Old Pension Scheme | Subsequent Recruitment Merely Exempting Applicants From Fee Is De Novo, Cannot Relate Back To Pre-Cut-Off Advertisement: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"A later advertisement cannot be treated as a continuation of a recruitment process which never commenced, and whose posts stood cancelled, unless it expressly preserves the eligibility of the erstwhile candidates in all respects." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in an authoritative service law ruling dated October 5, 2026, held that a re-advertisement issued after the introduction of the New Pension Scheme cannot be treated as a continuation of an earlier cancelled recruitment process merely because previous applicants were granted an exemption from paying fresh application fees.

A Single Bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed that unless a subsequent advertisement expressly preserves the eligibility of candidates with reference to the original cut-off date, the selection constitutes an independent de novo exercise, thereby disentitling the appointee from claiming coverage under the Old Pension Scheme.

The petitioner had initially applied for the post of Steno-typist (English) pursuant to Advertisement No. 8/2003 issued by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, which was subsequently cancelled in November 2005. Following a fresh notification vide Advertisement No. 1/2008—which exempted earlier applicants from paying application fees—she applied afresh, was appointed in February 2010, and later sought coverage under the Old Pension Scheme pursuant to an Office Memorandum dated May 8, 2023. Upon the rejection of her representation by the state authorities, she approached the High Court through a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether a subsequent recruitment process that merely exempts candidates who applied under an earlier cancelled advertisement from paying a fresh fee can be deemed a continuation of the pre-cut-off recruitment so as to confer the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme.

Exemption From Application Fee Does Not Preserve Past Eligibility

Examining the terms of Note III in Advertisement No. 1/2008, the High Court observed that while the clause permitted previous applicants to compete for the re-advertised posts without paying a fresh fee, it strictly mandated them to submit fresh applications. Crucially, the advertisement did not contain any condition reckoning their academic qualifications or age eligibility from the original 2003 notification.

Justice Brar pointed out that the recruitment under the 2003 advertisement never actually commenced and the posts had been formally cancelled. Consequently, carrying forward an already-paid fee cannot be equated with carrying forward the legal genesis of the recruitment itself.

Settled Jurisprudence On Date Of Determining Candidate Eligibility

The Court underscored that in the absence of a specific statutory rule or an explicit stipulation relating eligibility back to an earlier date, candidate eligibility must be evaluated strictly on the closing date prescribed in the advertisement.

Relying upon the Supreme Court's two-judge bench decision in Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2000), Justice Brar held that testing eligibility as on the final deadline for application submission represents settled service jurisprudence binding upon all public employers.

The Bench observed that the phrase "will also be eligible" found in Note III of Advertisement No. 1/2008 merely allowed earlier applicants to compete alongside fresh candidates on contemporary terms, rather than transporting their candidature back to the year 2003.

Distinction Between De Novo Selection And Continuation Of Recruitment

Delineating the boundary between continuing recruitment processes and independent exercises, the Court harmonized its earlier rulings in Om Prakash v. State of Haryana and the coordinate bench decision in Rupinder Kumari v. State of Haryana.

The High Court clarified that in Om Prakash, the subsequent advertisement had expressly created a legal fiction by providing that the candidates' eligibility for all purposes, including age and qualification, would be reckoned as on the date of the earlier pre-2005 advertisement.

In contrast, where an advertisement merely permits past applicants to participate without a fee but requires their eligibility to be tested on the new closing date, it operates as an entirely independent selection process.

"Where the later advertisement reckons the eligibility of the earlier applicants as on the date of the earlier, pre-cut-off advertisement, the recruitment relates back to that advertisement... Where it merely allows them to compete afresh without payment of fee, the later advertisement is a de novo exercise."

Destruction Of Past Challan Records Held Irrelevant To Legal Status

Addressing the petitioner's argument regarding the Commission's RTI response stating that challan records pertaining to the 2003 advertisement had been destroyed, the Bench noted that the plea did not warrant adjudication.

Even assuming the petitioner had established her application under the 2003 advertisement, her substantive appointment arose solely out of the 2008 selection process, which took place well after the cut-off date of October 28, 2005, making Clause 5(i) of the May 8, 2023 Office Memorandum inapplicable.

The High Court concluded that because the petitioner's appointment stemmed entirely from a de novo recruitment process initiated in 2008, the administrative order rejecting her claim for Old Pension Scheme coverage suffered from no illegality. Finding no merit in the challenge, the Court dismissed the writ petition along with all pending miscellaneous applications.

Date of Decision: 05 October 2026