E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

Whether an eligibility criterion or reservation fixed by a recruitment advertisement (Advt. No.14 dated 11.12.2020) can be altered or displaced by a subsequent roster or internal executive communication issued after the last date for submission of applications?

Whether a candidate who participated in the entire selection process without objection and only challenges the advertisement’s reservation after declaration of the merit list is entitled to set aside an advertised reservation to claim appointment?

Whether horizontal reservation for women (33% under the Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020) is governed by a roster system such that roster points finalized after the advertisement can operate retrospectively against applicants who applied earlier?

Whether the Division Bench was justified in remanding the matter for fresh adjudication because of contradictory departmental positions and the Chief Secretary’s view when the advertisement itself had not been challenged in its entirety?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The appellant (represented by Senior Counsel P.S. Patwalia) contended that Advt. No.14 (11.12.2020) constituted the operative rule of the recruitment process and fixed the eligibility matrix including the DSP seat as SC Sports (Women) in implementation of the 2020 Rules.

Once the advertisement was published and the last date for application expired (30.12.2020), the rules of the game could not be altered mid-process; to do so would violate the settled principle against changing eligibility after a recruitment process has started.

The appellant emphasized that the roster points and the 100-point roster materialized only after the last date for applications and hence could not affect those who had already applied or had their applications treated under the live advertisement.

The appellant relied on the salutary principle of non-tinkering with the rules during an ongoing recruitment (as enunciated in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P.) and buttressed that precedent with the Constitution Bench confirmation in Tej Prakash Pathak which defined the recruitment process as commencing upon the advertisement and ending only with filling of vacancies.

The appellant argued that horizontal reservation (women’s quota) differs in principle from vertical reservation and the advertisement’s categorical creation of SC Sports (Women) seat complied with the 2020 Rules’ direction to reserve 33% seats for women; administrative post facto tinkering motivated by a later roster cannot be permitted.

Further, the appellant submitted that the private respondent had participated fully in the selection without objection and cannot belatedly seek to displace an advertised seat after the merit list is published; equitable considerations and doctrine of estoppel cut against the private respondent’s belated challenge.

The appellant additionally contended that the Division Bench erred in remanding the matter merely because departmental views conflicted; internal executive contradiction cannot rewrite the operative advertisement that governed candidate rights.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The private respondent argued that the Advt. No.14 (11.12.2020) was in conflict with the Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020 and the subsequent amendment (29.12.2020) which introduced roster points for orderly implementation of the 33% women reservation.

The respondent contended that vertical and horizontal reservations must operate in tandem and that the roster clarified how many posts out of the vertical quota would be reserved as women seats; therefore the DSP seat should have been allocated in accordance with the roster and not treated as an exclusive SC Sports (Women) seat by the advertisement.

The private respondent emphasized that the roster points and the amendment pre-dated or coincided with the closing process (the amendment notification dated 29.12.2020 was issued one day before the last date for applications — 30.12.2020) and therefore the roster system could and should be applied.

He submitted that the State’s own later issuance of a 100-point roster and the Chief Secretary’s affidavit admitting an error in the advertisement reinforced his case that the advertisement was flawed.

The respondent further argued that the State is bound to follow statutory rules and if the advertisement contradicts an extant statutory rule it must yield; that is, an advertisement inconsistent with statutory scheme cannot create vested rights.

The private respondent relied on the permanence of the roster notification (unchallenged) and asserted that administrative compliance required realignment of selections to accord with the final roster.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

• Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020 (as notified 21.10.2020) — providing for 33% reservation for women and prescribing horizontal and compartmentalized implementation within vertical categories.

• Amendment to the 2020 Rules dated 29.12.2020 introducing roster points (Annexure A) for implementation of 33% reservation.

• Government communication issuing a 100-point roster dated 29.01.2021.

• Judicial precedents: K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512 (principle against changing eligibility mid-process); Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan (Constitution Bench, 2025) reaffirming the commencement and termination points of recruitment process and non-retrospective change of eligibility.

I) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench order remanding the matter, and upheld the Single Judge’s conclusion that Advt. No.14 (11.12.2020) fixed the eligibility criteria for the recruitment in question.

The Court analysed timelines: advertisement issuance (11.12.2020), last date for applications (30.12.2020), amendment to the 2020 Rules (29.12.2020) introducing a roster, and issuance of the 100-point roster (29.01.2021).

The Court emphasised the settled principle — recruitment begins with the advertisement and any attempt to alter the eligibility criteria midway is impermissible unless the extant Rules or the advertisement itself permit such changes consistent with Article 14.

The Court accepted the Single Judge’s view that the private respondent had not challenged Advt. No.14 in toto, had participated in the recruitment process without protest and therefore could not wait until the merit list to contend that the DSP post was wrongly reserved.

The Court also noted that the Chief Secretary’s affidavit and the divergence in departmental positions did not, as a matter of law, enable the State to rewrite the rules after applications had closed.

