Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prasoon Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Others on 9 March, 2026
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -1-
CWP-16533-2023
221
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 09.03.2026
1. CWP-12842-2020 (O&M)
Aman Duddi
... Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana Staff Selection Commission and others
... Respondents
2. CWP-12870-2020 (O&M)
Krishan
... Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana Staff Selection Commission and others
... Respondents
3. CWP-12872-2020 (O&M)
Sumeet Kumar Gupta
... Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana Staff Selection Commission and others
... Respondents
1 of 46
::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -2-
CWP-16533-2023
4. CWP-16533-2023 (O&M)
Prasoon Sharma
... Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana Staff Selection Commission and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872 of 2020).
Mr. Amit Kaushik, Advocate for
Mr. Suresh Kumar Kaushik, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CWP-16533-2023).
Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Addl. AG, Haryana and
Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. AG, Haryana.
Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate
for respondent No.2
(in CWP-12842 & 12872 of 2020, CWP-16533-2023).
Mr. Davinder Kaliraman, Advocate for
Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate and
Mr. Rajat Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.5 (in CWP-12872 & 12870-2020).
*******
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. This common judgment shall dispose of all the abovementioned
writ petitions, as they arise from a similar factual matrix and pose a common
question of law. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from
CWP-12842-2020.
2 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -3-
CWP-16533-2023
2. Present petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari
seeking quashing the action of the respondent-Commission regarding allotting
the desired department of the petitioner to those lower in merit than him and
further for issuance of a direction to the respondents to consider claim of the
petitioner for appointment as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Irrigation and
Water Resources Department, Haryana, as per the preference given by him.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent-Haryana Staff Selection
Commission (for short ‘HSSC’) advertised for filling up various posts of
Junior Engineer (Civil) across multiple departments vide advertisement dated
15.06.2019 (Annexure R-1). While applying to the same, the candidates were
also required to indicate their preferences with respect to the employer-
department(s). The petitioner applied for the said post under General category
and indicated his preferences, as discernible from Annexure P-1. The final
result was declared on 06.06.2020 (Annexure P-2). The last selected candidate
in the General category had secured 63 marks, while the petitioner had secured
65 marks. On 09.06.2020, the petitioner was offered appointment in Haryana
Vidyut Prasaran Nigam (HVPNL) although it ranked at Sr. No.11 in his list of
preferences, the first three being PWD (B&R), Irrigation and Water Resources
Department and Town & Country Planning. The candidates lower in the merit
in General category, as compared to the petitioner, namely Prashant
3 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -4-
CWP-16533-2023
Samadhiya, Mahesh Chandra and Suraj Kumar Vishwakarma, had been
allotted the Irrigation and Water Resources Department, which was preferred
by the petitioner at Sr. No.2. However, the petitioner was allotted HVPNL,
which is at Sr. No.11 of his preferences. Aggrieved by the same, the present
writ petition has been moved by the petitioner.
CONTENTIONS
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that undisputedly,
the petitioner ranks higher in merit than the other selected candidates in the
General category, as ascertained on the basis of written test, scrutiny of
documents and the applicable socio-economic criteria. In spite of that, the
petitioner has not been allotted his preferred department i.e., Irrigation and
Water Resources Department. By virtue of being higher in merit, the petitioner
ought to have been prioritized in allocation of departments. However, the
respondent-Commission has fallen into grave error by arbitrarily deciding to
prioritize those who had indicated 03 or fewer preferences over those who had
scored higher with respect to allocation of preferred departments. The
respondent-Commission has undermined merit, which ought to be the guiding
criterion for the purpose of public employment. Moreover, once the selection
process has begun, the respondent-Commission could not have introduced
fresh criteria for allotment of departments, in furtherance of the recruitment
process. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment rendered by the
4 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -5-
CWP-16533-2023
Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008)
3 SCC 512.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the mandate of the
respondent-Commission is limited to conducting the test and declaring results.
The respondent-Commission has exceeded its authority by introducing the
criteria to prioritize candidates with 03 preferences or less for allocation of
departments. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer because of the failure of
the respondent-Commission to account for a situation where some candidates
indicate fewer preferences than others, which is rather a foreseeable issue
while conducting a consolidated examination for several departments. It is
evident that the respondent-Commission has misused its authority to unjustly
favour certain candidates by granting the department of their choice. The mala
fide is also substantiated by the fact of prioritization of those lower in merit,
which is inherently unfair and illegal. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the
respondent-Commission has followed the algorithm, as illustrated in notice
dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure R-1/1), only in select cases in order to cherry pick
candidates of its choice, thereby violating the rights of the petitioner under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel also prays that
an inquiry be got conducted by an independent agency like the C.B.I. in order
to unearth the scam perpetuated by the respondent-Commission by changing
the criteria for allocation of departments mid-process and tailoring it to give
undue benefit to certain candidates due to extraneous considerations.
5 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -6-
CWP-16533-2023
6. Per contra, learned State counsel refers to the affidavit dated
13.01.2026 filed by Rajiv Sindhu, Under Secretary on behalf of the
respondent-HSSC and submits that vide advertisement (supra), the recruitment
to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) was notified across 19 departments under
35 categories. During a meeting of the respondent-Commission held on
22.10.2019, a resolution was passed, whereby it was decided that those, who
have indicated 03 preferences or less, would be given priority in allotment of
departments. In any case, indicating a preference does not give an absolute
right to claim appointment in the desired department only. A notice was duly
issued on 25.10.2019 (Annexure R-1/1) asking all candidates to submit their
preferences for allotment of departments. The respondent-Commission has not
indulged in any pick-and-choose policy, but a considered decision has been
taken in exercise of its powers, as highlighted vide notifications dated
10.01.2006 and 21.06.2007. Further, the respondent-Commission must be
consulted on methods of recruitment and the principles to be followed in
making appointments to Group C and D posts and as per notification dated
21.06.2007, an amendment was introduced, which reads as follows:
“(iv) in paragraph 6, for clause (d), the following clause shall be
substituted and shall be deemed to have been substituted with
effect from 10th January, 2006, namely:-
(d) methods of recruitment and the principles to be followed in
making appointments to the Group B, Group C and Group D
posts under the State Government. The Commission shall devise
the mode of selection and fix the criteria for selection of posts6 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -7-
CWP-16533-2023for which requisition is sent to it by a department or an office,
as it may deem appropriate and the criteria for the selection of
posts fixed earlier by the Board/Commission shall be deemed to
have been fixed under this clause.”
