Rikul Chhatwal v. State of Punjab and Others

IN T

1. LPA-313

Rikul Chatwal State of Punjab

2. LPA-461

Baljeet Kaur State of Punjab

3. LPA-464

Yuvraj Singh State of Punjab

4. LPA-757

Bagicha Singh State of Punjab

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

Re Da

-2024

VERSUS and Others

1-2024

VERSUS and Others

4-2024

VERSUS and Others

7-2024

VERSUS and Others

JAB AND HARYANA ARH served on :-17.09.2024 ate of Decision : 14.10.2024

....Appellant

....Respondents

....Appellant

....Respondents

....Appellant

....Respondents

....Appellant

....Respondents

5. LPA-751

Gurpreet Singh State of Punjab

6. LPA-752

Kartik Singla State of Punjab

7. LPA-776

Pavan Kamboj State of Punjab

8. LPA-803

Sahil Kumar State of Punjab

9. LPA-841

Satpal Singh State of Punjab

10. LPA-871

Anjani Verma State of Punjab

1-2024

VERSUS and Others

2-2024

VERSUS and Others

6-2024

VERSUS and Others

3-2024

VERSUS and Others

1-2024

VERSUS and Others

1-2024

VERSUS and Others

....Appellant

....Respondents

....Appellant

....Respondents

....Appellant

....Respondents

....Appellant

....Respondents

....Appellant

....Respondents

....Appellant

....Respondents

11. LPA-349

Rahul Dika State of Punjab

12. LPA-352

Tarsem

State of Punjab

13. LPA-421

Bakhshish Singh State of Punjab

14. LPA-451

Prabhjot Singh State of Punjab

15. LPA-971

Jagwinder Singh State of Punjab

16. LPA-100

Akshay Bharial State of Punjab

9-2024

VERSUS and Others

2-2024

VERSUS and Others

1-2024 h

VERSUS and Others

1-2024

VERSUS and Others

1-2024 h

VERSUS and Others

08-2024

VERSUS and Others

....Appellant

....Respondents

....Appellant

....Respondents

....Appellant

....Respondents

....Appellant

....Respondents

....Appellant

....Respondents

....Appellant

....Respondents

CORAM : HO HO

Present: Mr

(in

Mr

Mr

Ms

for

Mr

for

Mr SUDEEPTI SH

The

22.01.2024 pas "Sukhdev Singh the challenge to the post of Sub dismissed.

2.

Sin therefore, vide t Appeals mention

3.

The

i).

¶09of wit

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURE ON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUD r. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate for the LPA-313-2024) r. Nitin Verma, Advocate, r. Kinshu Mittal, Advocate, s. Sidhi Bansal, Advocate, the appellants in (LPA Nos.461 2, 776, 803, 841, 349, 352 & 451 r. Nitish K. Vasudeva, Advocate the appellant in LPA-421-2024. r. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Pun -.-

HARMA, J. e challenge in the present ap sed by the learned Single Jud h Vs. State of Punjab and Others the provisional list dated 25.05 b Inspectors in Technical and S nce the similar issue is involved this common judgement, we sh ned above. e brief facts of the cases are as u The department had issued an a

09.2021 (recruitment of Sub-In 2021 dated 09.09.2021 (recruitm th the provisions of Standing ord

ESHWAR THAKUR EEPTI SHARMA e appellant , 464, 757, 751, 1 of 2024) . njab. ppeals is to the judgment da dge in CWP-12331-2023 titled s" and connected petitions, wher .2023 of the candidates selected Support Services Cadre 2021, w in all the above-numbered appe hall dispose of all the Latter Pat under:- advertisement No. 7 of 2021 da nspectors) and advertisement No ment of Constables) in accorda der No. 07 of 2021 (recruitmen

ated d as eby for was eals, tent ated o. 6 ance

Sub Con Ins Tec of fun elig obj dist adv

ii) it is out Pun adv rec 2) Tes

iii) poi and (rec (rec

b-Inspectors) and Standing orde nstables), respectively, to fill up pectors and 2340 Constables chnical and Support Services (T direct recruitment in different nctions. However, corrigendum gibility of sportspersons, corrige jection fees and corrigendum tribution of tentative vacancie vertisement dated 09.09.2021. In the para No.1 of the said s clearly mentioned that the pro t in accordance with the provis 21 and Standing Order No. 06 njab Police official website. As vertisement dated 09.09.2021 ruitment was conducted in 2 ph and Phase-II (Physical Measure st and Document Scrutiny). The roster of reserved pos int 2 reservation roster is publis d the same is also a part of cruitment of Sub-Inspectors) an cruitment of Constables).

er No. 06 of 2021 (recruitment p temporary vacancies of 267 S of both male and female in TSS) cadre of Punjab Police by w domains further in specializati No. 1 dated 26.09.2021 regard endum No. 2 dated 02.10.2022 m No. 3 dated 05.01.2023 es was issued in the above s advertisement(s) dated 09.09.20 cess of recruitment shall be carr sions of Standing Order No. 07 of 2021, which is available on s per para No. 9 of the above s the selection process in hases, viz., Phase-I (Test 1 and T ement Test, the Physical Screen sts for various categories i.e. shed by the Government of Pun Standing order No. 07 of 20 nd Standing order No. 06 of 20

t of Sub-way ion/ ding for for said 021, ried 7 of said Test ning

iv) pos in C

v) SC car Ins (Ad (tw six Spo Spo forw

vi) can pro pre

4.

