‘Eligibility criteria declared by fresh advertisement cannot be changed midway through recruitment process’; Supreme Court upholds reservation of DSP post for SC Sports (Women)

Supreme Court: In an appeal filed against the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court concerning the reservation of posts in the State of Punjab’s government services, including provisions for women’s reservation, the Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. emphasized that no alterations could be made to the recruitment process once the advertisement was issued and deemed it unnecessary to examine the legality of the subsequent roster system for the purpose of the case. Since neither the advertisement nor the Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020 (‘2020 Rules’) providing 33% horizontal reservation for women were challenged, the reservation stood valid.

Thus, the Court concluded that once it is accepted that the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) post in question was reserved for the ‘SC Sports (Women)’ category under Advertisement No.14 dated 11-12-2020, the appellant stood as the only eligible candidate for appointment, being the sole SC woman who had successfully qualified for the post.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court, and upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 03-03-2023.

Background

The present appeal arises from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, which remanded the matter to the Single Judge for fresh adjudication of the writ petitions filed by both the appellant and the private respondent. The matter originated from the reservation of one post of DSP under the ‘Scheduled Caste Sports’ category in Advertisement dated 11-12-2020, which, pursuant to the Rules, 2020, was reserved for women candidates. The appellant, being the top-ranking female candidate in the ‘SC Sports’ category, became eligible for the said post, while the private respondent, although ranked first among male candidates, was not considered due to the gender-specific reservation. The Single Judge had dismissed the private respondent’s writ petition, holding that the reservation was validly made and that the post was rightly reserved for ‘SC Sports (Women)’ in accordance with the prevailing rules at the time. However, the Division Bench, noting contradictory positions taken by the Home Department and the Department of Social Justice, sought the opinion of the Chief Secretary, who opined that the post should have been reserved for the general ‘SC Sports’ category rather than being restricted to women. Based on this, the Division Bench remanded the matter for reconsideration. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has approached this Court, challenging the remand order on the ground that the reservation in question was consistent with the law as it stood on the date of advertisement and application.

Analysis and Decision

The Court observed that although the Chief Secretary of the State filed an affidavit before the Division Bench, stating that the reservation of the DSP post for ‘SC Sports (Women)’ under advertisement dated 11-12-2020 was erroneous and that a fresh advertisement should be issued, no steps were ever taken by the State to actually withdraw the said advertisement. Importantly, the private respondent did not challenge advertisement in its entirety, nor did any other candidate. As such, advertisement dated 11-12-2020 continued to govern the recruitment process, and the respective rights of the appellant and the private respondent must be adjudicated under its terms alone.

The Court further noted that the 100-point roster, which the private respondent relied upon, came into effect only on 29-01-2021, well after the last date for submitting applications under advertisement dated 11-12-2020 which was 30-12-2020. Therefore, this roster could not retrospectively alter the rights of candidates who applied in good faith under the existing advertisement. The recruitment process, once initiated, could not be modified midway through changes in policy or roster.

The Court noted that as per advertisement dated 11-12-2020, there was only one post of DSP available under the ‘SC Sports’ category, and it was reserved for women in line with the 2020 Rules mandating 33% horizontal reservation for women. Accordingly, the private respondent, being male, could not claim entitlement to that post. Moreover, the private respondent participated in the selection process without raising any objections, and it was only after the merit list was released that a representation was made. Since he was not required to apply afresh, he could not later claim ignorance of the terms of the advertisement, especially at such a belated stage.

The Court noted that the appellant had applied under the “SC Sports (Women)” category, which was specifically created under the 2020 Rules to fulfill the requirement of 33% horizontal reservation for women. In contrast, the private respondent had applied under the “SC Sports (80)” category, which referred to the general SC Sports category without gender-based reservation. Consequently, both the appellant and the private respondent were selected against their respective categories. The private respondent was appointed as Deputy Superintendent (Jails) on 26-04-2022, while the appellant, being the only qualified candidate under the “SC Sports (Women)” category, was likely to be appointed as DSP.

The Court also acknowledged the conflicting positions taken by the Department of Home and the Department of Social Justice, Empowerment & Minorities, which had led the Division Bench to seek clarification from the Chief Secretary. However, the Single Judge had resolved the matter by accepting the Home Department’s position that the DSP post was rightly reserved for the “SC Sports (Women)” category. The Court agreed with the Single Judge’s reasoning, emphasizing that once the eligibility criteria were clearly laid down in Advertisement dated 11-12-2020, they could not be altered midway through the recruitment process. Doing so would amount to “changing the rules of the game after the game has been played,” a principle firmly established by the Supreme Court in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512.

The Court concluded that once it is accepted that the DSP post in question was reserved for the ‘SC Sports (Women)’ category in terms of advertisement, the appellant must be recognized as the only eligible candidate for appointment, being the sole SC woman who successfully qualified for the post of DSP.

The Court emphasized that the crucial date for determining eligibility and reservation was 11-12-2020, that is the date of the advertisement. Since neither the advertisement nor the 2020 Rules were ever challenged, the respondents could not rely on subsequent developments, such as the issuance of the roster system on 29-01-2021, to contest the validity of the reservation.

The Court held that no changes could be made to the recruitment process after the issuance of the advertisement, and it was unnecessary to examine the legality of the roster itself for the purpose of deciding the case.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench, and upheld the judgment of the Single Judge dated 03-03-2023. The Court directed that the directions issued in the judgment dated 03-03-2023 shall be complied with within a period of three weeks from the date of the present judgment.