OBSERVATIONS
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the
record of the case with their able assistance, it is evident that the grievance of
the petitioner pertains to prioritization of candidates lower in merit, with
respect to allocation of departments. Admittedly, the petitioner scored 65 marks
while the last selected candidate in the General category obtained 63 marks.
However, the selected candidate, lower in merit to the petitioner, was
appointed to the department of the latter’s preference. The respondent-
Commission attempted to justify this approach by stating that those, who had
indicated 03 preferences or less, were accorded prioritization based on the
criterion and algorithm agreed upon by the respondent-Commission.
8. In this backdrop, the following questions of law arise for
adjudication: –
A. Whether, in a combined recruitment for appointment to multiple
departments or services, the State is bound to allocate
departments strictly in accordance with inter-se merit of the
selected candidates?
B. Whether a method of allocation that permits candidates lower in
merit to secure more desirable departments ahead of higher-
7 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -8-
CWP-16533-2023ranked candidates is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India?
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME AND ROLE OF PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSIONS
9. The constitutional scheme provides for independent recruitment
bodies such as the Union Public Service Commission and the State Public
Service Commission(s) precisely to insulate the recruitment process from
arbitrariness, nepotism and extraneous influence. These constitutional bodies
are entrusted with the solemn responsibility to safeguard the integrity of the
recruitment process and to ensure that appointments to public services are
made strictly on merit through a transparent, impartial and fair process. Public
employment in a constitutional democracy rests upon the bedrock of public
trust and as such, the selection process must not only be fair in substance, but
must also appear to be fair and transparent, so as to inspire confidence among
aspirants and the public at large. Further, constitutional Courts have repeatedly
held that transparency and fairness are the foundational requirements of any
selection process conducted by a recruiting agency.
IMPORTANCE OF MERIT-BASED ALLOCATION OF DEPARTMENTS IN COMBINED RECRUITMENT x Constitutional Foundation of Merit-Based Selection
10. The constitutional framework places equality, fairness and
meritocracy at the heart of public employment. Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India guarantee equality before law and equality of opportunity
8 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -9-
CWP-16533-2023
in matters relating to public employment. Further, merit-based selection is not
merely an administrative practice, but a constitutional mandate. Any selection
process conducted by the State must ensure transparency, fair competition,
recognition of merit and absence of arbitrariness.
11. In B.S. Yadav Vs. State of Haryana, 1981 AIR SC 561, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed that while the Governor has the authority
under Article 309 of the Constitution of India to frame rules for public
employment, including making them retrospective, such rules must conform to
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, ensuring fairness and avoiding
arbitrary or discriminatory practices. Through this judgment, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has fundamentally established that discretionary power in
public employment must be exercised within constitutional boundaries to
maintain the integrity of public service, thereby reinforcing that merit-based
recruitment is the bedrock of equality in public service.
x Merit Must Also Govern Allocation of Departments
12. In combined selections, a single examination or selection process
is conducted for recruitment to multiple departments. The principle of merit
does not end with the preparation of a merit list. It must extend to the
allocation of departments. The rationale is straightforward – the candidate, who
performs better in the selection process, acquires a higher right in preference as
merit must be rewarded and incentivized. Thus, higher-ranked candidates must
be allowed to exercise priority in choosing departments. If this principle is
9 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -10-
CWP-16533-2023
ignored, the entire purpose of competitive examination is defeated. As such,
that merit position must be respected while determining service allocation in a
combined selection.
x Incentivizing Merit: A Core Principle of Competitive Recruitment
13. Competitive examinations are designed to identify the best talent
available to the State. If a candidate, who secures higher merit, is denied a
better department, while a lower-ranked candidate secures a more desirable
post, the system becomes irrational and discouraging. Such a system not only
has the potential to demoralize meritorious candidates, but also suffocates the
incentive to perform better and it further undermines institutional credibility.
Therefore, a structure of open selection and transparent recruitment has been
institutionalized, where the objective is not only to select meritorious
candidates, but also to ensure public confidence in the integrity of the selection
process.
14. The Courts have constantly avowed that transparency and equal
opportunity are not mere administrative aspirations, but constitutional
necessities. However, systemic challenges such as nepotism and favouritism
continue to corrode public trust in the recruitment process. These practices
strike at the heart of constitutional morality, which demands governance rooted
in integrity, fairness, and adherence to constitutional values rather than
personal loyalties or extraneous considerations. Open competitive
examinations and merit-based selections are among the key mechanisms
10 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -11-
CWP-16533-2023
through which the principles of constitutional morality and the rule of law are
realized.
15. Further, providing a level playing field in allotment of
departments in a combined selection process remains the most effective
method to ensure fairness and predominance of merit in public recruitment.
Even after a selection process is completed, the State must act fairly and
reasonably in matters relating to allotment of departments. As such, selection
processes must operate in a manner that preserves fairness and integrity of
merit lists. Merit cannot be treated as a mere ceremonial exercise; it must have
real consequences in determining outcomes such as department allocation.
x Lower-Ranked Candidates Cannot Steal a March Over Meritorious
Candidates
16. Allowing candidates placed lower in merit to secure better
departments, ahead of higher-ranked candidates, would amount to them
stealing a march over the meritorious candidates. This situation is
constitutionally impermissible for several reasons, including the following:
(a) Violation of Article 14 (Equality)
The State cannot act arbitrarily in distributing public posts. Any
policy that allows candidates lower in merit to supersede
candidates higher in merit without any lawful justification is
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as arbitrariness is the
antithetical to equality.
11 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -12-
CWP-16533-2023
(b) Violation of Article 16 (Equality of Opportunity)
Public employment must operate through fair competition. When
merit is ignored at the stage of allocation of departments, the
equality guaranteed under Article 16 is compromised.
(c) Defeat of Merit-Based Selection
Competitive examinations exist to ensure that the best available
candidate is selected for public employment. Further, it also
ensures that a candidate is rewarded proportionally to his
performances in the examination, as such, those who perform
better gain a proportionate advantage over their counterparts who
are lower in merit. Denying meritorious candidates better
departments destroys the very rationale behind conducting a
selection process.
x Judicial Recognition of Merit-Preference Principle
17. The Courts have repeatedly held that recruitment processes must
remain transparent, predictable and non-arbitrary. Rules cannot be manipulated
in a manner, that prejudices meritorious higher-ranked candidates. This
reasoning also extends to allocation of departments where priority must be
accorded in terms of the merit of the candidates.
