DATE: 09/04/2025
COURT: Supreme Court of India
BENCH: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice
K. Vinod Chandran
FACTS:
Based on
a requisition issued by the State Government, the fourth respondent—Punjab
Public Service Commission—issued an advertisement inviting applications for
recruitment to 77 posts in State government services through the Punjab State
Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination-2020. Among these, 26 posts
were for the role of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). The advertisement
also reserved certain seats for Scheduled Caste (SC) candidates, including two
vacancies under the ‘Scheduled Caste Sports’ category—one for DSP and the other
for Deputy Superintendent (Jails)/District Probation Officer (DSJ/DPO).
Both the
private respondent and the appellant applied under the ‘SC Sports’ category.
Subsequently, the Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules,
2020, were notified, introducing a 33% reservation for women across all posts.
Following this development, the initial advertisement was withdrawn, and a new
one—advertisement no.14—was issued. Under the revised advertisement, the
private respondent ranked first among male candidates, and the appellant ranked
first among female candidates in the ‘SC Sports’ category.
Disputing
the reservation of the DSP post specifically for women under the ‘SC Sports’
category, the private respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court.
He sought to quash the advertisement only to the extent of the gender-based
reservation for the DSP post, arguing that it violated the roster issued on
January 29, 2021. The Single Judge dismissed the petition. In the meantime, the
private respondent joined the position of Deputy Superintendent (Jails), but
did so under protest.
Upon
appeal, the Division Bench was informed by the Chief Secretary, who supported
the Department of Social Justice’s view, that there was an inadvertent error in
the advertisement—the DSP post should have been reserved for ‘SC Sports’
generally, and not specifically for ‘SC Sports (Women)’. Consequently, the
Division Bench referred the matter back to the Single Bench. It was this
referral order that was later challenged before the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
The main issue in this case was over the
fact that the High Court bench which over turned the judgement made by the
Single Judge Bench dated 03/03/2023 by the lower court. The appeal was brought
on the basis that this reversal of judgement was not advised.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order passed by the
Division Bench and restoring the judgment of the Single Judge dated 03.03.2023.
The Court upheld the appointment of the appellant as Deputy Superintendent of
Police (DSP), holding that she was the only eligible candidate under the ‘SC
Sports (Women)’ category in accordance with Advertisement No.14 dated
11.12.2020. Directions issued in the Single Judge's judgment were directed to
be complied with within three weeks.
The
Court reasoned that Advertisement No.14, issued on 11.12.2020, is the governing
document in this case, and it clearly reserved the sole post of DSP under the
‘SC Sports’ category specifically for women. This reservation was in line with
the Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020, which
mandated 33% reservation for women in all government posts. Since the
advertisement and the 2020 Rules were never challenged by any party, their
validity remained unquestioned. The Court emphasized that no subsequent
change—such as the alleged roster dated 29.01.2021—could alter the reservation
status after the issuance of the advertisement. As such, the private
respondent’s challenge to the reservation for women came too late and lacked
merit, especially since he had participated in the recruitment process without
raising any objections initially.
Furthermore,
the Court underscored that the appellant was the only SC woman candidate under
the ‘SC Sports’ category who had qualified all stages of the recruitment
process for DSP. Hence, she rightfully deserved the appointment. Referring to
the precedent in Tej Prakash Pathak v.
High Court of Rajasthan (2025), the Bench reiterated that the ‘rules of
the game’ could not be changed mid-process. The private respondent, having
already accepted an appointment under a different post (Deputy Superintendent
of Jails), could not retroactively challenge the terms of the advertisement.
The Court found it unjustified for him to claim ignorance or protest only after
the merit list was declared. Thus, it concluded that the appellant alone
fulfilled the criteria for the reserved post and should be appointed
accordingly.
ANALYSIS:
The
Supreme Court’s judgment in this case underscores the importance of adhering
strictly to the recruitment rules and conditions as laid out in the governing
advertisement at the time of application. The Court held that Advertisement
No.14, dated 11.12.2020, which specifically reserved the DSP post under the 'SC
Sports' category for women, was valid and binding. The decision affirms the
principle that once recruitment is initiated under a set of rules, those rules
cannot be altered retroactively to favor or disqualify candidates. The Court
emphasized that both the advertisement and the 2020 Rules mandating 33%
reservation for women had not been challenged by any party, and therefore must
be respected as the operative framework. The private respondent's challenge—raised
only after the merit list was released—was viewed as belated and opportunistic,
especially since he had participated in the process without objection.
Furthermore,
the judgment highlights the principle of non-interference in administrative
processes unless there is clear illegality or procedural irregularity. The
Court reiterated that the State and its instrumentalities cannot "tinker
with the rules of the game" after the game has begun, relying on the
precedent of Tej Prakash Pathak v.
High Court of Rajasthan. By restoring the Single Judge’s decision, the
Supreme Court also reinforced judicial discipline in appellate review,
indicating that the Division Bench erred in referring the case back without
adequate legal justification. This case sets a clear precedent that procedural
fairness and clarity in recruitment rules are paramount, and that reservations
and eligibility must be applied as expressly stated at the time of
advertisement.
info@adhwaitha.com