Advertisement Fixes Eligibility; Supreme Court Holds Recruitment Rules Cannot Be Changed Midway and Upholds Woman-Reserved DSP Post

A Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal by Prabhjot Kaur challenging a Division Bench order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that had remanded rival writ petitions concerning reservation of a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) post for the ‘SC Sports (Women)’ category. The appeal raised the question whether the State could alter reservation outcomes after an advertisement had issued and applications had been filed, particularly in light of the Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020 and subsequent roster notifications.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench order and upheld the Single Judge's judgment which had held that advertisement No.14 dated 11.12.2020 fixed the eligibility criteria for the recruitment process and could not be changed midway. The Court observed that once an eligibility criterion was declared by means of a fresh advertisement, “the same cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process, as the same would tantamount to ‘changing the rules of the game, after the game is played’” and relied on the principle affirmed by a Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "65. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms: 65.1. Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies; 65.2. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness;…” The Court directed compliance with the Single Judge’s directions within three weeks.

Background The dispute arose from recruitment to 77 posts through the Punjab State Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination-2020, including seven DSP posts. The Public Service Commission first issued advertisement No.08 on 04.06.2020. After the Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020 (the 2020 Rules) were notified on 21.10.2020 prescribing 33% reservation for women (horizontal and compartmentalised), the State withdrew its earlier requisition and the Commission issued advertisement No.14 on 11.12.2020. Advertisement No.14 incorporated the 2020 Rules and, for the DSP cadre, showed one DSP post against ‘SC Sports’ which was reserved specifically for ‘SC Sports (Women)’. Candidates who had applied under the earlier advertisement were not required to reapply.

The appellant (Prabhjot Kaur) applied as an SC Sports (Women) candidate and topped the SC Women list; the private respondent applied as SC Sports (male) and topped the male SC list. After merit lists were declared on 18.06.2021, the private respondent sought appointment to the DSP seat, alleging that a roster issued by the State on 29.01.2021 (and an amendment to the 2020 Rules notified on 29.12.2020) showed no reservation for women in the SC Sports slot and thus advertisement No.14 was erroneous. The private respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court praying that advertisement No.14 be quashed insofar as it reserved the DSP post for women and for directions to appoint him.

The Single Judge dismissed the private respondent’s petition, holding that advertisement No.14 governed the recruitment process, the roster and roster points issued after the last date for applications (29.01.2021) could not affect the rights of candidates who had applied under the advertisement, and the private respondent could not be appointed to a post specifically reserved for women when he had applied in a male category. The Division Bench, noting contradictory stands taken by the Home Department and the Department of Social Justice and the Chief Secretary’s affidavit that the DSP post was “erroneously reserved for ‘SC Sports (Woman)’”, remanded the matters for fresh adjudication. The appellant challenged the remand order before the Supreme Court.

On hearing, the Supreme Court accepted the Single Judge’s reasoning, relied on the settled principle that the recruitment process commences with the advertisement and eligibility criteria notified at that stage cannot be altered mid-process, and held that advertisement No.14 remained operative. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench order, and affirmed that the appellant — as the only qualified SC woman candidate — must be appointed to the DSP post reserved under advertisement No.14. The Court directed that the Single Judge’s directions be complied with within three weeks and disposed of pending and interim applications.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 479 Case Title: Prabhjot Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate; Mr. Anurag Kulharia, Advocate; Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Advocate; Dr. Navya Jannu, Advocate; Ms. Aakriti Jain, AOR; Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Advocate; Mr. Shikhar Narwal, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General; Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR; Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate; Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR; Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Advocate; Mr. Lalit Singla, Advocate; Ms. Pratibha Singh, Advocate; Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Advocate.