18. Further, judicial review is invoked where the decision-making
process suffers from manifest arbitrariness i.e. when it is unfair, unreasonable,
discriminatory, opaque, capricious, biased, indicative of favouritism or
12 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -13-
CWP-16533-2023
nepotism and when it hinders healthy competition and equitable treatment
(See: Union of India Vs. Ganpati Dealcom (P) Ltd., 2022 AIR SC 4558).
Additionally, when perversity i.e. unreasonableness is of such a dimension that
no authority vested with the jurisdiction would have come to such a
conclusion, the Court can indulge in judicial review of such a process (See:
Mayawati Vs. Markandeya Chand, 1998 AIR SC 3340).
(a) Consequences of a Rigged or Manipulated Selection
Process
Constitutional Courts have consistently prioritized institutional
integrity over individual equities, holding that the purity of the
recruitment process must be preserved at all costs. Accordingly, an
analysis of precedents indicates that the following steps have been
taken in such situations:
(i) Cancellation of the entire selection process;
(ii) Termination of illegally appointed candidates; and
(iii) Criminal and disciplinary proceedings.
(b) Institutional Consequences of Compromised Recruitment
The manipulation of recruitment processes with respect to public
employment ought to be taken with utmost seriousness as it breeds
several harmful consequences such as:
(i) Erosion of public trust in constitutional institutions;
(ii) Demoralization of meritorious candidates;
(iii) Deterioration in the quality of public administration; and
13 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -14-
CWP-16533-2023
(iv) Increase in litigation and, administrative instability.
19. Therefore, the Courts consistently insist that recruitment processes
must not only be fair, but must also appear to be fair and whenever the
integrity of a recruitment process conducted by a constitutional or statutory
authority stands compromised, the Courts are duty-bound to intervene so as to
restore fairness, transparency and meritocracy, which constitute the
foundational pillars of public employment under the Constitution.
ANALYSIS
20. The respondent-Commission was granted another opportunity to
justify its actions and on 04.12.2025, the following order was passed by this
Court:
“1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (in CWP-16533-
2023) submits that after issuance of the advertisement, the
selection process was carried out for appointment in various
Departments, Boards and Corporations of the Government of
Haryana. The petitioner participated in the selection process and
after scrutiny of the documents, the Haryana Staff Selection
Commission, Panchkula thereafter issued the following
instructions on 25.10.2019 for online submission of department
preferences:-
Instructions filling Department Preference online:-
1. Click on “Fill Preferences for Post of junior Engineer”
on hssc.gov.in.
2. Candidates shall use the same Login ID and Password as
was used for downloading admit cards for the written
examination for post of junior Engineer.
3. Candidate is advised to go through the name of the 12
number of departments as mentioned in the advertisement
against which he has applied and the categories against
14 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -15-
CWP-16533-2023
which he has applied, before starting to fill up the preference
form to avoid any confusion.
4. Candidate shall be considered against the posts for which
he applied in the respective application forms and against the
category i.e. General/SC/BC- A/BC-B/EWS only, as
mentioned by him in the respective application forms. As per
the Government instructions, in case a candidate has filled
up more than one profile application form for same post, then
the candidate shall be considered against the category as
specified in the latest submitted application form.
5. Candidate should select the box as per the preference
which shall be numbered in the sequence of selection
automatically.
6. The selection can be altered any number of time before
final submission by deselecting and then again selecting the
boxes.
7. The candidate shall be mandatorily required to give all
the preferences in respect of the roll number and posts
against which he has appeared.
8. After filling in all preferences, the candidate shall be
required to press the button “Send OTP, an OTP shall be sent
to the registered mobile number of the candidate. The
candidate shall be required to enter OTP and click on verify
OTP button”. On verification of OTP the preference shall get
freezed and candidate can take print of the same.
9. No change shall be allowed after the final submission of
the selection format and the preferences submitted shall be
considered final.
2. Thereafter, for the reasons best known to the
respondent/Commission, it made a U-turn and adopted a different
yardstick for the allocation of departments to the selected
candidates. In the meeting of the respondent/Commission held on
22.10.2019, it was decided that candidates who have indicated
preference for three or less departments will be considered first
for allocation, irrespective of merit. The operative part of the said
resolution, reads as follows:-
Note 1: While checking the application data by HKCL, it has
been observed that many candidates have applied for 3 or15 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -16-
CWP-16533-2023less than three categories of posts. So, candidates who have
applied for only three or less than three posts/categories
shall be considered first for allocation/adjustment against
their preferred department, Because the candidates who
would be lower in merit & have filled preferences 3 which
will lead to no allocation to these candidates. This will
compromise the merit of the candidates as those further
lower in merit but having applied for more number of
categories would then have to be selected or the seats would
remain vacant. The attempt should be to allocate
departments to all candidates without compromising merit
calling for preferences from candidates shall not give
absolute right to candidates to claim appointment in
preferred department only. It’s just an attempt to allocate
preferred choice as far as possible but shall not break the
merit list/order and will also lead to filling up of all seats in
order of merit.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the respondent/Commission has erred in changing the criteria
after culmination of the selection process. This tailor-made
criterion was intended to favour certain candidates who might
have been asked to give less than three preferences in advance,
clearly reflecting mala fide on the part of the
respondent/Commission.
4. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by a Division
Bench of Allahabad High Court in Dr. Anju Chaudhary vs. State
of U.P. and others, 2023(156) ALR 577, wherein reliance has
been placed upon the judgment passed by a Full Bench in the case
of Dr. Vinay Kumar vs. The Director of Education (Higher) and
others, 2006 (62) ALR 808 to concluded that a candidate higher
in merit must be accorded priority in allocation of the department,
according to his preferences, over those who ranked below him.
Thus, the respondent/Commission has acted in an arbitrary
fashion, causing great prejudice to the petitioner in spite of him
being higher in merit.
5. However, learned counsel for respondent/Commission
could not explain the rationale behind the decision to prioritize
16 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -17-
CWP-16533-2023
candidates on the basis of a particular number (i.e. three) of
preferences indicated by them as opposed to merit, to the
satisfaction of this Court.
6. Learned State counsel seeks a short accommodation to
have complete instructions in the matter and file an appropriate
affidavit of the responsible officer addressing the issues
highlighted above, well before the next date of hearing.
7. The common citizens cherish opportunities of public
employment as it guarantees a dignified life and financial security.