Pro of Sub-Inspecto by filing a writ

20.01.2024, dism the learned Sing

The duly vetted revised res sts for recruitment of Sub-Inspe 21 was published on Punjab Poli Corrigendum No. 3 dated 05.01.2 In the recruitment of Sub-In 21), two unfilled reserved v (M&B) and one in Sportspers rried forward and included in pectors. Additionally, in t dvertisement No. 6 of 2021), fif wenty-four in Ex-Servicemen, se in Ex-Servicemen SC(R&O), s ortsperson, three in Sportsp ortsperson SC(R&O)) from ea ward and included in the present The provisional selection lis ndidates was prepared and ovisional selection list (Constab epared and published on 06.12.20 ovisional list dated 25.05.2023 ors in Technical and Support Se petition before the learned Sing missed the same. The relevant gle Judge is reproduced as under:

servation category wise breakup ectors & Constables in TSS cad ice website and leading newspap 2023. nspectors (Advertisement No. 7 acancies (one in Ex-Servicem on) from earlier recruitment w the present recruitment of S recruitment of Constab fty-nine unfilled reserved vacanc even in Ex-Servicemen SC(M& ix in Ex-Servicemen BC, eleven person SC(M&B) and two arlier recruitment(s) were carr t recruitment of Constables. st (Sub-Inspectors) of success published on 25.05.2023. T bles) of successful candidates w

¶023of candidates selected for the p rvices Cadre, 2021 was challeng gle Judge, who vide judgment da portion of the judgment passed :-

p of dre-pers 7 of men were Sub-bles cies &B), n in in ried sful The was post ged ated

"7 par

¶8trea sele inv bes opi ma sta

¶9and On

I have heard the argu rties and perused the record with

It is axiomatic in serv ad warily while adverting with c ection process involves multip volvement of experts. It must be st of candidates as per their nee inion of selection committee. T la fide on the part of selection tutory provisions or fundamenta

A two Judge Bench of d Others v. State of Jammu an nLine SC 344 has held: "65. Before proceeding fur judgment with the view tha interfering in the selection recognising the importance integrity of the selection pro process of selection involve discretion and that it is not a their judgment for that of a indeed, treading on thin ice reviewing the decision of exp board. The law on the scope

uments of learned counsels for h their able assistance. vice jurisprudence that Courts m challenge to selection process. T ple stages and there is norma left to selection committee to se d. The Courts should not substit The Court can interfere if there committee or there is violation al rights. f Apex Court in Tajvir Singh So nd Kashmir and Others 2023 S rther, it is necessary to preface at Courts in India generally av n process of public employme of maintaining the autonomy a cess. The Courts recognise that es a high degree of expertise a appropriate for Courts to substit a selection committee. It would e for us if we were to venture i perts who form a part of a select e and extent of judicial review o

must The ally lect tute e is n of odhi SCC our void ent, and and tute d be into tion

selection process and resul consideration of the followin

i) In Dalpat Abasaheb S 1 SCC 305 : AIR 1990 SC 43 judicial review of a selection "9…It is needless to emphas court to hear appeals ove committees and to scrutin candidates. Whether the can not has to be decided b committee which has the exp no such expertise. The decis be interfered with only on lim patent material irregularity or its procedure vitiating t affecting the selection etc…..

ii) In a similar vein, in S F.W. v. Dr. Anita Puri, (199 as under as regards the san grounds on which the results "9. … It is too well settled th expert body like the Public advised by experts having academic qualification in th be made, the courts should b

lts thereof, may be understood ng case law: Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, (19 34, this Court clarified the scope n process, in the following words sise that it is not the function of er the decisions of the select nise the relative merits of didate is fit for a particular pos by the duly constituted select pertise on the subject. The court sion of the selection committee c mited grounds, such as illegality in the constitution of the commi the selection, or proved malafi ." Secy. (Health) Deptt. Of Health 6) 6 SCC 282, this Court obser ctity of a selection process and s thereof may be interfered with: hat when a selection is made by Service Commission which is a g technical experience and h e field for which the selection is be slow to interfere with the opin

on 990) e of s: f the tion t or tion has can y or ttee ides h & rved y an also high s to

expressed by experts unless and established. It would be leave the decisions on such m familiar with the problems expert body considers suitab post after giving due consid then the court should no selection and evaluation……

iii) This position was re Thimmaiah v. Union Public S 119, in the following words: "21. Now, comes the questi the candidates. Normally, the Committee cannot be challen fides or serious violation o cannot sit as an Appel recommendations of the Sel appeal. This discretion ha Committee only and courts examine the selection of the the court to examine each ca xxx

