Prabhjot Kaur v. State of Punjab

Citation : 2025 (4) KLR (SC) 63 : 2025 INSC 479
Court : Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Judges : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., K. Vinod Chandran, J.
Date of Judgment : April 9, 2025
Case Number : Civil Appeal No(s). _______________ of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 17747 of 2023)
Parties : Prabhjot Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Reservation – Recruitment – Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020 – Horizontal Reservation for Women – Validity of Advertisement – Retrospective Application of Roster System.

Advertisement No. 14 (11.12.2020) reserved Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) post for Scheduled Caste Sports (Women) under 33% women’s reservation – Private respondent challenged reservation, alleging violation of roster system introduced on 29.01.2021.

Table of Contents

Held

Advertisement No. 14 valid as it complied with 2020 Rules; roster system, introduced after application deadline, could not apply retrospectively – Recruitment process cannot be altered midway, as per K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. (2008) 3 SCC 512 and Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan (2025) 2 SCC 1 – Private respondent’s participation without protest barred belated challenge – Appellant, sole qualifying SC Sports (Women) candidate, entitled to DSP post – Appeal allowed, Division Bench order set aside, Single Judge order upheld – Directions to comply within three weeks.

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-07-2023 in LPA No. 287/2023 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh]

For Petitioner(s): Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anurag Kulharia, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Dr. Navya Jannu, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Jain, AOR Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Narwal, Adv.

For Respondent(s): Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, A.A.G. Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Gurminder Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Lalit Singla, Adv. Ms. Pratibha Singh, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Adv.

Background

The case concerns a dispute over the reservation of posts in Punjab government services, specifically for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) under the ‘Scheduled Caste Sports’ (SC Sports) category. The Punjab Public Service Commission issued Advertisement No. 08 on 04.06.2020 for 77 posts, including 26 DSP posts, with one reserved for SC Sports. Following the Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020, which mandated 33% horizontal reservation for women, the original advertisement was withdrawn, and a new Advertisement No. 14 was issued on 11.12.2020. This reserved the DSP SC Sports post for women (SC Sports (Women)). The appellant, Prabhjot Kaur, and the private respondent applied under the SC Sports category, with the appellant being the only female candidate to qualify for the DSP post. The private respondent challenged the reservation for women, alleging it violated the roster system introduced later.

Procedural History

High Court (Single Judge): On 03.03.2023, the Single Judge dismissed the private respondent’s Writ Petition, upholding the reservation of the DSP post for SC Sports (Women) under Advertisement No. 14, as the roster system was introduced after the application deadline.
High Court (Division Bench): The Division Bench, noting contradictory stances by the Home Department and the Department of Social Justice, remanded the matter for fresh adjudication based on the Chief Secretary’s affidavit, which claimed the reservation was erroneous.
Supreme Court: The appellant challenged the Division Bench’s order, arguing that the Single Judge’s decision was correct and that the roster system could not apply retrospectively.

Issues

Whether the reservation of the DSP post for SC Sports (Women) under Advertisement No. 14 was valid.
Whether the roster system introduced on 29.01.2021 could be applied retrospectively to alter the terms of Advertisement No. 14.
Whether the private respondent’s participation in the recruitment process without protest barred his challenge to the reservation.

Arguments

Appellant: The Single Judge’s order was well-reasoned, and the roster system, introduced after the application deadline, could not apply retrospectively. Horizontal reservations (for women) differ from vertical reservations and do not follow a roster system.
Private Respondent: Advertisement No. 14 violated the 2020 Rules, as the reservation for women within the SC category was not supported by the roster system introduced on 29.12.2020. The roster system applied from the date of the amendment, and the advertisement was an extension of the earlier one.
State of Punjab: The appeal was premature, as the Division Bench only ordered fresh adjudication. The Chief Secretary’s stance that the reservation was erroneous should be upheld, and a fresh advertisement issued.