Thus, the process of selection for such employment must remain
completely transparent, fair, and beyond reproach. In that vein,
the respondent/Commission, being a major recruitment agency for
the State of Haryana is expected to employ an even higher
standard of care in holding the examination, evaluation,
declaration of results and enabling fair appointment. It is,
therefore, crucial to ensure that the vice of arbitrariness does not
infiltrate the well- respected domain of public employment, both to
set the correct tone for other employers and to prevent undue
harassment to the aspirants. If any distinction is to be drawn
between selected candidates, it must rest on a clear intelligible
differentia that bears a rational nexus to the objective sought to be
achieved by such distinction. In the absence of these essential
characteristics, this distinction would amount to nothing more
than exploitative discrimination.
8. In the interest of justice, adjourned to 17.12.2025. The
relevant affidavit be filed with the Registry before the next date of
hearing.
9. To be taken up immediately after the Urgent List.
10. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other
connected cases.”
21. In pursuance thereof, an affidavit dated 13.01.2026 was filed by
Rajiv Sindhu, Under Secretary on behalf of the respondent-HSSC. The relevant
part thereof is reproduced below:
“6. That it is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent
Commission issued a notice dated 25.10.2019, in which the17 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -18-
CWP-16533-2023Respondent Commission gave direction to all candidates
including the petitioner who were shortlisted for Scrutiny of
Documents are required for filling their preferences of
department online. It was mandatory for the candidates to fill up
the preferences through online mode failing which their
candidature will be considered as “Cancelled”. It is further
pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has duly filled the
preferences of the department and he has been allotted HVPNL,
Haryana as per his preference. Further, it submitted that posts
were allocated on the basis of software/algorithm which
categorically picks up the candidates on the basis of merit,
preferences selected and availability of posts. The relevant part of
the said algorithm is reproduced as under:-
“Algorithm
1. Firstly System will check the candidates in order of
merit, who have given the preferences<3 for post/category.
2. System will check first post preference of the
candidate and seek available vacancy in the first preferred
post according to merit and availability of vacancies.
3. If there is vacancy available, then the candidate will
be allocated to the vacancy and removed from the list of
candidates.
4. If there is vacancy of the first preferred post, then
system will next check preferred post and repeat the process
till the preferred post get exhausted.
5. The aforesaid process shall repeat till all the posts
are filled.
6. Secondly, after allocating all the candidates who
have filled preferences<3, system will check the candidates in
order of merit, who have given the preferences>3 for
post/category.
7. System will check first post preference of the
candidate and seek available vacancy in the first preferred
post according to merit and availability of vacancies.
8. If there is vacancy available, then the candidate will
be allocated to the vacancy and removed from the list of
candidates.
18 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -19-
CWP-16533-2023
9. If there is no vacancy of the first preferred post, then
system will next check preferred post and repeat the process
till the preferred post get exhausted.
10. The aforesaid process shall repeat till all the posts
are filled.”
Hence, the above said criteria were followed in the present
case. Further, it is worthwhile to mention here that the meritorious
candidates who had applied less than 3 preferences were given
precedence over those who had applied more than three
preferences. The reason behind the same is that while checking
the application data by HKCL, it was observed that many
candidates had applied for 03 or less than three categories of
posts. So, if the candidates who had applied for three or less
than three posts/categories are not considered first for
allocation/adjustment against their preferred department, then
those candidate (who would be lower in merit & have filled 3
preferences only) may have got no allocation. This would have
compromised the merit of the candidates as those, further lower in
merit but having applied for more number of categories would
then have to be selected or the seats would remain vacant. The
attempt should be to allocate departments to all candidates
without compromising merit. It was also mentioned in the
resolution that the calling for preferences from candidates shall
not give absolute right to candidates to claim appointment in
preferred department only. It was just an attempt to allocate
preferred choice as far as possible and also filling up of all seats
in order of merit.. Hence, the petitioner was rightly allotted
department on the basis of above mentioned criteria and there was
no pick and choose policy.
Therefore, Keeping in view the above explained facts and
circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner was rightly allotted
his preferred department on the basis of a just and fair criteria
and there was no pick and choose policy. Therefore, petition filed
by the petitioner deserve to be dismissed qua the Commission in
the interest of justice.”
(emphasis added)
19 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -20-
CWP-16533-2023
22. Upon perusing the aforementioned affidavit, this Court was of the
considered opinion that the rationale provided therein does not aid the case of
the respondent-Commission in any manner. As such, on 22.01.2026, the
following order was passed:
“On 08.04.2024, a specific query was raised by this Court as to
under what authority of law the precedence was granted on the
basis of preferences.
The learned State counsel is directed to place on record the
notification vide which the Haryana Staff Selection Commission
was constituted and its mandate. Further, the statutory framework,
if any, which empowers the Haryana Staff Selection Commission
to embark upon the task of allotting the Departments after the
declaration of results. It is a trite law that selection process
commences with the issuance of an advertisement and the
mandate of the selection commission ceases on declaration of the
result.”
23. In pursuance thereof, learned State counsel has provided an
assortment of documents to highlight the powers and functions of the
respondent-Commission. The same is taken on record as Mark ‘X.’ Learned
State counsel referred to notification dated 10.01.2006 issued by the
Government of Haryana. The aforesaid response was not only lacking in
relevant details, but also failed to controvert the specific stand taken by learned
counsel for petitioners.
24. Conspicuously, the respondent-Commission had primarily filed
short affidavits only to present their case, which failed to answer the queries
20 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -21-
CWP-16533-2023
put to them and has raised the curiosity of this Court. Therefore, finding the
above information insufficient and unconvincing, specific information by way
of affidavit was sought by this Court vide order dated 13.02.2026, which reads
as follows: –
“A perusal of the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1
indicates that the candidates, who were shortlisted for scrutiny of
documents, were directed to give their preferences of departments
vide notice dated 25.10.2019, circulated on the website of the
respondent-Commission. The candidates were also informed that
giving preferences is mandatory and failure to provide the same
will result in cancellation of their candidature.
Further, the affidavit dated 13.01.2026 of Rajiv Sindhu,
Under Secretary on behalf of respondent No.1-Commission
reveals that in the meeting held on 22.10.2019, respondent No.1-
Commission passed a resolution to give priority to those
candidates, who have given three or less preferences for
department allocation.
In view of the above, respondent No.1-Haryana Staff
Selection Commission is directed to provide following information
along with supporting document by way of affidavit of its
Secretary:
(a) The agenda of the meeting of the respondent-Commission
held on 22.10.2029 as well as the minutes of the said
meeting. Additionally, indicating whether the decision taken
therein was circulated to the candidates by publishing a
notice on the website of the respondent-Commission.