¶30We fail to understand Appellate Authority to cal constitute Selection Committ

allegations of mala fide are ma e prudent and safe for the courts matters to the experts who are m they face than the courts. If bility of a candidate for a specif deration to all the relevant facto ot ordinarily interfere with su ." eiterated by this Court in M Service Commission, (2008) 2 S ion with regard to the selection e recommendations of the Select nged except on the ground of m of the statutory rules. The cou llate Authority to examine lection Committee like the cour as been given to the Select rarely sit as a court of appeal e candidates nor is the business andidate and record its opinion… how the Tribunal can sit as ll for the personal records a tee to undertake this exercise. T

ade s to more fied ors, uch M.V. SCC n of tion mala urts t of tion l to s of … an and

power is not given to the understood that the assessm not subject to appeal eithe courts. One has to give cre making their assessment and the overall view of ACRs of be very good and another ma interference is permitted then Tribunals and the High Cou Committee or act as an App It is not their domain, it sho been clearly held by this Cou

iv) Om Prakash P Maheshwari v. Delhi Stock E SCC 117, was a case wher Court challenging the select Exchange on the ground tha for the aforesaid purpose, ar and was thus, against Art allegation of favouritism and "5. …the selection of membe be done on the basis of consideration experience, similar related factors. In the percentage of marks were a

Tribunal and it should be clea ment of the Selection Committee er before the Tribunal or by edit to the Selection Committee d it is not subject to appeal. Tak the candidates, one may be held ay be held to be good. If this type n it would virtually amount that rts have started sitting as Select pellate Authority over the selecti ould be clearly understood, as urt in a number of decisions….." oplai and Rajesh Kum Exchange Association Ltd., (1994 re an appeal was filed before tion of members to the Delhi St at the Selection Committee form rbitrarily favoured some candida ticle 14. This Court rejected d bias by holding as under: ers by the Expert Committee had an objective criteria taking i professional qualifications a e present cases, we find that cert allocated for each of these facto

arly e is for king d to e of tion ion. has " mar 4) 2 this tock med ates d to into and tain ors,

namely, educational qual background and knowledge o pertaining to public issues et 20 per cent were reserved fo of selection by the Expert Co sweet-will of the members of was limited to 20 per cent an members of the Expert Com nominated by the Central G the contention that they acte fashion……"

¶66Thus, the inexorable that it is not within the dom power of judicial review, to process, a task which is the expert domain of a Selection caveat that if there are pro violations of statutory rules arbitrariness, can the Courts

¶67Thus, Courts while review cannot step into the s assume an appellate role awarded by the Selection excessive and not correspon test. The assessment and e

lifications, experience, financ of the relevant laws and procedu tc. Of the total marks allocated o r interviews. Therefore, the proc ommittee was not left entirely to of the Committee. The area of p nd having regard to the fact that mmittee comprised of two memb Government it is difficult to acc ed in an unreasonable or arbitr conclusion that can be drawn main of the Courts, exercising enter into the merits of a select e prerogative of and is within n Committee, subject of course t oven allegations of malfeasance s, only in such cases of inher s intervene. exercising the power of judic shoes of the Selection Committee to examine whether the ma n Committee in the viva-voce nding to their performance in s evaluation of the performance

cial ures only cess play bers cept rary n is tion to a e or rent cial e or arks are uch

¶10and cat (M car The bee

candidates appearing before Board should be best left to light of the position that a C the decision taken pursuant process, the following groun which are based on an attack the selection board/interview of candidates, namely, (i) t their post-graduation had the viva-voce, such PG cand marks or 20 marks out of petitioners had performed e the authorities had acted in a out the selection process, wo

The conceded position e petitioners belong to reserved d as per advertisement, 27 s tegory. 17 seats of the said cate M&B) and 2 seats have been filled rried forward. There was 1 sea e said seat has not been filled up e petitioners participated in the s en selected. The respondent has e purpose of reservation.

e the Selection Committee/Interv o the members of the committee Court cannot sit in appeal aga t to a reasonably sound select nds raised by the writ petitione k of subjective criteria employed w panel in assessing the suitabi that the candidates who had d been awarded 10 marks and didates had been granted either f 20. (ii) that although the w exceptionally well in the intervi an arbitrary manner while carry ould not hold any water. n emerging from record is that category and primarily SC (M& seats were reserved for the s egory have been filled up from d from SC(R&O). 8 seats have b at meant for SC (Sports-R&O) a p. It has also been carried forwa selection process and they have s prepared combined merit list

view . In inst tion ers, d by ility done d in r 18 writ iew, ying all &B) said SC een and ard. not