Referred Cases

The judgment in Prabhjot Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors. (2025 (4) KLR (SC) 63) refers to two key cases: K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. ((2008) 3 SCC 512) and Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan ((2025) 2 SCC 1). Below is an analysis of the referred cases and their importance in the context of the Prabhjot Kaur judgment.

1. K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. ((2008) 3 SCC 512)

Background and Holding

In K. Manjusree, the Supreme Court addressed a situation where the selection criteria for recruitment were altered after the recruitment process had commenced. The Andhra Pradesh High Court had changed the minimum qualifying marks for an interview after the interviews were conducted, affecting the final selection list. The Supreme Court held that such a change violated the principle of fairness, describing it as “changing the rules of the game after the game is played.” The Court ruled that the eligibility criteria and selection process, as notified at the start of recruitment, cannot be modified midway unless explicitly permitted by the rules or advertisement, and any such change must comply with Article 14 of the Constitution (non-arbitrariness).

Importance in Prabhjot Kaur

Application of the Principle: The Supreme Court in Prabhjot Kaur relied on K. Manjusree to hold that the roster system introduced on 29.01.2021 could not retrospectively alter the terms of Advertisement No. 14 (11.12.2020), which reserved the DSP post for SC Sports (Women). The recruitment process, starting with the advertisement, was binding, and no midway changes were permissible.
Reinforcement of Fairness: The reference to K. Manjusree underscored the importance of maintaining consistency and transparency in recruitment processes, ensuring candidates are not unfairly disadvantaged by post hoc changes.
Legal Precedent: The Court noted that the correctness of K. Manjusree was initially doubted in Tej Prakash Pathak (2013) but was ultimately upheld, confirming its status as good law.

2. Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan ((2025) 2 SCC 1)

Background and Holding

In Tej Prakash Pathak, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court had doubted the correctness of K. Manjusree in 2013 ((2013) 4 SCC 540) and referred the matter to a Constitution Bench. The issue was whether eligibility criteria could be changed midway through a recruitment process. The Constitution Bench, in its 2025 judgment, upheld K. Manjusree as good law, clarifying that:

The recruitment process begins with the issuance of the advertisement and ends with filling vacancies.
Eligibility criteria notified at the start cannot be altered midway unless permitted by extant rules or the advertisement, and any change must satisfy Article 14’s test of non-arbitrariness.

The Court emphasized that K. Manjusree was not in conflict with earlier precedents and reinforced the principle that the “rules of the game” cannot be changed after the recruitment process has commenced.

Importance in Prabhjot Kaur

Constitutional Validation: The Prabhjot Kaur judgment relied on the Constitution Bench’s affirmation in Tej Prakash Pathak to strengthen the legal foundation of K. Manjusree. This ensured that the prohibition on midway changes in recruitment was constitutionally sound.
Clarity on Recruitment Process: The Court cited Tej Prakash Pathak to define the recruitment process as spanning from advertisement to appointment, reinforcing that the roster system introduced after the application deadline (30.12.2020) could not affect Advertisement No. 14.
Binding Precedent: By referencing the Constitution Bench decision, the Supreme Court ensured that its ruling in Prabhjot Kaur was aligned with the highest judicial authority, enhancing the judgment’s precedential value.

Overall Importance of Referred Cases

Establishment of a Fundamental Principle: Both K. Manjusree and Tej Prakash Pathak establish the critical principle that recruitment processes must adhere to the rules and criteria set at the outset. This protects candidates’ legitimate expectations and ensures fairness, a cornerstone of administrative law under Article 14.
Protection Against Arbitrariness: The cases emphasize that any change to recruitment criteria must be non-arbitrary and compliant with constitutional standards, safeguarding candidates from unfair administrative actions.
Relevance to Reservation Policies: In Prabhjot Kaur, the principle was applied to a reservation dispute, ensuring that the 33% women’s reservation under the 2020 Rules, as advertised, could not be undermined by a later roster system. This upholds the integrity of reservation policies in public employment.
Strengthening Judicial Consistency: The reaffirmation of K. Manjusree by the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak resolved prior doubts, providing clarity and consistency in the law. Prabhjot Kaur leverages this to deliver a robust ruling on recruitment and reservation.

The referred cases were pivotal in Prabhjot Kaur for establishing that the recruitment process, including reservation criteria, cannot be altered midway. K. Manjusree provided the foundational principle, while Tej Prakash Pathak reinforced its constitutional validity. Together, they ensured that the appellant’s right to the DSP post, based on the advertised criteria, was upheld, protecting the integrity of the recruitment process and the application of horizontal reservations for women.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench’s order, and upheld the Single Judge’s decision. Key findings:

Validity of Reservation: Advertisement No. 14, issued on 11.12.2020, reserved the DSP post for SC Sports (Women) in compliance with the 2020 Rules mandating 33% reservation for women. Neither the advertisement nor the 2020 Rules were challenged, making the reservation valid.
**Non-Retrospective Application ofIslam: The roster system introduced on 29.01.2021 came after the application deadline (30.12.2020) and could not alter the terms of Advertisement No. 14. The recruitment process, starting with the advertisement, could not be changed midway, as per the principle in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. (2008) 3 SCC 512, upheld in Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan (2025) 2 SCC 1.
Estoppel: The private respondent participated in the recruitment process without protest and only challenged the reservation after the merit list was released, making his claim belated.
Outcome: The appellant, being the only SC Sports (Women) candidate to qualify, was entitled to the DSP post. The private respondent was appointed as Deputy Superintendent (Jails).

Orders

The appeal was allowed, and the Division Bench’s order was set aside.
The Single Judge’s order dated 03.03.2023 was upheld, with directions to be complied with within three weeks.
Pending applications were disposed of, and interim orders vacated.

Significance

The judgment reinforces the principle that recruitment rules cannot be changed midway through the process, ensuring fairness and adherence to advertised criteria. It also clarifies the application of horizontal reservations for women and the non-retrospective effect of subsequent roster systems.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