(b) The record pertaining to the preferences given by all the
private respondents in all the abovementioned petitions,
21 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -22-
CWP-16533-2023
respectively, in furtherance and compliance of the order
dated 19.04.2023. Also, provide complete information
regarding the number of preferences given by them, their
position in the final merit list and the department allocated to
them.
(c) The complete details i.e. number of preferences given and
position in the final merit list, of the candidates, who have
been allocated the following departments:-
(i) PWD (B&R), Haryana,
(ii)Irrigation and Water Resources Department,
Haryana,
(iii) Town & Country Planning, Haryana.
The affidavit be filed with the Registry at least 03 days
before the next date of hearing and an advance copy be provided
to learned counsel for the petitioner(s).
Further the Secretary of Haryana Staff Selection
Commission – respondent No.1 is also directed to remain
personally present before this Court along the complete record of
the selection process on the date fixed.”
25. In response to the same, an affidavit dated 09.03.2026 of Chinmai
Garg, Secretary, Haryana Staff Selection Commission was filed, wherein it was
admitted that the allotment criteria approved vide resolution dated 22.10.2019
was never uploaded on the website of the respondent-Commission. Further, the
concerned private respondents namely Kunal Chhilar (Rank 414) and Prashant
Samadhiya (Rank 392) had given 15 and 07 preferences, respectively and yet
they were allotted the department marked as their respective second
preferences. However, it was stated that no human intervention was involved in
the selection process. The relevant part of the affidavit is reproduced below: –
22 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -23-
CWP-16533-2023“3. That in compliance of aforesaid order passed by this Hon’ble
Court, the deponent is furnishing following information alongwith
the supporting/ annexures:-
A. A meeting of Haryana Staff Selection Commission was held
on 22.10.2019, which was presided by the then Chairman,
HSSC, and the minutes of meeting were formulated in the
resolution/proceeding of meeting dated 22.10.2019, are
attached herewith as Annexure A-1. It is further submitted that
as per the general practice of the respondent Commission a
notice/instructions regarding filing up of preference(s) of
departments was uploaded on 25.10.2019 on the website of the
Commission, however the allotment criteria consisted in the
OTA dated 22.10.2019 was not published on the website of the
Commission. A copy of notice dated 25.10.2019 annexed as
Annexure A-2.
B. The record pertaining to the preferences given by all the
private respondents in CWP No. 12842, 12870 & 12872-2020
(O & M), CWP No. 16533-2023 (O& M) is as under:-
Number Cate- Merit No.
Allocated
CWP Roll Respondent Father Prefer- of gory as per final
Department
No. No. Name Name ence Prefer- Allo- selection
Name
ence cated list
32, 25, 5,
12870/
30, 1, 29,
2020 10191 Kunal Dharamvir PWD (B&R)
4, 12, 23, 15 25 414
12872/ 25747 Chhillar Singh Haryana
16, 18, 14,
2020
24, 20, 34
Irrigation &
Dinesh 25, 1, 18, W&R
12842/ 10191 Prashant
Kumar 14, 16, 12, 7 1 Department 392
2020 37265 Samadhiya
Samadhiya 29 Haryana
Panchkula
C. The complete details i.e. number of preferences given and
position in final merit list, of the candidates, who have been
allocated following departments i.e. PWD (B & R), Haryana,
Irrigation and Water Resources Department. Haryana and
Town & Country Planning has been given in Annexure A-3
annexed with this affidavit.
4. That it is humbly submitted that per the record available, the
Commission proceeded to allocate departments to the selected
candidates through the algorithm as per the details given in the23 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -24-
CWP-16533-2023resolution dated 22.10.2019 as was prevalent at that time.
However, as per the record, it cannot be ruled out that the
departments have been allocated strictly in accordance with inter-
se merit of the candidates as is evident from the challenges arose
during the said process of allocation of departments as per the
preferences given by the candidates.
5. That it is most respectfully brought to the kind notice of this
Hon’ble Court that the Commission presently allocates
departments to the selected candidates strictly on the basis of their
merit position and indicated preferences through a duly
established systemic and automated process. Further submitted
that no human intervention is involved in the said allocation
process, thereby ensuring fairness, transparency, and adherence to
the principles of merit in the selection procedure.
6. That it is further brought to the kind notice of this Hon’ble
Court that the pay scale for the post of Junior Engineer (J.E.) in
all departments under the Government of Haryana is identical,
and therefore, allocation of a particular department does not
materially affect the pay fixation or seniority of the selected
candidates.
7. That it is further submitted that the present affidavit is filed in
compliance of order dated 13.02.2026 and the contents of short
reply dated 21.03.2022 & affidavit dated 13.01.2026, filed on
behalf of respondent commission shall be read as part and parcel
of the present affidavit and the same are not reproduced here for
the sake of brevity.”
(emphasis added)
26. The aforesaid affidavit vindicates the stand taken by the petitioner
as admittedly, the criteria agreed upon in the meeting dated 22.10.2019 of the
respondent-Commission was kept concealed from all candidates for the
reasons best known to the respondent-Commission. This approach in itself
amounts to a serious misconduct. In addition to this, it is astoundingly self-
24 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -25-
CWP-16533-2023
evident that even this undisclosed algorithm was not uniformly applied to all
selected candidates. Had it been so, private respondents – Kunal Chhilar (Rank
414) and Prashant Samadhiya (Rank 392) would not have been granted the
department of their second preference, as they had provided 15 and 07
preferences, respectively and were lower in merit to the petitioner.
27. In the background of the aforementioned affidavit, this Court finds
force in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) that the
allocation criteria has been tailored to suit certain candidates. This conclusion
is further buttressed by the fact that the notification regarding change in criteria
i.e. prioritization of those, who had indicated 03 or less preferences, was never
circulated or got notified to all candidates or uploaded on the respondent-
Commission’s website. No justification was forthcoming from the respondent-
Commission to justify this glaring concealment of necessary information from
the candidates, especially when failure to indicate preferences through online
mode would have resulted in cancellation of their candidature.
28. Furthermore, a perusal of Annexure A-3 appended with the
affidavit makes it abundantly clear that the algorithm proposed by the
respondent-Commission was not put to practice, as candidates, who had
indicated more than 03 preferences, were also prioritized for allocation of
departments of their choice. For instance, one Aakil (Roll No.1019111360),
rank 469, had indicated 17 preferences, out of which PWD (B&R) Department
ranked at the first place and he was allocated the same. Similarly, one Gulshan
25 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -26-
CWP-16533-2023
(Roll No.1019115808), rank 725, was allocated his first preference i.e.
