2025 INSC 479
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. AND
HON’BLE K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.)
PRABHJOT KAUR
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND
ORS.
Respondent
Civil Appeal No(S).________________________________OF
2025 [@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(S). 17747 OF 2023]-Decided on
09-04-2025
Service
Law
(A) Punjab State
Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination-2020 - Punjab Civil Services
(Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020 – Service Law - Reservation for
women
– Recruitment – Post of DSP - In
view of the Reservation Rules, 2020, advertisement for recruitment was
withdrawn and fresh subsequent advertisement no. 14 dated 11.12.2020 was issued
which was not challenged - Advertisement did not have any post for DSP 'SC
Sports' (since the only DSP post against the 'SC Sports' category came to be
reserved for women under the 2020 Rules) -
No post other than Deputy Superintendent (Jails)/DPO 'SC Sports' for
which the private respondent's application could be considered – Held that
advertisement no. 14 dated 11.12.2020 holds the field and it is only under this
advertisement that the respective rights of the appellant and private
respondent can be determined - The
roster relied upon by the private respondent came later, on 29.01.2021, even
after the last date for submitting applications under the subsequent
advertisement no. 14 of 11.12.2020 had passed - Hence, it cannot influence the
rights and entitlements of those who had applied and taken part in the
recruitment process under the advertisement no. 14 of 11.12.2020 – Once it is
accepted that the DSP post in question was reserved for 'SC Sports (Women)' as
per advertisement no. 14 of 11.12.2020, the appellant must be accepted as the
only person qualified in her category who could be appointed - This is because
she is the only SC woman candidate who successfully cleared all the tests for
the post of DSP - The crucial date in
the present case is the advertisement dated 11.12.2020 - This advertisement
follows the 2020 Rules where 33% of reservation was to be made for women on
every government post - Thus, DSP SC Sports was reserved for women - Held that
post 11.12.2020 no change could have been made - Impugned order passed by the
Division Bench liable to be set aside by upholding the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 03.03.2023 - The directions given in the judgment dated 03.03.2023
directed to be complied within three weeks.
(Para
23 to 25)
(B) Punjab State
Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination-2020 - Punjab Civil Services
(Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020 – Service Law - Estoppel - Recruitment
– Post of DSP - Reservation for women – Estoppel - The recruitment process had
begun with the publication of the advertisement calling for applications and
the process ends with filling of the vacancies - The selection process had
begun and midway changes could not have taken place - Private respondent
participated in the entire recruitment process without protest, and made a
representation only after the merit list was released by the Public Service
Commission - Though the private respondent was not exempted from applying
afresh pursuant to advertisement no. 14 of 11.12.2020, it was not open for the
private respondent to plead ignorance of the terms of the advertisement at such
a belated stage - Present Petitioner applied under the category "SC Sports
(Women)" which was a category created pursuant to the 2020 Rules, in order
to meet the mandate of reservation of 33% seats for women - The private
respondent on the other hand, applied under the category "SC Sports
(80)" - Consequently, both the
Petitioner as well as the private respondent came be selected against their
respective categories - Findings of the learned Single Judge upheld for the
reason that once an eligibility criteria was declared by means of a fresh
Advertisement i.e. Advertisement No. 14 dated 11.12.2020, the same cannot be
changed midway through the recruitment process, as the same would tantamount to
'changing the rules of the game, after the game is played'.
(Para
17 to 21)
JUDGMENT
Sudhanshu Dhulia,
J. :- Leave
granted.
2. By way of the present appeal,
the appellant challenges an order of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court at Chandigarh passed on 18.07.2023.
3. This appeal involves the question
of reservations of posts in the government services of the State of Punjab;
including reservation for women. It is necessary here to elaborate upon some
essential facts of this case in order to better appreciate the controversy
before us.
