Conversion for Reservation Benefits Is a Fraud on the Constitution: Supreme Court Rejects SC Certificate for Reconverted Christian Patent Office Guidelines Must Be Followed for Consistency in Decisions: Madras High Court Limitation Cannot Obstruct Justice When Parties Consent to Extensions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Additional Fees Are Incentives, Not Penalties: Orissa High Court Upholds Central Motor Vehicles Rules Amendment Interpretation of Tender Eligibility Criteria Lies with Tendering Authority: Gujrat High Court Upholds Discharge of Tender Complaints Were Contradictory and Did Not Establish Prima Facie Case for SC/ST Act Charges: J&K HC Insurance Cover Notes Hold Policy Validity Unless Proven Otherwise: Kerala High Court Upholds Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Article 21 Of Constitution Applies Irrespective Of Nature Of Crime. Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Amounts To Punishment Without Adjudication: Calcutta HC Concept Of 'Liberal Approach' Cannot Be Used To Jettison The Substantive Law Of Limitation: Delhi High Court Limitation is Not Always a Mixed Question of Fact and Law: Bombay High Court Dismisses 31-Year-Old Specific Performance Suit as Time-Barred Intent Coupled with Trespass Constitutes Full Offence: Supreme Court Mere Possession of Bribe Money Insufficient Without Proof of Demand and Acceptance: Supreme Court Right to Promotion is Not a Fundamental Right; Retrospective Benefits Without Service Cannot Be Granted: Supreme Court of India Oral Gift Validity in Mohammedan Law: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Constructive Possession and Injunction Unauthorized Construction on Government Irrigation Land Must Be Demolished: Calcutta High Court Directs Sub-Divisional Officer High Court Upholds Dismissal of Petition Over Road Obstruction Due to Non-Prosecution Victim of Rape Has Right to Bodily Integrity and Reproductive Choice: Gujarat High Court Permits Termination of 24-Week Pregnancy

Candidates Participating in Selection Process Cannot Challenge the Process After Being Unsuccessful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea Against Constable Recruitment

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today rejected a petition challenging the recruitment process for constables in the State of Punjab. The petitioners, non-Punjab residents, alleged discrimination and violation of constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 16 due to the absence of specific reservation for candidates from other states.

The petition revolved around the challenge to an advertisement by the State of Punjab for the recruitment of 1746 constables, which the petitioners claimed was discriminatory. The court examined whether there was any merit in the petitioners' claim that the recruitment advertisement violated their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioners argued that the advertisement and selection process were inherently discriminatory as no reservations were provided for non-Punjab resident candidates. Specifically, they highlighted that while reservations were made for various other categories, such as SC, BC, Ex-Servicemen, and EWS, no such provisions were made for candidates from other states.

Eligibility under General Category: The court noted that the advertisement provided for 738 general category vacancies open to all applicants, irrespective of their state of residence. The court stated, "The petitioners being residents of States other than Punjab can apply under general/open/unreserved category. They cannot claim that there should be a reservation for them."

Jurisprudence on Non-Entitlement After Participation: Citing the Supreme Court decision in Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, the court emphasized that candidates who participate in a selection process without initial objection are barred from contesting the process post-results. The judgment read, “Candidates having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful.”

No Violation of Constitutional Rights: The court concluded that there was no violation of Articles 14 and 16 as the selection process was open and fair to all candidates under the general category. The decision reiterated, "The petition sans merit, thus, deserves to be dismissed."

Decision The court dismissed the petition on grounds that the petitioners participated in the selection process without objection and subsequently failed to establish any grounds to challenge the process after being unsuccessful.

Date of Decision: April 9, 2024

Lovepreet Kaur and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

Similar News