Indefinite Selection Process Denies Level Playing Field To Future Candidates; Violates Article 14 Of Constitution: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The challenge in the petition was made to an order passed by the Respondent 2 i.e. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Panchkula declining the claim of the petitioners for appointment as security guard on the ground that marks secured by the petitioners (117.40) were less than the last selected candidate (117.60) of BC ‘B’ category.

The Single Bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj observed, “The selection process cannot be kept open indefinitely. Keeping a selection process open-ended undermines the certainty and finality essential to public administration. An indefinite selection process also violates the principles of Article 14 of the Constitution as it allows unequal treatment of candidates and denies a level playing field to the future candidates.”

Advocate Mukesh Kumar Verma represented the Petitioners.

Factual Background

The case as set up by the petitioner was that the Respondent Department had advertised 471 posts of forest guards for different categories. Out of the above total posts, 86 posts were reserved for the BC ‘B’ category. Petitioners, being fully eligible, applied for the same. The petitioners received letters from the respondent department for an interview and a physical efficiency test. In the merit list, the names of the petitioners were not reflected. The said result, as well as the merit list, was challenged by the waiting list candidates on the ground that many candidates belonging to the reserved category had secured higher marks than the General category and therefore, as per Haryana government instructions, such candidates should have been given appointment against General category vacancies.

The committee noticed that there were a total of 40 candidates from the reserved categories who should have been considered in the Open/General Category. Following such recommendations, the overall seniority (merit) of 471 Forest Guards for appointment was finally revised after a contempt petition. However, the waiting list was not revised. The claim of the petitioners was thereafter rejected by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and HoFF, Haryana.

Arguments

It was the case of the Petitioners that when the overall merit list was revised, the waiting list was also liable to be revised, and the State was acting in an arbitrary manner by not filling the vacant posts despite the petitioners having undergone the entire process of recruitment. It was also contended that since 9 posts were vacant, respondents were duty-bound to fill up the same.

Reasoning

The Bench found no subsisting force in the argument that 9 posts were still vacant as the pleaded facts countered the claim. The process was not open-ended to eventually expand the zone of the waiting list and revise the waiting list as well. It was further observed that the respondents had denied the claim of the petitioners by giving valid reasons that the marks of the petitioners were less than the last selected candidate in the BC ‘B’ category, and their claim was not rejected mechanically but rather on merits.

“Just because now there are posts lying vacant, it does not create a right in favour of petitioners. There is no right in the petitioners to seek appointment against vacant posts since they were not amongst the candidates recommended for waiting list for appointment by the Commission”, it said.

Considering the fact that the result pertains to the year 2014 and already more than a decade had elapsed, and the list itself was stale, the Bench said, “...a mere disposal of petitions earlier does not mean that there is a judicial adjudication or acknowledgment of any right. An action taken by respondents cannot be equated to a direction by the High court. Such portrayal by the Government or claims by litigant are misconceived and not based on correct understanding of law pertaining to a precedent.”

Further referring to the judgment in U.P. Jal Nigam Versus Jaswant Singh (2006), the Bench said, “Once a litigant has resiled to his fate, he cannot spring to action after a vigilant candidate succeeds and claim that ignoring all laws of limitation, he should be granted the same relief. Limitation flows from a cause of action and not from the date when a judgment/decree is passed in favour of a vigilant litigant. Any other construction on sympathetical grounds gives rise to numerous unrequired disputes of service benefits, seniority, pay fixation, promotion etc. against all those persons who may have joined service in the meanwhile. A Constitutional Court thus needs to impose self-restraint in such cases where delay is not well explained”, it added.

Finding no merit in the Petition, the Bench dismissed the same.

Cause Title: Naresh Kumar and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:076104)

Appearance

Petitioners: Advocate Mukesh Kumar Verma

Click here to read/download Order