These facts are as follows:
a. On
the basis of a requisition issued by the State government on 17.04.2020, the
Respondent no. 4-Punjab Public Service Commission ('Public Service Commission')
issued advertisement no. 08 on 04.06.2020 for recruitment to 77 posts in the State
government services through the Punjab State Civil Services Combined
Competitive Examination-2020. This included the 26 posts of Deputy
Superintendent of Police ('DSP') with which we are presently concerned. The
preliminary examination was tentatively scheduled for September 2020 while the
last date for submitting online applications was fixed as 30.06.2020.
b. In
this advertisement, which is advertisement no.08, some seats were reserved for
members of the SC community. For our purposes, it is relevant that a total of
two vacancies were advertised for 'Scheduled Caste Sports'-one for DSP and the
other for Deputy Superintendent (Jails)/District Probation Officer ('DSJ/DPO').
c. Respondent
no. 5 herein ('private respondent') applied in the 'Scheduled Caste Sports'
category on 09.06.2020. Appellant too had applied as SC Sports candidate.
d. Meanwhile,
on 21.10.2020, the Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women)
Rules, 2020 ('2020 Rules') were made and notified.
e. These
Rules are applicable to all posts to be filled by direct recruitment in all
government establishments in Groups A, B, C, D services, and importantly it
provided for 33% reservation for women in all posts. Under the 2020 Rules, this
reservation is to be horizontal and compartmentalized, which means reservation within
each category of Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled
Tribes, Backward Classes, Other Backward Classes, Economically Weaker Sections,
and Open Category. Sub-rule 5 of the 2020 Rules provides for the procedure for reservation
of posts.
f. In light
of the notification of the 2020 Rules, the State government withdrew its
requisition dated 17.04.2020, on which was based the advertisement no.08 dated
04.06.2020, which was issued by the Public Service Commission. The reason being
that now a fresh requisition would have to be now issued in compliance with the
2020 Rules, which mandated 33% reservation for women. As a result, on
08.12.2020, the State government wrote to the Public Service Commission asking
for the withdrawal of advertisement no. 08 dated 04.06.2020 (a public notice
with respect to withdrawal of the advertisement no. 08 was issued by the Public
Service Commission on the very next day i.e. 09.12.2020).
g. On
11.12.2020, the Public Service Commission issued a new advertisement which is
advertisement no. 14. However, there was a material difference when it comes to
reservations for the 'SC Sports' category. This time, only one post for 'SC
Sports' was available, but this was now for the post of Deputy Superintendent
(Jails)/DPO. Thereafter, one DSP post was reserved for 'SC Sports (Women)', a category
which was created pursuant to the 2020 Rules.
h. It
is pertinent to note that in accordance with the decision taken to avoid undue
inconvenience to such candidates who had applied earlier under the previous
advertisement no.08 (04.06.2020), it was decided that such candidates need not
apply afresh under the new advertisement no. 14 (11.12.2020), and their earlier
applications would be considered.
i. The
last date for submitting applications in terms of fresh advertisement no. 14
was 30.12.2020.
j. On
29.12.2020, an amendment was made to the 2020 Rules which provided for 33%
reservation for women as per the roster system contained in 'Annexure A'.
k. Pursuant
to the amendment, the State government issued a 100-point roster for different reserved
posts in the State government services on 29.01.2021.
l. After
successful completion of the Punjab State Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination-2020,
the results were declared on 18.06.2021.
m. In
the merit list, the private respondent stood 1st amongst males, while the
appellant stood 1st amongst females, under the 'SC Sports' category.
n. On
14.10.2021, the private respondent made a representation to the Chief Minister
of Punjab, alleging that the DSP post for 'SC Sports' should not have been
reserved for women, and that this is in violation of the roster issued by the
State government on 29.01.2021.
o. The
private respondent then filed a Writ Petition before the High Court praying for
quashing of the advertisement no. 14 dated 11.12.2020, not in its entirety, but
only to the extent that it reserved the DSP post under the 'SC Sports' category
for women, in violation of the roster of 29.01.2021, and further praying for
directions to the State government to appoint the private respondent as DSP
against the 'SC Sports' seat.
p. An
interim order passed on 16.12.2021 in the Writ Petition filed by the private
respondent recorded that the counselling for the post of DSP 'SC Sports
(Woman)' seat was kept in abeyance by the State. Aggrieved by this, the
appellant also filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. Both these Writ
Petitions were decided by way of a common order dated 03.03.2023 by the learned
Single Judge, which has given rise to the present litigation.
