Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

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