¶11app sup was fac fun The res Par

¶12sele per not res fille spe Par

Paragraph 5.3 of the a ply for more than one specializa pposed to apply for one domain s granted to apply for more tha cilitated candidates to ap nction/specialization and it incr e said paragraph has no concern ervation. It simply creates righ ragraph 5.3 of the advertisement "5.3 Candidates are requ Specialization/ Function. Specializations/ Functions selection as the cut off for ea different depending upon selected in that Specializat candidates applying for that

Paragraph 9.6 prescr ection list. It provides that rese r the State Government instructi t on the individual domain/spec ervation category and/or doma ed up, further selection to that r ecialization shall be disconti ragraph 9.6 of the advertisement

advertisement permits candidates ation/function. Every candidate w and one function, however, libe an one function/specialization. T apply for more than o reased their possibility of succe n with preparation of merit list a ht to apply for different functio t reads as: uired to apply in minimum o However, applying in multi may increase their chances ach Specialization/ Function may the number of candidates to tion/ Function and the number Specialization/ Function." ribes procedure for preparation ervation roster shall be applied ions on the combined merit list a cialization. It further provides t ain/specialization as and when g reservation category and/or dom inued. The relevant extracts t read as:

s to was erty This one ess. and ons. one iple of y be be r of n of d as and that gets main

¶13pet ado adv to pre res whe list can resp

"9.6 Preparation of the Sele

9.6.1 For preparation of Sel shall be applied as per the the combined merit list and Specializations. The candid respective Reservation categ particular Domain/ Special prepared on the basis of agg as prepared in clause 9.5.1 h

9.6.2 As and when a Reser Specialization gets filled up c Reservation Category and/ o discontinued."

From the pleadings an e petitioners, nothing sort of f titioners could not be selected opted by respondent-State. The vertized different domains as we applicants to apply for differe epared combined merit list for ervation has not been applie ereas reservation policy has be t. Resultantly, there was possibil ndidate belonging to a parti pondent has selected 145 ca

ection List lection List, the Reservation ros State Government instructions d not on the individual Doma dates shall be selected in th gories and shall be allocated t lization as per their overall m gregate marks of Test 1 and Tes hereinbefore. rvation Category and/ or Doma completely, further selection to t or Domain/ Specialization shall nd arguments of learned counsel favoritism can be culled out. T because of convoluted mechan respondent, at the same mome ell as functions and granted libe ent functions. The respondent r the purpose of reservation. T ed domain-wise or function-w een applied on the combined m lity that in a particular domain, icular category is selected. T andidates belonging to reser

ster on ins/ heir to a erit st 2 ain/ that l be l for The ism ent, erty has The wise erit The

cat Sta wit left cat pro acc fun tha sim sup can par said one dom wou dom non

¶14and resp arb

tegory against 157 reserved pos ate collectively has followed res th mandate of 2006 Act. The twe t vacant. These vacancies have tegory candidates and carrie ocess. The grievance of the peti count of their application in a nction. In Para 9.6.2 of the adve at question of reservation and multaneously. The respondent-S pposed to look at reservation ndidate belonging to a reserv rticular domain, it may result in d category from his seat in anot e seat for SC (sports) and two mains, as soon as one candidate uld not be selected in another main, majority candidates may b n-availability of candidates of ot

The petitioners have p d there is no illegality or a pondent-State. In the absenc bitrariness, it would not be fair e selection process.

sts. This indicates that responde servation policy and duly compl elve reserved vacancies have b e not been filled up from gene ed forward for next recruitm tioners has primarily emanated a particular domain or particu ertisement, it was clearly mention domain/specialization would State at every point of time w as well as domain. In case ved category is selected in o nto depriving another candidate ther domain/function e.g. if ther o candidates apply under differ e is selected in one domain, anot domain. Similarly, in a particu be from a particular category due ther categories. participated in the selection proc arbitrariness on the part of ce of prima facie illegality on the part of Court to interfere

ent-lied een eral ment d on ular ned run was e, a one e of re is rent ther ular e to cess or

¶15tak can

¶16wa ma extr

Pra has pro (sup pro

It is settled propositio ken part in the selection proce nnot challenge the same after ha

In Ramesh Chandra S 9, after referring to a catena iver and estoppel, Supreme Cour e advertisement for the reaso intainable after participating in racts of the judgment read as: "24. In view of the p noted judgments, it must be the process of selection with f was being made under the G waived their right to que methodology adopted by the learned Single Judge and the committed grave error by e the respondents."