Irrigation and W&R Department, even though he had indicated 15 preferences.
In spite of being lower in merit than the petitioner, they were allocated their
preferred department, while the petitioner was allocated his 11th preference i.e.
HVPNL. The data presented by the respondent-Commission fully establishes
the case of the petitioner(s) that serious prejudice has been caused to the more
meritorious candidates due to the clandestine and opaque approach adopted by
the respondent-Commission.
29. Pertinently, the disputed criterion did not even form part of the
advertisement (supra). Surprisingly, a public notice dated 25.10.2019 was
issued in clandestine manner, whereby preferences for department allocation
were sought from all the selected candidates, without disclosing the criterion
adopted on 22.10.2019, which resulted in complete obliteration of the level
playing field. In doing so, the respondent-Commission has suffocated the
principle of equality in public employment. Furthermore, candidates higher in
merit, including the petitioner(s), were kept completely in the dark regarding
the change in criteria for allotment of departments. If the criterion adopted on
22.10.2019 was duly circulated to all the candidates, those higher in merit
would have made an informed decision while exercising their preferences for
allotment of departments. As such, grave prejudice has been caused to the
meritorious candidates, defeating the fundamental principle of merit-based
selection. Further still, the respondent-Commission has tried to withhold
26 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -27-
CWP-16533-2023
relevant information from this Court, resulting in passing of repeated orders in
order to elicit complete information. Such conduct is deprecated in strictest and
strongest terms.
30. This Court must also squarely confront the respondent-
Commission’s contention that all the departments covered by the
aforementioned advertisement offer an identical pay scale for the post of Junior
Engineer, and that, consequently, neither pay fixation nor seniority of the
selected candidates has been materially impacted. Such a submission is nothing
but a thinly veiled and unconvincing attempt to trivialize its own misconduct.
It is a matter of common knowledge that certain positions, such as those in the
Public Works or Irrigation Departments are inherently more sought after than
others. The very act of soliciting departmental preferences from candidates
underscores the recognition that these roles are not interchangeable, but are
distinguished by the nature of their public functions and perceived desirability.
Had the respondent-Commission genuinely believed all posts to be equal in
every respect, there would have been no occasion to invite preferences and a
random allocation would have sufficed. This argument, therefore, is not only
manifestly untenable but also glaringly self-contradictory, particularly in light
of the respondent-Commission’s own assertion that allocations were carried
out on the basis of objective criteria. Such inconsistency lays bare the fallacy
of its defense. The respondent-Commission cannot be permitted to evade
accountability for a demonstrably flawed allocation process. It must be pointed
27 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -28-
CWP-16533-2023
out that even in the context of the Civil Services Examination, the Union
Public Service Commission places paramount emphasis on merit while
allocating services and cadres, an approach befitting a fair and transparent
selection system.
31.1. At this juncture, it would be profitable to refer to the judgment
rendered by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Dr. Vinay Kumar Vs.
The Director of Education (Higher) and others, 2006 (62) ALR 808, wherein
the following was held: –
“36. This merit list is not the only list. Though the management
has no say in the matter, the employee, i.e., the prospective
Principal or the prospective Teacher has a say of his own. He can
make a preference for a college.
37. In our opinion, the Director at the time of making intimation is
to take into account only two things, in regard to every candidate
namely, the candidate’s merit position as determined under
Section 13(1), and the preferential list of college or institutions
given by the candidate himself.
38. How the Director is to allot the candidates to the different
colleges on the basis of these two items and these two items only
are, with respect, correctly laid down by the Division Bench in
paragraph 9 in Alka Rani’s case (supra) and we agree with that
paragraph in toto.
39. In our opinion the Director does not use a discretionary power
in making intimations under sub-section (3) of Section 13. Instead28 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -29-
CWP-16533-2023of the Director, any other person with an equally logical mind as
the Director will also be able to perform the same act but the
Director has been given the authority so as to carry conviction
and to make it safe for the colleges to follow the
recommendations and intimations coming under his signature.
40. The wording of sub-section (3) of Section 13 shows that
Director’s action is compulsorily prescribed by the said sub-
section. Although the said sub-section does not refer to the merit
list at all yet as laid down in paragraph 9 of Dr. Alka Rani’s case
(supra) the merit list must be considered by the Director and in
this regard the Director cannot disregard sub-section (1) of
Section 13 and the exercise performed under that sub-section. The
exercise by the Director is performed thereafter and must be
performed thereon.”
(emphasis added)
31.2. Furthermore, relying upon Dr. Vinay Kumar‘s case (supra), a
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Dr. Anju Chaudhary Vs. State
of U.P. and others, 2023(156) ALR 577 opined as follows: –
“23. From the decision of the Full Bench, it is clear that the
Director has to accord due weightage to the merit list before
making allotment of colleges. Thus, if we apply the ratio laid
down in Alka Rani’s case, affirmed in Dr. Vinay Kumar‘s case, the
position that would emerge is that the candidate placed higher in
the order of merit would have a first right to be appointed in the
college opted than the person/candidate who is lower in the
order of merit irrespective of that college being lower in the
order of preference than in the preference list of the candidate29 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -30-
CWP-16533-2023lower in the order of merit. But, if the person higher in the order
of merit is placed in a college which was higher in his order of
preference, then his/her claim to the college allotted to the other
candidate, lower in the order of merit, would not sustain.”
(emphasis added)
32. Therefore, in view of Dr. Vinay Kumar‘s case (supra), the
allocation of departments must be made by giving due weightage to the merit
in furtherance of the constitutional philosophy as enshrined in Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution of India. However, these constitutional principles do not
implement themselves. In order to realize them, recruitment agencies are
required to put the principles of equality, fairness and transparency in practice
in the actual recruitment processes by establishing a framework for allotment
of departments in order to promote merit-based selection.
THE EFFECT OF OBSCURITY IN THE LEGAL REGIME
GOVERNING THE ALLOCATION OF DEPARTMENTS AND
NECESSITY OF SETTLED NORMS
33. It is trite law that the criteria for selection must remain unchanged
and consistent once the recruitment process has begun. Be that as it may, when
changing the same is expedient in public interest, modifications may be made
in exceptional cases. In such a scenario, however, it becomes absolutely
essential to ensure that the candidates are informed of the change and reason
thereof, by publishing the same in writing. Such an approach will assist in
maintaining public trust, as application of mind would be duly reflected.
