Prabhjot Kaur vs The State Of Punjab

2025 INSC 479 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S)._______________ OF 2025 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 17747 OF 2023]

PRABHJOT KAUR …APPELLANT

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. By way of the present appeal, the appellant challenges an order of the

Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at

Chandigarh passed on 18.07.2023.

3. This appeal involves the question of reservations of posts in the

government services of the State of Punjab; including reservation for

women. It is necessary here to elaborate upon some essential facts

of this case in order to better appreciate the controversy before us.

These facts are as follows:

a. On the basis of a requisition issued by the State government

on 17.04.2020, the Respondent no. 4-Punjab Public Service

Commission (‘Public Service Commission’) issued Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

advertisement no. 08 on 04.06.2020 for recruitment to 77 Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2025.04.09 18:20:56 IST Reason:

posts in the State government services through the Punjab State Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination-2020.

This included the 26 posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police

(‘DSP’) with which we are presently concerned. The

preliminary examination was tentatively scheduled for

September 2020 while the last date for submitting online

applications was fixed as 30.06.2020.

b. In this advertisement, which is advertisement no.08, some

seats were reserved for members of the SC community. For

our purposes, it is relevant that a total of two vacancies were

advertised for ‘Scheduled Caste Sports’-one for DSP and the

other for Deputy Superintendent (Jails)/District Probation

Officer (‘DSJ/DPO’).

c. Respondent no. 5 herein (‘private respondent’) applied in the

‘Scheduled Caste Sports’ category on 09.06.2020. Appellant

too had applied as SC Sports candidate.

d. Meanwhile, on 21.10.2020, the Punjab Civil Services

(Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020 (‘2020 Rules’)

were made and notified.

e. These Rules are applicable to all posts to be filled by direct

recruitment in all government establishments in Groups A, B,

C, D services, and importantly it provided for 33% reservation

for women in all posts. Under the 2020 Rules, this reservation

is to be horizontal and compartmentalized, which means

reservation within each category of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Other Backward

Classes, Economically Weaker Sections, and Open Category.

Sub-rule 5 of the 2020 Rules provides for the procedure for

reservation of posts.

f. In light of the notification of the 2020 Rules, the State

government withdrew its requisition dated 17.04.2020, on

which was based the advertisement no.08 dated 04.06.2020,

which was issued by the Public Service Commission. The

reason being that now a fresh requisition would have to be

now issued in compliance with the 2020 Rules, which

mandated 33% reservation for women. As a result, on

08.12.2020, the State government wrote to the Public Service

Commission asking for the withdrawal of advertisement no.08

dated 04.06.2020 (a public notice with respect to withdrawal

of the advertisement no.08 was issued by the Public Service

Commission on the very next day i.e. 09.12.2020).

g. On 11.12.2020, the Public Service Commission issued a new

advertisement which is advertisement no.14. However, there

was a material difference when it comes to reservations for the

‘SC Sports’ category. This time, only one post for ‘SC Sports’

was available, but this was now for the post of Deputy

Superintendent (Jails)/DPO. Thereafter, one DSP post was

reserved for ‘SC Sports (Women)’, a category which was created pursuant to the 2020 Rules.

h. It is pertinent to note that in accordance with the decision

taken to avoid undue inconvenience to such candidates who

had applied earlier under the previous advertisement no.08

(04.06.2020), it was decided that such candidates need not

apply afresh under the new advertisement no.14 (11.12.2020),

and their earlier applications would be considered. i. The last date for submitting applications in terms of fresh

advertisement no.14 was 30.12.2020.

j. On 29.12.2020, an amendment was made to the 2020 Rules

which provided for 33% reservation for women as per the

roster system contained in ‘Annexure A’.

k. Pursuant to the amendment, the State government issued a

100-point roster for different reserved posts in the State

government services on 29.01.2021.

l. After successful completion of the Punjab State Civil Services

Combined Competitive Examination-2020, the results were

declared on 18.06.2021.

m. In the merit list, the private respondent stood 1st amongst

males, while the appellant stood 1st amongst females, under

the ‘SC Sports’ category.

n. On 14.10.2021, the private respondent made a representation

to the Chief Minister of Punjab, alleging that the DSP post for

‘SC Sports’ should not have been reserved for women, and

that this is in violation of the roster issued by the State

government on 29.01.2021.

o. The private respondent then filed a Writ Petition before the

High Court praying for quashing of the advertisement no.14

dated 11.12.2020, not in its entirety, but only to the extent

that it reserved the DSP post under the ‘SC Sports’ category

for women, in violation of the roster of 29.01.2021, and

further praying for directions to the State government to

appoint the private respondent as DSP against the ‘SC Sports’

seat.

p. An interim order passed on 16.12.2021 in the Writ Petition

filed by the private respondent recorded that the counselling

for the post of DSP ‘SC Sports (Woman)’ seat was kept in

abeyance by the State. Aggrieved by this, the appellant also

filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. Both these Writ

Petitions were decided by way of a common order dated

03.03.2023 by the learned Single Judge, which has given rise

to the present litigation.

4. In a well-considered decision, the learned Single Judge dismissed the

private respondent’s Writ Petition (consequently, the appellant’s Writ

Petition was adjudged infructuous). At the outset, the learned Single

Judge notes that the private respondent had not challenged the

subsequent advertisement no.14 dated 11.12.2020 in its entirety,

but only insofar as it reserved the DSP post under the ‘SC Sports’

category for women. It was also noticed that even though the private respondent had applied in the earlier round under advertisement

no.08 and he did not apply under the subsequent advertisement

no.14 in light of the leeway given to candidates who had already

applied, his application must be considered under advertisement

no.14 dated 11.12.2020, which did not have any post for DSP ‘SC

Sports’ (since the only DSP post against the ‘SC Sports’ category

came to be reserved for women under the 2020 Rules). There was no

post other than Deputy Superintendent (Jails)/DPO ‘SC Sports’ for

which the private respondent’s application could be considered.

Resultantly, the private respondent (i.e., the Petitioner before the

High Court) cannot be appointed to a post i.e. DSP ‘SC Sports’ which

was reserved for ‘SC Sports (Women)’. Meanwhile the private

respondent who had in any case made the selections, joined the post

of Deputy Superintendent (Jails), albeit under protest.

5. The learned Single Judge highlighted the fact that the roster points

fixed by government communication dated 29.01.2021 came only

after the last date for submission of applications under the fresh

advertisement no.14, which was 30.12.2020. Further, the State

government never revised/reviewed the requisition in light of the

roster, and hence, the requisition for one DSP post for ‘SC Sports

(Woman)’ continued.

6. The private respondent challenged this order of the learned Single

Judge by filing a Letters Patent Appeal, which went before the Division Bench of the High Court.

7. The Division Bench laid emphasis on the contradictory stand adopted

by two departments of the State government before the learned

Single Judge during the proceedings in the Writ Petition(s). While

the Home Department took the view that the DSP post was reserved,

for the ‘SC Sports (Women)’ category, the Department of Social

Justice was of the view that the DSP post in question should be

reserved for ‘SC Sports’ (in other words, it should not be reserved for

women alone). The Division Bench was of the opinion that the

learned Single Judge accepted the stand taken by the Home

Department while arriving at his decision. The Division Bench,

however, called upon the Chief Secretary of Punjab to resolve the

conflict between the stands taken by the two above-mentioned

Departments of the State Government. The Chief Secretary

supported the stand of the Department of Social Justice, on the

ground that a mistake had crept into the advertisement no.14, and

that the DSP post should have been reserved for ‘SC Sports’, and not

‘SC Sports (Women)’.

8. In light of the stand taken by the Chief Secretary, the Division Bench

remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh

adjudication of both the Writ Petitions (filed by the appellant and

private respondent, respectively). This is the order which has been

challenged before us by the appellant.

9. Sri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant, would submit that the learned Single Judge had considered the

contradictory stands taken by the Home Department and

Department of Social Justice before passing a well-reasoned order,

which the Division Bench ought not to have interfered with. Learned

Senior Counsel further argues that the stand of the Chief Secretary

before the Division Bench is incorrect since the roster was issued

nearly two months after the last date of submitting application

forms under the advertisement no.14 expired, and it cannot be

implemented retrospectively. The learned Senior Counsel would also

argue that the principle applicable to horizontal reservation is

different from the one applied to vertical reservation and horizontal

reservation has no concept of ‘roster system’, where only vertical

reservation applies.

10. On the other hand, Sri Gurminder Singh, learned Senior Counsel

representing the private respondent, would argue that the

advertisement no.14 of 11.12.2020 is violative of the 2020 Rules to

begin with. Vertical reservations in terms of the 2020 Rules have to

be within each horizontal category, and the reservation of one post

for DSP for women within the SC category cannot be sustained in

the eyes of the law. The learned Senior Counsel would also place

reliance on the amendment to the 2020 Rules, in terms of which

33% reservation for women has to be as per roster points introduced

on 29.02.2021. Hence, it is incorrect to state that the roster points would not apply to the advertisement no.14 because the roster

points apply from the date of the amendment to the 2020 Rules.

11. Sri Rajat Bharadwaj, learned Additional Advocate General appearing

for the State of Punjab, would submit that this appeal deserves to be

dismissed since it has been filed prematurely, because all that the

Division Bench did by way of the impugned order was direct a fresh

adjudication of the matter on merits in light of what had been

submitted by the Chief Secretary of the State. On merits, the

learned Additional Advocate General fully supported the stand taken

by the Chief Secretary before the Division Bench, which was that the

DSP post in question was erroneously reserved for ‘SC Sports

(Woman’), and as a result, the advertisement no.14 deserves to be

withdrawn and a fresh advertisement issued.

12. Regarding reservations for women the learned counsel for the private

respondent would argue that although the 2020 Rules provide the

percentage of reservation for women to be 33%, these have not been

correctly applied. This issue was highlighted by the DGP while

sending the fresh requisition pursuant to which the subsequent

advertisement no.14 of 11.12.2020 was issued. It is the case of the

private respondent that in the absence of roster points under the

original (unamended) 2020 Rules, which 2 posts out of the 7 DSP

posts under the SC category would be reserved for women was not

clear. Hence, the requisition itself was premature since the manner of reservation of posts for women within the scheme of vertical

reservation was not yet finalized. The private respondent would thus

seek to convince this Court that the manner in which 33%

reservations are to be provided to women was under active

consideration by the State government when the fresh advertisement

no.14 of 11.12.2020 was issued.

13. The private respondent draws our attention to the amendment to the

2020 Rules, notified on 29.12.2020 (i.e. one day before the last date

for submitting application forms under advertisement no.14), which

provided for the manner of implementing 33% reservation for women

as per roster points provided in Annexure ‘A’. According to this, no

reservation for women is provided for the ‘SC Sports’, but the State

government failed to amend the advertisement and carry out the

changes in advertisement no.14. Furthermore, the amendment to

the 2020 Rules and the notification introducing the roster points

were never challenged by any party before any Court, and have thus

attained finality. The implementation of the roster system of

29.01.2021 introduced in pursuance of the Amendment to the 2020

Rules would not amount to a retrospective application of the same

since substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier

provision, i.e., old rule ceases to exist and the new rule is brought

into existence in its place. In other words, the roster system takes

effect from 29.12.2020, i.e., before the last date of submission of applications under advertisement no.14, since that is the day on

which the 2020 Rules were amended. The private respondent also

argues that advertisement no.14 of 11.12.2020 was an extension of

the earlier advertisement no.08 of 04.06.2020, since the manner of

implementation of the 2020 Rules was never clarified by the State

government earlier. The State government is bound to follow

Statutory Rules and not the advertisement which in this case is

contrary to the 2020 Rules. Further, by participating in the

selection process, the private respondent accepted the prescribed

procedure. Lastly, the private respondent argues that even if he is

appointed to the post of DSP SC Sports, the appellant will be

appointed DSJ SC Sports (post which he presently occupies).

14. Heard all the parties and perused the material on record.

15. The Chief Secretary of the State filed an affidavit on directions of the

Division Bench to the effect that the DSP post in question was

erroneously reserved for ‘SC Sports (Woman)’ and the advertisement

no.14 deserves to be withdrawn and a fresh advertisement issued.

But the fact is that this was never done. In fact, even the private

respondent did not challenge the advertisement no.14 in its entirety

(nor did anyone else). Hence, the advertisement no.14 dated

11.12.2020 holds the field and it is only under this advertisement

that the respective rights of the appellant and private respondent

can be determined.

16. The roster on which the private respondent is relying upon came later, on 29.01.2021, even after the last date for submitting applications

under the subsequent advertisement no.14 of 11.12.2020 had

passed. Hence, it cannot influence the rights and entitlements of

those who had applied and taken part in the recruitment process

under the advertisement no.14 of 11.12.2020. The recruitment

process had begun with the publication of the advertisement calling

for applications and the process ends with filling of the vacancies.

The selection process had begun and midway changes could not

have taken place.

17. As per advertisement no.14 dated 11.12.2020, there was only one post

of DSP against ‘SC Sports’, which was reserved for women under the

2020 Rules, when 33% reservation was mandated for women. The

private respondent simply cannot be appointed to this post.

18. It must be remembered that the private respondent participated in the

entire recruitment process without protest, and made a

representation only after the merit list was released by the Public

Service Commission. Though the private respondent was not

exempted from applying afresh pursuant to advertisement no.14 of

11.12.2020, it was not open for the private respondent to plead

ignorance of the terms of the advertisement at such a belated stage.

19. What is important to be noted here is that the present Petitioner

applied under the category “SC Sports (Women)” which we may add,

at the cost of repetition, was a category created pursuant to the

2020 Rules, in order to meet the mandate of reservation of 33% seats for women. The private respondent on the other hand, applied

under the category “SC Sports (80).”

20. Consequently, both the Petitioner as well as the private respondent

came be selected against their respective categories. On 26.04.2022,

private respondent was appointed as Deputy Superintendent (Jails)

and on 10.03.2023. The Petitioner being the only SC Sports

(Women) to have qualified is now likely to be given the post of DSP.

21. We have already taken note of the two contradictory stances which

were taken by the Department of Home and the Department of

Social Justice, Empowerment & Minorities, which prompted the

Division Bench to direct the Chief Secretary to bury the hatchet. On

the other hand, the learned Single Judge proceeded to decide the

issue by accepting the stance taken by the Department of Home

which was that the post of DSP was rightly reserved against the

category “SC Sports (Women)” on which the Petitioner was selected.

We are in agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge

for the reason that once an eligibility criteria was declared by means

of a fresh Advertisement i.e. Advertisement No. 14 dated 11.12.2020,

the same cannot be changed midway through the recruitment

process, as the same would tantamount to ‘changing the rules of the

game, after the game is played’ as held by this Court in K.

Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512.

22. We must also take note of the fact that the correctness of K.

Manjusree (supra) was doubted by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan, (2013)

4 SCC 540 and the matter was referred to a Constitution Bench,

which ultimately, held that K. Manjusree (supra) is good law which

still holds the field and it is not at variance with earlier precedents

and hence, the salutary principle laid down in K. Manjusree (supra)

that the State or its instrumentalities cannot tinker with the ‘rules

of the game’ once the recruitment process commences was

ultimately upheld by the five-Judge Constitution Bench in Tej

Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan, (2025) 2 SCC 1.

While answering the reference, this Court concluded as follows:

“65. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms:

65.1. Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies;

65.2. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness;……”

23. Once it is accepted that the DSP post in question was reserved for ‘SC

Sports (Women)’ as per advertisement no.14 of 11.12.2020, the

appellant must be accepted as the only person qualified in her

category who could be appointed. This is because she is the only SC

woman candidate who successfully cleared all the tests for the post

of DSP.

24. The crucial date in the present case is the advertisement dated

11.12.2020. This advertisement follows the 2020 Rules where 33%

of reservation was to be made for women on every government post.

Thus, DSP SC Sports was reserved for women. This was mentioned

in the advertisement dated 11.12.2020. This advertisement or the

2020 Rules were never challenged. The respondents now cannot cry

foul referring to an event post 11.12.2020 where the so called roster

system came into existence. We have not even considered the need

to examine the legality of this roster in principle. Sufficient will it be

for our purpose to hold that post 11.12.2020 no change could have

been made.

25. We thus allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by

the Division Bench, by upholding the order of the learned Single

Judge dated 03.03.2023. The directions given in the judgment

dated 03.03.2023 shall be complied within three weeks from today.

26. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

27. Interim order(s), if any, stand(s) vacated.

………………………………, J.

[SUDHANSHU DHULIA] 28.

………………………………, J.

[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 9, 2025.

ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.9 SECTION IV-B

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17747/2023

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-07-2023 in LPA No. 287/2023 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh]

PRABHJOT KAUR Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 168037/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES

Date : 09-04-2025 This matter was called on for pronouncement of Judgment today.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Anurag Kulharia, Adv.

Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv.

Dr. Navya Jannu, Adv.

Ms. Aakriti Jain, AOR Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv.

Mr. Shikhar Narwal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, A.A.G. Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR

Mr. Gurminder Singh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Adv.

Mr. Lalit Singla, Adv.

Ms. Pratibha Singh, Adv.

Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Adv.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia pronounced the reportable Judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed.

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed reportable Judgment is placed on the file)