Applying the principle affirmed in K. Manjusree and sanctioned by the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak, the Court concluded that the roster issued on 29.01.2021 could not affect the rights of candidates who had applied under the operative advertisement where the eligibility and reservation had already been defined.

The result was that the appellant, being the only qualifying candidate under SC Sports (Women), must be appointed to the DSP post reserved for SC Sports (Women) and the private respondent could not take that seat. The Court directed compliance with the Single Judge’s order within three weeks.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio of the judgment is that once a recruitment process commences upon the publication of an advertisement calling for applications, the eligibility criteria and reservation matrix so notified become binding for that recruitment drive and cannot be altered mid-process to the detriment (or advantage) of candidates unless the extant Rules or the advertisement itself lawfully authorize such change and any such change survives Article 14 scrutiny.

The Court anchored this principle in precedent: K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. (2008) — which held that rules of the game cannot be tinkered with once the recruitment has started — and the Constitution Bench’s reaffirmation in Tej Prakash Pathak (2025) which clarified that the recruitment process commences from advertisement issuance and terminates upon filling vacancies, and that eligibility criteria notified at commencement cannot be changed midway unless permissible and non-arbitrary.

Applying these principles to the present facts, the Court held the decisive date is the advertisement (11.12.2020) which followed the 2020 Rules and created the SC Sports (Women) category for DSP; subsequent roster issuance after the last date for applications could not displace the advertisement’s settled entitlement.

The respondent’s belated attack on the reserved seat, after participating in the recruitment process, was therefore unsustainable.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed obiter that internal departmental contradictions and the Chief Secretary’s assertion of an error in the advertisement do not automatically validate a remedial rewrite of recruitment criteria after applications have closed.

The Court further noted that while rules and statutes govern reservation, administrative corrections must respect settled expectations and cannot operate retrospectively against applicants who relied on an unchallenged advertisement.

The bench also remarked that had the advertisement been challenged in its entirety in time, different legal issues (including whether an advertisement that is inconsistent with rules is void ab initio) might have arisen; however, that was not the case here because no party mounted a complete challenge to Advt. No.14 within the recruitment period.

Finally, the Court emphasized fairness: candidates cannot feign ignorance and then adopt opportunistic litigation after selections, and administrative machinery must deliver certainty once notices are issued.

These observations, while ancillary, reiterate the Court’s commitment to legal predictability in public recruitment.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Advertisement primacy: When a fresh advertisement is issued following a change in statutory rules, that advertisement — if not challenged in its entirety — determines the recruitment entitlement for candidates who apply pursuant to it.

• Cut-off for change: Changes to eligibility/reservation after the last date for submission of applications cannot ordinarily be applied retrospectively to affect applicants; roster changes issued after the closing date do not, as a rule, disturb candidate rights arising under the operative advertisement.

• No mid-stream tinkering: The State and its instrumentalities must avoid altering the “rules of the game” once the recruitment process (advertisement → application → selection) is underway, except where the extant Rules or advertisement expressly permit and such changes pass Article 14 muster.

• Timely challenge required: If an advertisement is allegedly inconsistent with statutory rules, an aggrieved party must challenge the advertisement promptly during the recruitment process; belated objections after selections are generally impermissible where the candidate participated without protest.

• Executive corrections vs. candidate rights: Administrative functionaries may identify errors, but internal corrections accepted after the recruitment process cannot be used to dispossess candidates who applied and were selected under an unchallenged advertisement.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s decision enforces a predictable boundary between administrative flexibility and vested candidate expectations in recruitment: once an advertisement defines eligibility, late-arriving roster formulas or executive tinkering cannot unsettle rights of applicants who participated under the operative notice.

This balances the State’s duty to follow statutory rules with the imperative of procedural fairness and legal certainty. Practically, the judgment signals to executive authorities that rule-making sequences and timing matter — if a statutory rule changing reservation architecture is notified, the State must ensure that any consequential advertisement, amendment, or roster is synchronized and clearly reflected before the close of the application window; failing that, candidates who rely on the operative advertisement acquire enforceable entitlements.

For litigants, the decision underscores the importance of timely challenges: if an advertisement is inconsistent with a rule, challenge it immediately rather than await the outcome.

Doctrinally, the Court reaffirms the protective principle against retrospective mid-process change and endorses the Constitution Bench’s delineation of the recruitment life-cycle in Tej Prakash Pathak while applying the rule to the concrete facts where Advt. No.14 was the decisive instrument conferring a SC Sports (Women) DSP seat which, in the absence of an effective contemporaneous challenge, had to be filled by the woman candidate.

The judgment thus strengthens predictability of public recruitment and curtails opportunistic post-selection litigation premised on administrative after-thoughts.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

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

• Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan, (2025) 2 SCC 1 (Constitution Bench).

• Prabhjot Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5132 of 2025, Supreme Court of India, Judgment dated 09 April 2025.

b. Important Statutes / Rules Referred

• Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020 (notified 21.10.2020) and amendment dated 29.12.2020 (Annexure A — roster points).

• State communication issuing a 100-point roster dated 29.01.2021.