Additionally, should an occasion for judicial review arise, precise actionable
30 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -31-
CWP-16533-2023
grounds would be readily available.
34. Obscurity with regards to the criteria or methodology adopted for
allocation of departments creates a serious risk for arbitrariness and
manipulation, especially when no statutory rules are available in this regard.
The lack of a clear normative framework expands administrative discretion
beyond it legitimate bounds that enable authorities to act subjectively, without
transparent standards. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram
Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India, 1979 AIR SC 1628 and
E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1974 AIR SC 555 has emphatically
held that arbitrariness falls foul of the promise of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India and asserted that the State action must be guided by reason and
transparency. Therefore, in the absence of defined rules, it was incumbent upon
the respondent-Commission to allocate departments to the candidates only in
terms of their merit and preference, so as to ensure that there is no post-
selection manipulation based on favouritism. The respondent-Commission has
clearly violated the legitimate expectations of the candidates, who reasonably
anticipated that merit will determine outcomes. At this juncture, a reference
may be made to the judgment rendered by a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Navjyoti Co-operative Group Housing Society Vs. Union of
India, 1993 AIR SC 155, wherein speaking through Justice G.N. Ray, the
following was held: –
“15. It may be indicated here that the doctrine of ‘legitimate
expectation’ imposes in essence a duty on public authority to act31 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -32-
CWP-16533-2023fairly by taking into consideration all relevant factors relating to
such ‘legitimate expectation’. Within the conspectus of fair dealing
in case of ‘legitimate expectation’, the reasonable opportunities to
make representation by the parties likely to be affected by any
change of consistent past policy, come in. We, have not been
shown any compelling reasons taken into consideration by the
Central Government to make a departure from the existing policy
of allotment with reference to seniority in Registration by
introducing a new guideline. On the contrary, Mr. Jaitley the
learned counsel has submitted that the DDA and/or Central
Government do not intend to challenge the decision of the High
Court and the impugned memorandum of January 20, 1990 has
since been withdrawn. We therefore feel that in the facts of the
case it was only desirable that before introducing or implementing
any change in the guideline for allotment, an opportunity to make
representations against the proposed change in the guideline
should have been given to the registered Group Housing Societies,
if necessary, by way of a public notice.”
35.1. Further, while discussing the principle of equal opportunity to all,
a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vs.
Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 held that relevant information must be
disseminated to the candidates in a reasonable manner. Speaking through Dr.
Justice B.S. Chauhan, the following was opined: –
“19. Therefore, it is a settled legal proposition that no person can
be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting
applications from all eligible candidates. If any appointment is
made by merely inviting names from the Employment Exchange or
putting a note on the Notice Board etc. that will not meet the32 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -33-
CWP-16533-2023requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such a
course violates the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India as it deprives the candidates who are eligible
for the post, from being considered. A person employed in
violation of these provisions is not entitled to any relief including
salary. For a valid and legal appointment mandatory compliance
of the said Constitutional requirement is to be fulfilled. The
equality clause enshrined in Article 16 requires that every such
appointment be made by an open advertisement as to enable all
eligible persons to compete on merit.”
35.2. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on the judgment
rendered by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar
and others Vs. Shakti Raj and others, (1997) 9 SCC 527, wherein, speaking
through Justice G.B. Pattnaik, the following was held: –
“14. A Bench of three Judges of this Court in Excise
Superintendent v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao, 1996(6) SCC 216,
had held thus:
“It is common knowledge that many candidates are unable to
have the names sponsored, though their names are either
registered or are waiting to be registered in the employment
exchange, with the result that the choice of selection is
restricted to only such of the candidates whose names come
to be sponsored by the employment exchange. Under these
circumstances, many a deserving candidates are deprived of
the right to be considered for appointment to a post under the
State. Better view appears to be that it should be mandatory
for the requisitioning authority/establishment to intimate the
employment exchange, and employment exchange should33 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -34-
CWP-16533-2023sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning
Departments for selection strictly according to seniority and
reservation, as per requisition. In addition, the appropriate
Department or undertaking or establishment, should call for
the names by publication in the newspapers having wider
circulation and also display on their office notice boards or
announce on radio, television and employment news-
bulletins; and then consider the cases of all the candidates
who have applied. If that procedure is adopted, fair play
would be subserved. The equality of opportunity in the matter
of employment would be available to all eligible candidates.”
15. In view of this legal position, the necessary requirement should
be that they should necessarily not only notify but also call the
names from employment exchange; in addition they should give
wide publicity in the media inviting applications from qualified
persons for selection…”
35.3. The binding judicial precedents unequivocally establish that strict
compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is mandatory in
matters concerning public employment. The Constitution is rooted in the
foundational doctrine of the rule of law, and thus, even the highest
constitutional authorities are precluded from deviating from the principle of
equality in public employment. The same is evidenced by the judgment
rendered by a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in H.C.
Puttaswamy and others Vs. The Hon’ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High
Court, Bangalore and others, 1991 AIR SC 295, wherein speaking through
Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty, the following was opined: –
34 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -35-
CWP-16533-2023“11….But the Chief Justice or any other Administrative Judge is
not an absolute ruler. Nor he is a free wheeler. He must operate in
the clean world of law, not in the neighbourhood of sordid
atmosphere. He has a duty to ensure that in carrying out the
administrative functions, he is actuated by same principles and
values as those of the Court he is serving. He cannot depart from
and indeed must remain committed to the constitutional ethos and
traditions of his calling. We need hardly say that those who are
expected to oversee the conduct of others, must necessarily
maintain a higher stands of ethical and intellectual rectitude. The
public expenses do not seem to be less exacting.”
35.4. In Som Raj Vs. State of Haryana, (1990) 2 SCC 653, a three-
Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized on the importance of
adhering to the constitutional ethos and speaking through Justice K.
Ramaswamy, the following was held: –
“5. … The absence of arbitrary power is the first postulate of rule
of law upon which our whole constitutional edifice is based. In a
system governed by rule of law, discretion when conferred upon an
executive authority must be confined within clearly defined limits.
The Rules provide the guidance for exercise of the discretion in
making appointment from out of selection lists which was
prepared on the basis of the performance and position obtained at
the selection. The appointing authority is to make appointment in
the order of gradation, subject to any other relevant rules like,
rotation or reservation, if any, or any other valid and binding
rules or instructions having force of law. If the discretion is
exercised without any principle or without any rule, it is a
situation amounting to the antithesis of rule of law. Discretion35 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -36-
CWP-16533-2023means sound discretion guided by law or governed by known
principles of rules, not by whim or fancy or caprice of the
authority.”
