • Timely submission of applications with provisional/confidential results
  • High Court directed Haryana Staff Selection Commission to consider eligibility of educational qualification at the time of Screening or interview
  • High Court’s directions were deemed unnecessary by the appellate court
  • Appellate court quashed the directions issued by the High Court


  • Respondents not entitled to any salary for the period not worked
  • Entitled for due seniority with increment notionally from date of appointment of other candidates
  • 90 posts to be offered to 74 private respondents and 16 intervenors within four weeks
  • Appointments to be made without delay after verification
  • Seniority of 90 candidates based on inter se merit among them
  • Appeals dismissed, pending intervention applications disposed of


Case Number: C.A. No.-005065-005095 / 2021

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *