The Supreme Court has ruled that the State of Punjab was not entitled to retrospectively alter the reservation category for a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) post under the Scheduled Caste Sports quota after the recruitment process had commenced. The decision came in the case Prabhjot Kaur vs State of Punjab & Ors., where a Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed the appeal filed by Prabhjot Kaur, whose selection under the ‘SC Sports (Women)’ category was put in jeopardy by a High Court order.
Background
The case arose out of the Punjab Public Service Commission’s recruitment process initiated through Advertisement No.08 dated 04.06.2020 for 77 posts, including 26 posts of DSP. Two of these posts were reserved under the ‘Scheduled Caste Sports’ category. The appellant, Prabhjot Kaur, and the private respondent had both applied under this category.
Following the notification of the Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020, which mandated 33% horizontal reservation for women, the earlier requisition was withdrawn. A fresh Advertisement No.14 dated 11.12.2020 was issued, under which only one DSP post was reserved for the ‘SC Sports (Women)’ category. The second post under SC Sports was earmarked for Deputy Superintendent (Jails)/District Probation Officer.
After qualifying under the said category, Prabhjot Kaur awaited appointment. However, the private respondent—who ranked first among male SC Sports candidates—challenged the reservation of the DSP post exclusively for women, arguing it was inconsistent with the roster issued by the State on 29.01.2021.
A learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the private respondent’s writ petition, holding that the reservation under Advertisement No.14 was valid. However, on appeal, the Division Bench reversed this finding and remanded the case for reconsideration, based on a submission from the Chief Secretary of Punjab that the reservation for ‘SC Sports (Women)’ was erroneous. This Division Bench order was challenged before the Supreme Court by Prabhjot Kaur.
Arguments
Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia, appearing for the appellant, contended that once the advertisement was issued under valid statutory rules, the recruitment criteria could not be altered midway. He relied on the principle laid down in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512, later affirmed by the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan, (2025) 2 SCC 1, which prohibits altering eligibility norms during an ongoing selection process.
The private respondent, represented by Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh, argued that the reservation format in Advertisement No.14 violated the amended 2020 Rules and roster system introduced on 29.01.2021, which did not provide reservation for women under the SC Sports category.
The State of Punjab, through Additional Advocate General Rajat Bhardwaj, supported the view that the advertisement contained a clerical error and that the reservation ought to have been general SC Sports.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Court rejected the view of the Division Bench, holding that once Advertisement No.14 was issued on 11.12.2020, in accordance with valid statutory rules, it governed the recruitment process. Since neither the advertisement nor the Rules were challenged in court, they held the field.
The roster system introduced on 29.01.2021 came after the last date of application (30.12.2020), and thus, the Court held, “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.”
Referring to Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), the Court reiterated:
“Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway… unless permitted by the extant Rules or advertisement, and even then must satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution.”
The Court also took note that the private respondent participated in the entire selection process without protest and raised objections only after the merit list was declared.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court Division Bench’s order dated 18.07.2023, and restored the decision of the Single Judge dated 03.03.2023. It directed that necessary action for appointment be completed within three weeks.
Citation: Prabhjot Kaur vs State of Punjab & Ors., 2025 INSC 479
