Merit Must Govern Not Just Selection But Allocation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams HSSC’s Opaque Department Allotment Process

The Court was adjudicating a batch of writ petitions challenging the manner in which departments were allotted to candidates selected through a combined recruitment process conducted by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). The grievance of the petitioners was that despite securing higher marks, they were denied their preferred departments, while candidates lower in merit were granted more favourable postings.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed, “In combined selections, a single process is used to recruit for multiple departments, and the principle of merit must extend beyond merely preparing a merit list to governing departmental allocation. A higher-performing candidate earns a superior claim to preference, as merit must be both recognized and rewarded. Accordingly, higher-ranked candidates must be given priority in choosing departments; otherwise, the very purpose of a competitive examination stands defeated. Merit position, therefore, must be duly respected in service allocation. Any arbitrary deviation from merit would fall foul of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution”.

“Obscurity with regards to the criteria or methodology adopted for allocation of departments creates a serious risk for arbitrariness and manipulation, especially when no statutory rules are available in this regard. The lack of a clear normative framework expands administrative discretion beyond it legitimate bounds that enable authorities to act subjectively, without transparent standards. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India, 1979 AIR SC 1628 and E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1974 AIR SC 555 has emphatically held that arbitrariness falls foul of the promise of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and asserted that the State action must be guided by reason and transparency. Therefore, in the absence of defined rules, it was incumbent upon the respondent-Commission to allocate departments to the candidates only in terms of their merit and preference, so as to ensure that there is no post selection manipulation based on favouritism. The respondent-Commission has clearly violated the legitimate expectations of the candidates, who reasonably anticipated that merit will determine outcomes”, the Bench further noted.

Advocate Samrat Malik appeared for the petitioner and Vikrant Pamboo, Addl. AG, Haryana, Piyush Khanna, Addl. AG, Haryana appeared for the respondent.

The matter of dispute was the adoption of an undisclosed criterion, whereby candidates who had exercised fewer preferences were allegedly given priority in departmental allocation.

The Court, adverting to the facts, found that HSSC failed to disclose the department allocation criteria decided in its October 22, 2019 meeting, despite mandating candidates to submit preferences. The Commission admitted that this criterion was never published, and further inconsistencies showed it was not uniformly applied, as lower-ranked candidates with multiple preferences were allotted higher choices. The Court held that this concealment and arbitrary application vindicated the petitioners’ case and pointed to serious irregularities in the process.

“In the background of the aforementioned affidavit, this Court finds force in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) that the allocation criteria has been tailored to suit certain candidates. This conclusion is further buttressed by the fact that the notification regarding change in criteria i.e. prioritization of those, who had indicated 03 or less preferences, was never circulated or got notified to all candidates or uploaded on the respondent Commission’s website. No justification was forthcoming from the respondent Commission to justify this glaring concealment of necessary information from the candidates, especially when failure to indicate preferences through online mode would have resulted in cancellation of their candidature”, the Bench noted.

“Pertinently, the disputed criterion did not even form part of the advertisement ( supra). Surprisingly, a public notice dated 25.10.2019 was issued in clandestine manner, whereby preferences for department allocation were sought from all the selected candidates, without disclosing the criterion adopted on 22.10.2019, which resulted in complete obliteration of the level playing field. In doing so, the respondent-Commission has suffocated the principle of equality in public employment. Furthermore, candidates higher in merit, including the petitioner(s), were kept completely in the dark regarding the change in criteria for allotment of departments. If the criterion adopted on 22.10.2019 was duly circulated to all the candidates, those higher in merit would have made an informed decision while exercising their preferences for allotment of departments. As such, grave prejudice has been caused to the meritorious candidates, defeating the fundamental principle of merit-based selection. Further still, the respondent-Commission has tried to withhold relevant information from this Court, resulting in passing of repeated orders in order to elicit complete information. Such conduct is deprecated in strictest and strongest terms”, the Bench further noted.

At the same time, the Court exercised judicial restraint in moulding relief, taking note of the passage of time, it observed that many selected candidates had already gained experience and may have even earned promotions. Interfering with the existing departmental allocation at this stage, the Court held, would lead to administrative disruption and public inconvenience, and was therefore not warranted.

“However, the act and conduct of the respondent-Commission in allocating departments to the selected candidates through an opaque and capricious process is deeply troubling and must be addressed. Therefore, in order to avoid recurrence of such a scenario, the Chief Secretaries to the Governments of Haryana and Punjab, respectively, are directed to issue appropriate instructions”, the Bench noted.

“Since the present scenario makes out a clear case of misconduct, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana is also directed to examine the suitability of inquiring into the conduct of the members and office-bearers of the respondent-Commission and desirability of taking appropriate action against those, who are responsible for the same. Accordingly, appropriate order in this regard shall be passed”, the Bench directed.

Cause Title: Aman Duddi v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission and others [Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:042652]

Appearances:

Petitioners: Samrat Malik, Amit Kaushik, Suresh Kumar Kaushik, Advocates.

Respondents: Vikrant Pamboo, Addl. AG, Haryana, Piyush Khanna, Addl. AG, Haryana, Hitesh Pandit, Davinder Kaliraman, Jitender Nara, Rajat Sharma, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Order