Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

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