Summary
Where a fresh advertisement (No. 14 of 11.12.2020) issued after the Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020 reserved the sole 'SC Sports' post of Deputy Superintendent of Police for women, that reservation could not be undone midway through the recruitment on the strength of a roster issued on 29.01.2021, after the last date for applications, or on the Chief Secretary's later affidavit that the reservation was a mistake. Applying the rule in K. Manjusree and Tej Prakash Pathak that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has begun, the Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's remand and restored the Single Judge's order, so that the appellant, the only qualified 'SC Sports (Women)' candidate, is entitled to the DSP post.
Issues
- Whether the reservation of the single 'SC Sports' post of DSP for women in advertisement No. 14 dated 11.12.2020 could be altered, after the last date for applications, by reference to the 100-point roster issued by the State on 29.01.2021 or by the Chief Secretary's subsequent stand that the reservation was erroneous.
- Whether a male candidate who applied under the 'SC Sports' category, participated in the selection without protest and was selected as Deputy Superintendent (Jails)/DPO could claim appointment to the DSP post reserved for 'SC Sports (Women)'.
- Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in setting aside the Single Judge's reasoned order and remanding both writ petitions for fresh adjudication in light of the Chief Secretary's affidavit.
Provisions considered
- 33% horizontal reservation for women (sub-rule 5 on procedure); amendment of 29.12.2020 and roster in Annexure A, Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020The 2020 Rules, notified on 21.10.2020, mandated 33% reservation for women in all direct-recruitment posts, horizontal and compartmentalised within each vertical category. Advertisement No. 14 was issued in compliance with them and reserved the one DSP 'SC Sports' post for women. The Court held that the advertisement, which followed the Rules and was never challenged in its entirety, governed the rights of the candidates; the later roster of 29.01.2021 could not alter it. The Court expressly did not examine the legality of the roster. (¶¶ 3, 15, 16, 17, 24)
Held
- Advertisement No. 14 dated 11.12.2020 holds the field: the Chief Secretary's affidavit that the DSP post was erroneously reserved for 'SC Sports (Women)' and that the advertisement should be withdrawn was never acted upon, and neither the private respondent nor anyone else challenged the advertisement in its entirety. The rights of the appellant and the private respondent therefore had to be determined under that advertisement alone. (¶¶ 15, 24)
- The roster of 29.01.2021 came after the last date (30.12.2020) for applications under advertisement No. 14 and could not influence the rights of those who had applied and participated under it. A recruitment process begins with the advertisement calling for applications and ends with the filling of vacancies; once the eligibility criteria are declared by the advertisement they cannot be changed midway, as that would amount to changing the rules of the game after it has been played (K. Manjusree, affirmed by the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak). (¶¶ 16, 21, 22, 24)
- The private respondent, who applied under 'SC Sports', participated in the entire recruitment without protest and made a representation only after the merit list was published, could not plead ignorance of the terms of the advertisement at such a belated stage; he could not be appointed to the only DSP post, which was reserved for 'SC Sports (Women)', and he had in any event been selected and appointed as Deputy Superintendent (Jails). (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20)
- The appellant, being the only SC woman candidate in the 'SC Sports (Women)' category to clear all the tests for the post of DSP, must be accepted as the only person qualified for appointment to that post. The Single Judge's findings to this effect were correct and the Division Bench ought not to have remanded the matter. (¶¶ 21, 23, 25)
Result
Appeal allowed. The Division Bench's order dated 18.07.2023 in LPA No. 287 of 2023 set aside and the Single Judge's order dated 03.03.2023 upheld; the directions in the Single Judge's judgment to be complied with within three weeks. Pending applications disposed of; interim orders vacated.