4. In a well-considered decision,
the learned Single Judge dismissed the private respondent's Writ Petition
(consequently, the appellant's Writ Petition was adjudged infructuous). At the
outset, the learned Single Judge notes that the private respondent had not
challenged the subsequent advertisement no. 14 dated 11.12.2020 in its
entirety, but only insofar as it reserved the DSP post under the 'SC Sports'
category for women. It was also noticed that even though the private respondent
had applied in the earlier round under advertisement no. 08 and he did not
apply under the subsequent advertisement no. 14 in light of the leeway given to
candidates who had already applied, his application must be considered under
advertisement no. 14 dated 11.12.2020, which did not have any post for DSP 'SC
Sports' (since the only DSP post against the 'SC Sports' category came to be
reserved for women under the 2020 Rules). There was no post other than Deputy
Superintendent (Jails)/DPO 'SC Sports' for which the private respondent's
application could be considered. Resultantly, the private respondent (i.e., the
Petitioner before the High Court) cannot be appointed to a post i.e. DSP 'SC
Sports' which was reserved for 'SC Sports (Women)'. Meanwhile the private
respondent who had in any case made the selections, joined the post of Deputy
Superintendent (Jails), albeit under protest.
5. The learned Single Judge
highlighted the fact that the roster points fixed by government communication
dated 29.01.2021 came only after the last date for submission of applications
under the fresh advertisement no. 14, which was 30.12.2020. Further, the State
government never revised/reviewed the requisition in light of the roster, and
hence, the requisition for one DSP post for 'SC Sports
(Woman)'
continued.
6. The private respondent
challenged this order of the learned Single Judge by filing a Letters Patent
Appeal, which went before the Division Bench of the High Court.
7. The Division Bench laid
emphasis on the contradictory stand adopted by two departments of the State
government before the learned Single Judge during the proceedings in the Writ
Petition(s). While the Home Department took the view that the DSP post was
reserved, for the 'SC Sports (Women)' category, the Department of Social
Justice was of the view that the DSP post in question should be reserved for
'SC Sports' (in other words, it should not be reserved for women alone). The
Division Bench was of the opinion that the learned Single Judge accepted the
stand taken by the Home Department while arriving at his decision. The Division
Bench, however, called upon the Chief Secretary of Punjab to resolve the
conflict between the stands taken by the two above-mentioned Departments of the
State Government. The Chief Secretary supported the stand of the Department of
Social Justice, on the ground that a mistake had crept into the advertisement
no. 14, and that the DSP post should have been reserved for 'SC Sports', and
not
'SC
Sports (Women)'.
8. In light of the stand taken by
the Chief Secretary, the Division Bench remanded the matter to the learned
Single Judge for fresh adjudication of both the Writ Petitions (filed by the
appellant and private respondent, respectively). This is the order which has
been challenged before us by the appellant.
9. Sri P.S. Patwalia, learned
Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant, would submit that the learned
Single Judge had considered the contradictory stands taken by the Home
Department and Department of Social Justice before passing a well-reasoned
order, which the Division Bench ought not to have interfered with. Learned
Senior Counsel further argues that the stand of the Chief Secretary before the
Division Bench is incorrect since the roster was issued nearly two months after
the last date of submitting application forms under the advertisement no. 14
expired, and it cannot be implemented retrospectively. The learned Senior
Counsel would also argue that the principle applicable to horizontal
reservation is different from the one applied to vertical reservation and
horizontal reservation has no concept of 'roster system', where only vertical reservation
applies.
10. On the other hand, Sri
Gurminder Singh, learned Senior Counsel representing the private respondent,
would argue that the advertisement no. 14 of 11.12.2020 is violative of the
2020 Rules to begin with. Vertical reservations in terms of the 2020 Rules have
to be within each horizontal category, and the reservation of one post for DSP
for women within the SC category cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law.