What was the primary issue in Prabhjot Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.?
a) Validity of the Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020
b) Legality of the roster system introduced on 29.01.2021
c) Validity of reserving a DSP post for SC Sports (Women) under Advertisement No. 14
d) Challenge to the entire recruitment process of Punjab State Civil Services
Answer: c) Validity of reserving a DSP post for SC Sports (Women) under Advertisement No. 14
Explanation: The case centered on whether the DSP post reserved for SC Sports (Women) under Advertisement No. 14 was valid and whether the later roster system could alter it.
Which legal principle was primarily relied upon by the Supreme Court in this case?
a) Doctrine of legitimate expectation
b) Changing the rules of the game after the game is played
c) Principle of estoppel
d) Doctrine of prospective overruling
Answer: b) Changing the rules of the game after the game is played
Explanation: The Court relied on K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. to hold that recruitment criteria cannot beinnovative solutions for the problem. The roster system introduced later could not be applied midway.
Why was the roster system introduced on 29.01.2021 deemed inapplicable to Advertisement No. 14?
a) It was not notified in the official gazette
b) It was introduced after the application deadline of 30.12.2020
c) It was challenged by the appellant
d) It violated the 2020 Rules
Answer: b) It was introduced after the application deadline of 30.12.2020
Explanation: The roster system came after the application deadline, and midway changes to recruitment criteria were impermissible.
Which case reaffirmed the principle that recruitment criteria cannot be changed midway?
a) Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
b) K. Manjusree v. State of A.P.
c) Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan
d) Both b) and c)
Answer: d) Both b) and c)
Explanation: K. Manjusree established the principle, and Tej Prakash Pathak (2025) upheld it as good law.
What was the outcome of the appeal in Prabhjot Kaur?
a) The Division Bench’s order was upheld
b) The matter was remanded to the Single Judge
c) The Single Judge’s order was upheld, and the appeal was allowed
d) A fresh advertisement was ordered
Answer: c) The Single Judge’s order was upheld, and the appeal was allowed
Explanation: The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s order and upheld the Single Judge’s decision, confirming the appellant’s entitlement to the DSP post.
Why could the private respondent not challenge the reservation after the merit list was released?
a) He lacked locus standi
b) He participated in the process without protest
c) The 2020 Rules were unconstitutional
d) The advertisement was withdrawn
Answer: b) He participated in the process without protest
Explanation: The private respondent’s belated challenge was barred as he participated in the recruitment process without objecting to the terms of Advertisement No. 14.
What percentage of reservation for women was mandated by the 2020 Rules?
a) 25%
b) 33%
c) 50%
d) 15%
Answer: b) 33%
Explanation: The 2020 Rules mandated a 33% horizontal reservation for women in all government posts.
Which department supported the reservation of the DSP post for SC Sports (Women)?
a) Department of Social Justice
b) Home Department
c) Public Service Commission
d) Chief Secretary’s Office
Answer: b) Home Department
Explanation: The Home Department supported the reservation, while the Department of Social Justice opposed it, leading to the Division Bench’s referral to the Chief Secretary.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What was the core dispute in Prabhjot Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.?
The dispute revolved around the validity of reserving a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) post for Scheduled Caste Sports (Women) under Advertisement No. 14 (11.12.2020), pursuant to the Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020, and whether a roster system introduced on 29.01.2021 could retrospectively alter the reservation.
What are the Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020?
These rules mandate a 33% horizontal and compartmentalized reservation for women in all direct recruitment posts across Groups A, B, C, and D in Punjab government services. The reservation applies within each category, such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Open Category.
Why was Advertisement No. 08 withdrawn and replaced by Advertisement No. 14?
Advertisement No. 08 (04.06.2020) was withdrawn because it did not comply with the newly notified 2020 Rules requiring 33% reservation for women. Advertisement No. 14 (11.12.2020) was issued to incorporate this reservation, including reserving the DSP post for SC Sports (Women).
Why did the Supreme Court rule that the roster system could not apply to Advertisement No. 14?
The roster system, introduced on 29.01.2021, came after the application deadline for Advertisement No. 14 (30.12.2020). The Court held that recruitment criteria cannot be changed midway through the process, as per K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrariness.
What role did K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. play in the judgment?
K. Manjusree established the principle that the rules of a recruitment process cannot be changed after it has begun, likened to “changing the rules of the game after the game is played.” The Supreme Court applied this to hold that the roster system could not alter the terms of Advertisement No. 14.
How did Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan influence the decision?
The Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak (2025) upheld K. Manjusree as good law, confirming that recruitment criteria cannot be changed midway unless permitted by rules and compliant with Article 14. This reinforced the Court’s ruling in Prabhjot Kaur that the roster system was inapplicable.
Why was the private respondent’s challenge to the reservation considered belated?
The private respondent participated in the entire recruitment process under Advertisement No. 14 without protesting its terms. He only challenged the reservation for SC Sports (Women) after the merit list was released, making his challenge untimely and barred by his acquiescence.
What was the final outcome for the appellant, Prabhjot Kaur?
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench’s order, and upheld the Single Judge’s decision. As the only SC Sports (Women) candidate to qualify, Prabhjot Kaur was entitled to the DSP post, with directions to implement the order within three weeks.
What is the significance of horizontal reservation in this case?
The 2020 Rules provided for a 33% horizontal reservation for women, meaning the reservation applies within each vertical category (e.g., SC, ST). The Court upheld this structure, rejecting the argument that the roster system altered the horizontal reservation for the DSP post.
Can recruitment advertisements be challenged if not contested initially?
Generally, participating in a recruitment process without protest may bar subsequent challenges to the advertisement’s terms, as seen in Prabhjot Kaur. The Court emphasized that candidates must raise objections promptly to avoid undermining the process’s integrity.