A two Judge Bench of adesh v. Karunesh Kumar and s clearly held that a candidate w ocess is estopped and cannot cha

A two Judge Bench of upra) has held that candidates, ocess without any demur or prote

on of law that a candidate hav ess without any demur or prot ving been declared unsuccessful Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 S of judgments on the principle rt did not entertain the challenge on that the same would not the selection process. The relev propositions laid down in the ab e held that by having taken par full knowledge that the recruitm General Rules, the respondents h estion the advertisement or Board for making selection and e Division Bench of the High Co ntertaining the grievance made of Supreme Court in State of Ut Others 2022 SCC Online SC 1 who has participated in the select allenge the selection process. f Apex Court in Tajvir Singh So having taken part in the select est, cannot challenge the same af

ving test, l. SCC e of e to be vant ove t in ment had ourt e by Uttar tion odhi tion

hav and sele jus

¶17and mo

¶18des

¶19has said list res cou unf Par

ving been declared unsuccessful d reprobate at the same time. ection process was unfair or the t because selection process was

The petitioners have p d they have not been selected on e purpose of reservation. They, a de and manner prescribed in the

In the wake of above f serve to be dismissed and accord

Before parting with sten to advert with Paragraph N d paragraph, it has been provid t and unfilled vacancies shall be ervation category to the nex unsel during the course of a filled seats meant for open categ ragraph 11.5 of the advertisemen "11.5 No Waiting List vacancy shall be carried for category to the next recruitm Domain(s)/ Specialization(s) decided at the time of next from the existing Domain(s)/

l. The candidates cannot approb . A candidate cannot allege t ere was some lacuna in the proc not palatable to a candidate participated in the selection proc n account of combined merit list at this belated stage, cannot disp e advertisement. facts and findings, all the petiti dingly dismissed. the judgment, this Court wo Nos.11.5 of the advertisement. In ded that there would be no wait e carried forward in the respec t recruitment process. The St arguments further confirmed t gory would not be carried forwa nt reads as: t shall be prepared and any unfil rward in the respective reservat ment. It is however clarified that ), if any, would be applicable recruitment afresh and may dif / Specialization(s)."

bate that cess cess for pute ions ould ting tive tate that ard. lled tion e as

¶20and eve pos stag fur one pos wou prej min equ Ape oth elig SUBMISSIONS

5.

Lea Judge completel reply has wron learned Single J reservation poli the judgment pa

6.

Per Selection List (S

The selection process d completes on the joining of ca ery selection process imbibes a ssibilities especially in Armed F ge of medical examination ar ther possibilities of selection of e post. In such circumstances, p sts are carried forward despite a uld waste valuable time and ejudice those candidates who nuscule margin. .

This Court finds that i uity and fair play if the respon ex Court in Munja Praveen and hers, 2017(14) SCC 797, qua va gible candidates." S OF LEARNED COUNSEL F arned counsel for the appellant ly ignored the contentions raised ngly dismissed the writ petition Judge totally ignored the fact tha cy. They, therefore, pray that t assed by the learned Single Judge r contra, learned counsel for the Sub-Inspectors) published on 25

commences from the advertisem andidates. It is well-known fact t quite long time. There are alw Forces that few candidates at re found unfit. There are alw f same candidate against more th posts may get vacant and if th availability of eligible candidates energy of the State as well are not selected on account it would be in the interest of just ndent-State in view of judgment d others v. State of Telangana a acant posts, re-considered claim FOR THE PARTIES ts contend that the learned Sin d by the appellants and without ns. They further contend that at the present selection is contrary the present appeals be allowed e be set aside. e State submits that the Provisio

5.05.2023 and Provisional Select

ment that ways ways han hese s, it as t of tice, t of and m of ngle any y to and onal

List (Constabl Rules/instruction (recruitment of Constables), Ad Inspectors) & Constables) and learned Single J

7.

We record of these c

8.

A Provisional Sel advertisement(s "9

9.6 app me can and and

9.6 Spe Res disc

les) published on 06.12.202 ns of Government of Punjab Sub-Inspectors) & Standing O dvertisement No.7 of 2021 date Advertisement No.6 of 2021 d subsequent Corrigendum(s). Judge has rightly dismissed the w e have heard learned counsel for cases. perusal of the record shows lection List has been explain ) dated 09.09.2021, which are re

9.6 Preparation of the Selection

6.1 For preparation of Selection L plied as per the State Governm rit list and not on the individu ndidates shall be selected in thei d shall be allocated to a particu ir overall merit prepared on the d Test 2 as prepared in clause 9.5

6.2 As and when a Reserva ecialization gets filled up com servation Category and/ or continued.

23 is in accordance with b, Standing Order No.7 of 20 rder No.6 of 2021 (recruitment ed 09.09.2021 (recruitment of S dated 09.09.2021 (recruitment He, therefore, contends that writ petitions filed by the appella r the parties and perused the wh s that the process for prepar ed in para No. 9.6 of the s eproduced as under: n List List, the Reservation roster shall ment instructions on the combin ual Domains/ Specializations. T ir respective Reservation categor ular Domain/ Specialization as basis of aggregate marks of Tes

5.1 hereinbefore. ation Category and/ or Doma mpletely, further selection to t Domain/ Specialization shall

t of Sub-t of nts. hole ring said l be ned The ries per st 1 ain/ that

9.6 (Ge sim Res fille resp

9.6 Spe rem app

9.6 Spe ma con foll

6.3 Firstly, the vacancies of Ge eneral) and Sportspersons (Gen multaneously out of the candidate basis of their merit. Second served categories including Spo ed up simultaneously out of pective Reserved category based