The learned Senior Counsel would also place reliance on the amendment to the
2020 Rules, in terms of which 33% reservation for women has to be as per roster
points introduced on 29.02.2021. Hence, it is incorrect to state that the
roster points would not apply to the advertisement no. 14 because the roster points
apply from the date of the amendment to the 2020 Rules.
11. Sri Raj at Bharadwaj, learned
Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Punjab, would submit
that this appeal deserves to be dismissed since it has been filed prematurely,
because all that the Division Bench did by way of the impugned order was direct
a fresh adjudication of the matter on merits in light of what had been
submitted by the Chief Secretary of the State. On merits, the learned
Additional Advocate General fully supported the stand taken by the Chief
Secretary before the Division Bench, which was that the DSP post in question
was erroneously reserved for 'SC Sports (Woman'), and as a result, the
advertisement no. 14 deserves to be withdrawn and a fresh advertisement issued.
12. Regarding reservations for
women the learned counsel for the private respondent would argue that although
the 2020 Rules provide the percentage of reservation for women to be 33%, these
have not been correctly applied. This issue was highlighted by the DGP while
sending the fresh requisition pursuant to which the subsequent advertisement
no. 14 of 11.12.2020 was issued. It is the case of the private respondent that
in the absence of roster points under the original (unamended) 2020 Rules,
which 2 posts out of the 7 DSP posts under the SC category would be reserved
for women was not clear. Hence, the requisition itself was premature since the
manner of reservation of posts for women within the scheme of vertical
reservation was not yet finalized. The private respondent would thus seek to
convince this Court that the manner in which 33% reservations are to be
provided to women was under active consideration by the State government when
the fresh advertisement no. 14 of 11.12.2020 was issued.
13. The private respondent draws
our attention to the amendment to the 2020 Rules, notified on 29.12.2020 (i.e.
one day before the last date for submitting application forms under
advertisement no. 14), which provided for the manner of implementing 33%
reservation for women as per roster points provided in Annexure 'A'. According
to this, no reservation for women is provided for the 'SC Sports', but the
State government failed to amend the advertisement and carry out the changes in
advertisement no. 14. Furthermore, the amendment to the 2020 Rules and the
notification introducing the roster points were never challenged by any party
before any Court, and have thus attained finality. The implementation of the
roster system of 29.01.2021 introduced in pursuance of the Amendment to the
2020 Rules would not amount to a retrospective application of the same since
substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier provision, i.e.,
old rule ceases to exist and the new rule is brought into existence in its
place. In other words, the roster system takes effect from 29.12.2020, i.e.,
before the last date of submission of applications under advertisement no. 14,
since that is the day on which the 2020 Rules were amended. The private
respondent also argues that advertisement no. 14 of 11.12.2020 was an extension
of the earlier advertisement no.08 of 04.06.2020, since the manner of
implementation of the 2020 Rules was never clarified by the State government earlier.
The State government is bound to follow Statutory Rules and not the
advertisement which in this case is contrary to the 2020 Rules. Further, by
participating in the selection process, the private respondent accepted the
prescribed procedure. Lastly, the private respondent argues that even if he is
appointed to the post of DSP SC Sports, the appellant will be appointed DSJ SC
Sports (post which he presently occupies).
14. Heard all the parties and
perused the material on record.
15. The Chief Secretary of the
State filed an affidavit on directions of the Division Bench to the effect that
the DSP post in question was erroneously reserved for 'SC Sports (Woman)' and
the advertisement no. 14 deserves to be withdrawn and a fresh advertisement
issued. But the fact is that this was never done. In fact, even the private
respondent did not challenge the advertisement no. 14 in its entirety (nor did
anyone else). Hence, the advertisement no. 14 dated 11.12.2020 holds the field
and it is only under this advertisement that the respective rights of the
appellant and private respondent can be determined.
16. The roster on which the
private respondent is relying upon came later, on 29.01.2021, even after the
last date for submitting applications under the subsequent advertisement no. 14
of 11.12.2020 had passed. Hence, it cannot influence the rights and
entitlements of those who had applied and taken part in the recruitment process
under the advertisement no. 14 of 11.12.2020. The recruitment process had begun
with the publication of the advertisement calling for applications and the
process ends with filling of the vacancies. The selection process had begun and
midway changes could not have taken place.
