The Punjab and Haryana High Court has 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.Issuing notice of motion for August 10, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar asserted: “In the meantime, the operation of the revised final result published vide announcement dated May 28 shall remain stayed, in order to maintain status quo regarding the service of the petitioners.”Justice Brar’s Bench held that Haryana Staff Selection Commission’s action, prima facie, failed the test of fairness and reasonableness. The Bench was hearing a bunch of petitions filed by Savita and other petitioners against the State of Haryana and other respondents.The petitioners were seeking the quashing of the revised final result dated May 28. Among other things, they contended that they were selected in the original final result declared on July 27, 2024, were appointed as TGTs, allotted places of posting and were serving since then. They contended that the revised result removed them from the original recommendation despite their having already joined service. Directions were also sought for continuation in service with all consequential benefits, including continuity of service, seniority, increments, probation and leave.Justice Brar’s Bench was told that the commission issued the advertisement on February 21, 2023, for recruitment to various posts of TGT under the rest of Haryana and Mewat cadres. The petitioners submitted that certain unsuccessful candidates had earlier approached the High Court challenging the manner in which objections to the answer key in five subjects—English, Physical Education, Sanskrit, Home Science and Punjabi—had been dealt with by the commission. The petitioners maintained that they were neither impleaded as parties nor served with notice in those proceedings and, therefore, had no reason to anticipate that their appointments and continuity in service would be jeopardised.The court noted that a Coordinate Bench disposed of those petitions on October 27, 2025, after recording the State’s statement that objections originally raised during the notified period would be referred to independent subject experts and that the final selection result would be revised, if necessary.The petitioners further contended that the commission issued the impugned revised final result in purported compliance with the October 27, 2025, order. Their counsel argued that the commission “has gone beyond the limited mandate” of the earlier order as the revised result affected eight category numbers across five subjects, resulting in the ouster of 291 candidates, change of cadre or post for 227 candidates, change of sub-category for 193 candidates and inclusion of 355 new candidates.It was added that the respondent-commission caused severe adverse consequences to approximately 711 persons without issuing notice or providing an opportunity to be heard. “In fact, no reasoned order has been issued to explain and justify the said action either,” it was added.The petitioners also argued that the revised final result merely published fresh roll numbers and revised cut-off marks without disclosing the specific questions that were re-examined, the corrections made in the answer key, the identity and credentials of the experts consulted or the justification forming the basis of the revised evaluation.It was added that the original answer key, having undergone three rounds of objections, carried a presumption of correctness and could not be displaced by a subsequent competing expert opinion without demonstrable errors being declared.After considering the submissions, Justice Brar observed that the impugned revised final result had “caused adverse civil consequences to approximately 711 candidates”, including “291 incumbents, who were ousted without notice, hearing or reasoned order.” The Court further noted that “the petitioners are amongst these 291 candidates whose appointments have been cancelled after they had served for about two years.”Expressing concern over the manner in which the revised result had been issued, the Bench held: “In view of the lack of transparency on the part of the respondent-commission, its action in issuing the Revised Final Result fails the test of fairness and reasonableness.”The Bench also directed the commission to file an affidavit through an appropriate office-bearer disclosing the exact number of vacancies available for the post of TGT in various subjects advertised by the Commission; the questions affected by the objections together with their revised answers; the justification for every revised answer; the names and credentials of the experts engaged for examining the objections and whether the independent expert had declared the earlier answers to be incorrect; and the impact of the re-evaluation on each roll number that was ousted, along with the rationale, if any, for the consequent cadre re-allocation. The affidavit has been directed to be filed in the Registry at least one week before the next date of hearing.