Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

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