17. As per advertisement no. 14
dated 11.12.2020, there was only one post of DSP against 'SC Sports', which was
reserved for women under the 2020 Rules, when 33% reservation was mandated for
women. The private respondent simply cannot be appointed to this post.
18. It must be remembered that
the private respondent participated in the entire recruitment process without
protest, and made a representation only after the merit list was released by
the Public Service Commission. Though the private respondent was not exempted
from applying afresh pursuant to advertisement no. 14 of 11.12.2020, it was not
open for the private respondent to plead ignorance of the terms of the
advertisement at such a belated stage.
19. What is important to be noted
here is that the present Petitioner applied under the category "SC Sports
(Women)" which we may add, at the cost of repetition, was a category
created pursuant to the 2020 Rules, in order to meet the mandate of reservation
of 33% seats for women. The private respondent on the other hand, applied under
the category "SC Sports (80)."
20. Consequently, both the
Petitioner as well as the private respondent came be selected against their
respective categories. On 26.04.2022, private respondent was appointed as
Deputy Superintendent (Jails) and on 10.03.2023. The Petitioner being the only SC
Sports (Women) to have qualified is now likely to be given the post of DSP.
21. We have already taken note of
the two contradictory stances which were taken by the Department of Home and
the Department of Social Justice, Empowerment & Minorities, which prompted
the Division Bench to direct the Chief Secretary to bury the hatchet. On the
other hand, the learned Single Judge proceeded to decide the issue by accepting
the stance taken by the Department of Home which was that the post of DSP was
rightly reserved against the category "SC Sports (Women)" on which
the Petitioner was selected. We are in agreement with the findings of the
learned Single Judge for the reason that once an eligibility criteria was declared
by means of a fresh Advertisement i.e. Advertisement No. 14 dated 11.12.2020,
the same cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process, as the same
would tantamount to 'changing the rules of the game, after the game is played' as
held by this Court in K. Manjusree v. State ofA.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512.
22. We must also take note of the
fact that the correctness of K. Manjusree (supra) was doubted by a three-Judge
Bench of this Court in Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan, (2013) 4
SCC 540 and the matter was referred to a Constitution Bench, which ultimately,
held that K. Manjusree (supra) is good law which still holds the field and it
is not at variance with earlier precedents and hence, the salutary principle
laid down in K. Manjusree (supra) that the State or its instrumentalities
cannot tinker with the 'rules of the game' once the recruitment process
commences was ultimately upheld by the five-Judge Constitution Bench in Tej
Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan, (2025) 2 SCC 1.
While
answering the reference, this Court concluded as follows:
"65.
We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms:
65.1. Recruitment
process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for
applications and ends with filling up of vacancies;
65.2. Eligibility
criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of
the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment
process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not
contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible
under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the
requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of
non-arbitrariness;......"
23. Once it is accepted that the
DSP post in question was reserved for 'SC Sports (Women)' as per advertisement
no. 14 of 11.12.2020, the appellant must be accepted as the only person
qualified in her category who could be appointed. This is because she is the
only SC woman candidate who successfully cleared all the tests for the post of
DSP.
24. The crucial date in the
present case is the advertisement dated 11.12.2020. This advertisement follows
the 2020 Rules where 33% of reservation was to be made for women on every
government post. Thus, DSP SC Sports was reserved for women. This was mentioned
in the advertisement dated 11.12.2020. This advertisement or the 2020 Rules
were never challenged. The respondents now cannot cry foul referring to an event
post 11.12.2020 where the so called roster system came into existence. We have
not even considered the need to examine the legality of this roster in
principle. Sufficient will it be for our purpose to hold that post 11.12.2020
no change could have been made.
25. We thus allow the appeal and
set aside the impugned order passed by the Division Bench, by upholding the
order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.03.2023. The directions given in the
judgment dated 03.03.2023 shall be complied within three weeks from today.
26. Pending application(s), if
any, stand(s) disposed of.
27. Interim order(s), if any,
stand(s) vacated.
------