6.4 Once a candidate has been ecialization, (s)he shall not be maining Domain(s)/ Specializat peared.

6.5 In case of a candidate who ecialization in any Domain in arks considering his/ her mark nsideration for selection to the lows:

9.6.5.1 For IT Services Do considered for selection to th of Grouping 1, followed by followed by a Specialization be allocated in whichever Sp the Selection List first in selected candidate shall not Specializations.

eneral (unreserved), ExServicem neral) category shall be filled es belonging to all the categories dly, the vacancies of differen ortspersons (SC) shall be simila the candidates belonging to d on the overall merit. selected and allocated a Doma e considered for selection aga tion(s) in which (s)he may h o has appeared in more than Test 2 and gets equal aggreg s in different Specializations, Selection List shall be affected omain, the candidate shall be f he Selection List in a Specializat y a Specialization of Grouping of Grouping 3. The candidate sh pecialization (s)he secures a place point of time and thereafter t be considered against remain

men up s on nt 4 arly ain/ inst have one gate d as first tion g 2, hall e in

9.6 can crit

9.

Pa reproduced as un

9.6.5.2 For Community & Services Domain, the can selection to the Selection Community Counselling firs Victim Support Specializatio in whichever Specializatio Selection List first in point candidate shall not be Specializations.

9.6.5.3 For Forensic Scienc considered for selection to th of Computer/ Digital Forens Forensic Analysis Speciali allocated in whichever Spec the Selection List first in selected candidate shall not Specializations.

6.6 While preparing the Selec ndidates securing equal aggrega teria as in clause 9.5.2 hereinbefo ara 13 of the Advertisement(s) nder: "In the recruitment in TSS c applied to the vacancies of whole whereas the cut off

Victim Support and Counsell ndidate shall be considered n List in the Specialization t, and 5 thereafter in Community on. The candidate shall be alloca on (s)he secures a place in of time and thereafter the selec considered against remain es Domain, the candidate shall he Selection List in a Specializat sic Analysis first, and thereafter ization. The candidate shall cialization (s)he secures a place point of time and thereafter t be considered against remain ction List, in the event of t ate marks, the same Tie resolut fore shall be adopted." pertaining to 'No Waiting List adre, the reservation roster shall f the single and unified cadre a of marks shall be applied to

ling for of y & ated cted ning l be tion r in be e in ning two tion t' is l be

In Me

10.

Sin State counsel w selection proces counsel are as u

dated 25.05.202 published in Ad in a particular D Analysis Specia reservation wise

individual Domain and Spec 6 the number of candidates Specialization/ Function. Th individual Domain and Spec reservation category agnosti be prepared in the recruitmen addition, Para 11.5 of the Ad erit List' is reproduced as followi "No Waiting List shall be p shall be carried forward in t to the next recruitment. I Domain(s)/ Specialization(s) decided at the time of next from the existing Domain(s)/ nce no reply was filed to the w was directed to give written ss. The details of the selection pr under:- As per the provisional Selec 23, 12 number of vacancies rema dvertisement No. 7 of 2021 due t Domain/ Specialization. All 12 alization/ Function under Fore e vacancies remain unfilled is de

cialization/ Function on the basis to be selected in that Domain a he selection of candidates to cialization/ Function is going to ic. Therefore, no waiting list sh nt of Constables in TSS cadre." dvertisement(s) pertaining to 'Fi ing: prepared and any unfilled vacan the respective reservation categ It is however clarified that ), if any, would be applicable recruitment afresh and may di / Specialization(s)." writ petition, therefore, the learn synopsis regarding the details rocess as given by the learned St ction List (Sub-Inspector) publish ained unfilled out of 267 vacanc to the absence of eligible candida unfilled vacancies are in Foren ensic Sciences (FS) Domain. T tailed as under:

s of and o be hall inal ncy gory e as ffer ned of tate hed cies ates nsic

As

¶06vac abs Ou For (FS Spe The as u

Sr. No. Category

¶1Scheduled Caste (M

¶2Ex-Servicemen SC (

¶3Sports SC (M&B)

¶4Sports SC (R&O) Total unfilled vacancie per Provisional Selection

12.2023, 66 number of vacanc cancies published in Advertise sence of eligible candidates in a ut of these 66 unfilled vacanc rensic Analysis Specialization/ S) Domain and 31 unfilled vacan ecialization/ Function under Info e reservation wise vacancies wh under: Sr. No. Category

¶1Scheduled Caste (M&

¶2Freedom Fighter

¶3Sports SC (M&B) Total unfilled vacanci

Number of unfilled vacancies Male Female M&B) (M&B) es List (Constables) published cies remained unfilled out of 23 ement No. 6 of 2021 due to a particular Domain/ Specializati cies, 35 unfilled vacancies are Function under Forensic Scien ncies are in System Administrat ormation Technology (IT) Doma hich remained unfilled are detai Number of unfill vacancies Male Fema &B) ies

on ion. e in nces tion ain. iled led

11.

