Supreme Court Upholds Women's Reservation in Punjab DSP Recruitment, Reaffirms No Mid-Process Rule Changes.


09 April 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Supreme Court of India has set aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Prabhjot Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors., thereby upholding the reservation of a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) post for women under the Scheduled Caste (SC) Sports category in the Punjab state government services. The apex court's ruling came in an appeal challenging the High Court's decision to remand the matter for fresh adjudication.

The case originated from a recruitment process initiated by the Punjab Public Service Commission in 2020 for various state government posts, including 26 DSP positions. Advertisement No. 08, issued on June 4, 2020, initially advertised two vacancies under the ‘Scheduled Caste Sports’ category – one for DSP and another for Deputy Superintendent (Jails)/District Probation Officer (DSJ/DPO).


 

 

However, the landscape changed with the notification of the Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020, on October 21, 2020. These rules mandated a horizontal and compartmentalized reservation of 33% for women across all categories in direct recruitment for Group A, B, C, and D services.

In light of these new rules, the state government withdrew its earlier requisition, leading the Public Service Commission to issue a fresh Advertisement No. 14 on December 11, 2020. This new advertisement presented a crucial difference for the ‘SC Sports’ category: only one post was available, that of DSJ/DPO. Simultaneously, one DSP post was specifically reserved for ‘SC Sports (Women)’, a category created to comply with the 2020 Rules.

To avoid inconvenience to previous applicants, the commission allowed those who had applied under Advertisement No. 08 to be considered under the new Advertisement No. 14 without a fresh application.
In the subsequent merit list, the private respondent secured the first rank among male candidates in the ‘SC Sports’ category, while the appellant topped the list among female candidates in the same category.

The controversy arose when the private respondent, after the declaration of results, objected to the DSP post being reserved for women, claiming it violated a roster issued by the state government on January 29, 2021 – a date after the application deadline for Advertisement No. 14.

The private respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court, challenging the advertisement to the extent of the women's reservation for the DSP post and seeking appointment to the same. The appellant also filed a writ petition.

A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the private respondent’s petition, upholding the reservation for women. The judge reasoned that the roster relied upon by the private respondent was notified after the application deadline and could not retrospectively affect the recruitment process initiated under Advertisement No. 14. Consequently, the appellant, being the top-ranked female candidate in the ‘SC Sports’ category, was deemed eligible for the reserved DSP post.

However, a Division Bench of the High Court, noting contradictory stands taken by different state government departments, remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after the Chief Secretary supported the view that the DSP post should not have been exclusively reserved for women.

Supreme Court's Observations and Ruling:

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, overturned the Division Bench's order and reinstated the decision of the learned Single Judge. The apex court emphasized that the recruitment process commences with the advertisement and concludes with the filling of vacancies. Any changes to the eligibility criteria or reservation rules midway through the process are generally impermissible, citing the principle against "changing the rules of the game after the game is played," as established in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. and affirmed by a Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan.

The Supreme Court highlighted that Advertisement No. 14, dated December 11, 2020, clearly reserved one DSP post for ‘SC Sports (Women)’ to meet the 33% reservation mandate. This advertisement and the 2020 Rules were never challenged by any party. Therefore, the rights of the candidates had to be determined based on the terms of this advertisement.

The roster introduced on January 29, 2021, came after the application deadline and could not retroactively alter the reservation criteria specified in Advertisement No. 14. The court noted that the appellant had applied under the ‘SC Sports (Women)’ category, specifically created under the 2020 Rules, while the private respondent applied under the general ‘SC Sports’ category. Both were selected based on their respective categories.

The Supreme Court concluded that once the eligibility criteria were declared in Advertisement No. 14, they could not be changed midway. As the DSP post was reserved for ‘SC Sports (Women)’, the appellant, being the only qualified candidate in that category, was entitled to the appointment.

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Division Bench's order and directing compliance with the learned Single Judge's initial judgment within three weeks.