District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

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

Latest Legal News