The Inspector & pro is prepared in ac Service rules, S List is prepare advertisement. A the State Gove individual Doma or Domain/ Sp reservation cate vacancies of G (General) catego to all the catego reserved catego simultaneously based on the ov in the provisiona Sr.N o. Deta ils of LPA

¶1313/ 2024

¶2349/ 2024

e provisional Selection List of 2 visional Selection List of 2274 c ccordance with the State Govern Standing order and the Adverti ed as per Para 9.6 (Prepara As prescribed in the advertisem ernment instructions on the com ains/ Specializations. Also, as an pecialization gets filled up com egory and/ or domain/ Specializa eneral (unreserved), Ex-Service ory were filled up simultaneous ories on the basis of their merit. S ories including Sportspersons out of the candidates belonging erall merit. The following candi al Selection List, details of whic Name of Petitioner Roll No. Specializatio n applied Rikul Chhatwal 2207020 01745 Community Victim Support Rahul Dika 2207060 01947 Human Resource Management

255 candidates in the rank of S candidates in the rank of Constab nment rules/ instructions, TSS ca isement. The provisional Select ation of Selection List), of ment, reservation was applied as mbined merit list and not on nd when a reservation category a mpletely, further selection to t ation was discontinued. Firstly, emen (General) and Sportspers sly out of the candidates belong Secondly, the vacancies of differ

(SC) were similarly filled to the respective reserved categ idates were unable to secure a pl h are as under: o Marks obtained (out of 200) Applied reservatio n category Remar & 79.12105 SC M&B) Special ion cut

117.990

132.84896 Wards of Police Personnel (WPP Certificate not produced. Hence, considered Special ion cu

143.013

Sub-bles adre tion per and/ that ons ging rent up gory lace rks lizat t-off: lizat ut-off

¶3352/ 2024

¶4421/ 2024

¶5451/ 2024

¶6461/ 2024

¶7464/ 2024

¶8751/ 2024

Tarsem 2206040 01100 (Consta ble) Human Resource Management Bakshish Singh 2207020 01995 Human Resource Management Prabhjeet Singh 2207050 00228 Network Management

IT Support

Data Analytic Baljeet Kaur 2207020 01060 Human Resource Management Yuvraj Singh 2207030 00693 Programming Coding

Network Management

Data Analytic Gurpreet Singh 2207020 00314 Programming Coding

Network Management

Data Analytic

as Unreserved Candidate)

49.59300 BC Male Special ion off:120

109.56131 Sports SC (R&O) Male Special ion off:143

cs

48.75481

44.00481

80.25481

Ex-Servicemen General Self Male Special ion off:69.2

Special ion off:88.2 Special ion off:142

85.52859 General Female Special ion off:143 g/

cs

66.12395

73.62395

101.12395

SC (M&B) Male Special ion f up by o reserva categor (Para 27123

Special ion f up by o reserva categor (Para 27123

Special ion off:142 g/

cs

25.72729

44.22729

51.97729

Ex-Servicemen SC (R&O) – Vimukat Jati/Bazigar Self Male Special ion off:64.5

Special ion off:69.2

Special ion

lizat cut-

0.10 lizat cut-.01 lizat cut-lizat cut-lizat cut-

2.15 lizat cut- .01 lizat filled other ation ries

9.6) lizat filled other ation ries

9.6) lizat cut-

2.15 lizat cut-lizat cut-lizat cut-

¶9752/ 2024 757/ 2024

¶11776/ 2024

¶12803/ 2024 841/ 2024

¶14871/ 2024

¶15971/ 2024

¶161008 /202

Kartik Singla 2207020 00620 Data Mining

Data Analytic

Programming Coding Baghicha Singh 2207020 00926 Community Victim Support Pavan Kamboj 2207060 02555 Human Resource Management Sahil Kumar 2207050 01586 Human Resource Management Satpal Singh 2207060 00258 System Administratio

Network Management

Data Analytic Anjani Verma 2207010 00367 Human Resource Management Jagwinder Singh 2207030 0896 Human Resource Management Akshay Bharial 2207040 00280 Data Analytic

Programming Coding

Network Management

off:142 cs g/

103.23816

117.23816

64.988156

Sports General Male Special ion off:146

Special ion off:142

Sports Genera Cut-off

75.2987 & 67.07894 Ex-Servicemen BC Self Male Special ion cu :

117.990

146.00577 B.C Male Special ion f up by o reserva categor (Para 9

55.21782 SC (M&B) Male Special ion cu

143.013

on

cs

106.43312

96.68312

116.43312

General Male

Genera Male off

132.368 t

107.26061 General Female Special ion cu

143.013

61.32594 SC (M&B) Male Special ion cu

143.013

cs g /

126.05315

78.55315

90.30315

SC (R&O) Male Special ion cu

142.154

SC (R& Male off

99.6150

2.15 lizat cut-

6.13 lizat cut-

2.15 al f lizat ut-off lizat filled other ation ries .6) lizat ut-off al Cut-: lizat ut-off lizat ut-off lizat ut-off &O) cut-

12.

Res candidate actual Government of reserved vacanc to the next recru CONCLUSION

13.

A advertisement d would be prepa Single Judge ha the appellants/p that no reservati selections as ref that how the sele

14.

Fur very much in th wherein the prep

15.

A p application form 220706001947 had applied un candidate during father's Identifi Personnel (WPP

servation point is treated as lly joins the post in the direct rec Punjab and as per provisions of cy would be carried forward in uitment. N perusal of advertisement sho dated 09.09.2021, it is clearly me ared. There is no ambiguity in as rightly observed that after pa etitioners cannot challenge the p ion policy has been followed by ferred to above. In clause 9.6 ection list would be prepared. rther when the advertisement wa e knowledge of the appellants an paration of the selection list has b perusal of written synopsis of t m submitted by the candidate nam (LPA No. 349/ 2024 in CWP N nder Ward of Police Personnel g submission of his online appl ication card to support his ca P) reservation category. As the

filled/ consumed only when cruitment. As per instructions of f the Advertisement(s), any unfil the respective reservation categ ows that as per clause 9.6 entioned as to how the selection n the same and therefore, learn articipating in the selection proc provisional merit list on the grou y the respondents while making it has been categorically explain as issued clause 9.6 of the same w nd they never challenged clause been categorically explained. the State shows that as per onl mely Sh. Rahul Dika with Roll N No. 14105 of 2023), the candid

(WPP) reservation category. T lication form had also uploaded andidature under Ward of Pol candidate namely Sh. Rahul D

f the lled gory of list ned cess und ned was

9.6 line No. date The his lice

with Roll No. 2 certificate, issue submission of Personnel certif Rahul Dika with open candidate 220706001947 Domain. The c Domain irrespe 84). The candi obtained 132.84 cut-off. Thus, t Selection List. social category, application form advertisement, w "20

¶20Spe

220706001947 had neither uploa ed by the office of the Director his online application form, n ficate during Document Scrutiny h Roll No. 220706001947 was e. The candidate namely Sh had applied in Human Reso cut-off marks in Human Reso ctive of reservation category is date namely Sh. Rahul Dika w 4896/ 200 marks, which are les the candidate was unable to s Further, since the candidate be , the candidate was charged R m, in accordance with the provis which is reproduced as following

0.2 APPLICATION FEE

2.1 Application fees for op ecialization/ Function shall be ch Sr. No. Category

¶1General

2. SC/ST/BC

3. EWS

aded his Ward of Police Person r General of Police, Punjab, dur nor submitted his Ward of Po y process, the candidate namely considered as unreserved/ gene h. Rahul Dika with Roll N ource Management Specializati ource Management Specializati

143.01324/ 200 (at serial num with Roll No. 220706001947 ss than the Specialization/ Dom secure a place in the provisio elongs to Scheduled caste (M& Rs.1100/-for submitting his onl sions mentioned in para 20.2 of g: pting for a minimum of harged as under: Application Fee Rs.2000/-Rs.1100/-Rs.1100/-

nnel ring lice Sh. eral/ No. ion/ ion/ mber has main onal &B) line one

20.2.2 The inc Specialization/ F

16.

The

25.05.2023 and are in accordanc Order No. 7 of 2021 (recruitme (recruitment of (recruitment of C

17.

The dismissed being the learned Sing of Punjab and O

18.

Pen

19.

A p cases.

(SURESHWAR

JUDGE

October 14, 202 tripti

Wh

Wh

¶4Ex-Servicemen / Descendants cremental Application fees to Function shall be Rs. 600/- for a e Provisional Selection List Provisional Selection List (Co ce with the rules/ instructions o 2021 (recruitment of Sub-Inspe ent of Constables), Advertiseme Sub-Inspectors) & Advertiseme Constables) and subsequent Corr erefore, in view of the above, g devoid of any merit. The jud gle Judge in CWP-12331-2023 t Others" and other connected peti nding applications, if any, also st photocopy of this order be plac R THAKUR)

hether speaking/non-speaking : S hether reportable

: Y

Lineal Rs.900/- be charged for every additio all categories." t (Sub-Inspectors) published onstables) published on 06.12.20 of Government of Punjab, Stand ectors) & Standing Order No. 6 nt No. 7 of 2021 dated 09.09.20 ent No. 6 of 2021 dated 09.09.20 rigendum(s). , the above-numbered appeals dgment dated 22.01.2024 passed titled as "Sukhdev Singh Vs. St itions is upheld. tand disposed of. ced on the files of other connec (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE Speaking

onal on ding 6 of are d by tate