35.5. A reference must also be made to the judgment rendered by a
three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Renu and others Vs.
District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and another, (2014) 14
SCC 50 wherein, speaking through Dr. Justice B.S. Chahuan, the following
was held: –
“6. The aforesaid provision is in consonance with the legal
principle of “Rule of Law” and they remind us of the famous words
of the English jurist, Henry de Bracton – “The King is under no
man but under God and the Law”. No one is above law. The
dictum – “Be you ever so high, the law is above you” is applicable
to all, irrespective of his status, religion, caste, creed, sex or
culture. The Constitution is the supreme law. All the institutions,
be it legislature, executive or judiciary, being created under the
Constitution, cannot ignore it. The exercise of powers by an
authority cannot be unguided or unbridled as the Constitution
prescribes the limitations for each and every authority and
therefore, no one, howsoever high he may be, has a right to
exercise the power beyond the purpose for which the same has
been conferred on him. Thus, the powers have to be exercised
within the framework of the Constitution and legislative
provisions, otherwise it would be an exercise of power in violation
of the basic features of the Constitution i.e. Part III dealing with
the fundamental rights which also prescribes the limitations.
7. Article 14 of the Constitution provides for equality of
36 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -37-
CWP-16533-2023
opportunity. It forms the cornerstone of our Constitution.
In I.R. Coelho (dead) by L.Rs. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR
2007 Supreme Court 861 : JT 2007 (2) SC 292, the doctrine of
basic features has been explained by this Court as under:
“The doctrine of basic structure contemplates that there are
certain parts or aspects of the Constitution including Article 15,
Article 21 read with Articles 14 and 19 which constitute the
core values which if allowed to be abrogated would change
completely the nature of the Constitution. Exclusion of
fundamental rights would result in nullification of the basic
structure doctrine, the object of which is to protect basic
features of the Constitution as indicated by the synoptic view of
the rights in Part III.”
8. As Article 14 is an integral part of our system, each and every
state action is to be tested on the touchstone of equality. Any
appointment made in violation of mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution is not only irregular but also illegal and cannot
be sustained in view of the judgments rendered by this Court
in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi
Administration, Delhi & Ors., AIR 1992 Supreme Court 789 : JT
1992 (1) SC 394; State of Haryana & Ors. v. Piara Singh & Ors.
etc.etc., AIR 1992 Supreme Court 2130 : JT 1992 (5) SC
179; Prabhat Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR
1996 Supreme Court 2638 : JT 1996 (6) SC 579; J.A.S. Inter
College, Khurja, U.P. & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1996
Supreme Court 3420; M.P. Housing Board & Anr. v. Manoj
Shrivastava, AIR 2006 Supreme Court 3499 : JT 2006 (3) SC
73; M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. &
Anr. v. S.C. Pandey, (2006) 2 SCC 716 : JT 2006 (2) SC 348;
and State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Ku. Sandhya Tomar &
Anr., JT 2013 (9) SC 139.
9. In Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P.
v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 216 : JT 1996
(9) SC 638, a larger Bench of this Court reconsidered its earlier
judgment in Union of India & Ors. v. N. Hargopal & Ors., AIR
1987 Supreme Court 1227 : JT 1987 (2) SC 182, wherein it had
37 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -38-
CWP-16533-2023
been held that insistence of requisition through employment
exchanges advances rather than restricts the rights guaranteed by
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, due to the
possibility of non sponsoring of names by the employment
exchange, this Court held that any appointment even on
temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting application is in
violation of the said provisions of the Constitution and even if the
names of candidates are requisitioned from Employment
Exchange, in addition thereto, it is mandatory on the part of the
employer to invite applications from all eligible candidates from
open market as merely calling the names from the Employment
Exchange does not meet the requirement of the said Articles of the
Constitution. The Court further observed:
“In addition, the appropriate department..should call for the
names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation
and also display on their office notice and employment news
bulletins; and then consider the case of all candidates who have
applied. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be sub
served. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment
would be available to all eligible candidates.”
(Emphasis added)
(See also: Arun Tewari & Ors. v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh
& Ors., 1998(1) S.C.T 533 : AIR 1998 Supreme Court 331 : JT
1997 (9) SC 593; and Kishore K. Pati v. Distt. Inspector of
Schools, Midnapur & Ors., (2000) 9 SCC 405).
10. In Suresh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2003)
10 SCC 276 : JT 2001 (3) SC 453, this Court upheld the judgment
of the Punjab & Haryana High Court wherein 1600 appointments
made in the Police Department without advertisement stood
quashed though the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 did not provide for
such a course. The High Court reached the conclusion that
process of selection stood vitiated because there was no
advertisement and due publicity for inviting applications from the
eligible candidates at large.
11. In Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal
Vaghela & Ors., 2006(1) S.C.T. 621 : AIR 2006 Supreme Court
1165 : JT 2006 (2) SC 137, this Court held:
“……..The appointment to any post under the State can only be
made after a proper advertisement has been made inviting
applications from eligible candidates and holding of selection
by a body of experts or a specially constituted committee whose
members are fair and impartial, through a written examination38 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -39-
CWP-16533-2023or interview or some other rational criteria for judging the inter
se merit of candidates who have applied in response to the
advertisement made Any regular appointment made on a post
under the State or Union without issuing advertisement inviting
applications from eligible candidates and without holding a
proper selection where all eligible candidates get a fair chance
to compete would violate the guarantee enshrined under
Article 16 of the Constitution….”
(Emphasis added)
12. The principles to be adopted in the matter of public
appointments have been formulated by this Court in M.P. State
Coop. Bank Ltd., Bhopal v. Nanuram Yadav & Ors., (2007) 8
SCC 264 : JT 2007 (11) SC 369 as under:
“(1) The appointments made without following the
appropriate procedure under the rules/Government circulars
and without advertisement or inviting applications from the
open market would amount to breach of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India.
(2) Regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment.
(3) An appointment made in violation of the mandatory
provisions of the statute and in particular, ignoring the
minimum educational qualification and other essential
qualification would be wholly illegal. Such illegality cannot
be cured by taking recourse to regularisation.
(4) Those who come by back-door should go through that
door.
(5) No regularisation is permissible in exercise of the
statutory power conferred under Article 162 of the
Constitution of India if the appointments have been made in
contravention of the statutory rules.
(6) The court should not exercise its jurisdiction on
misplaced sympathy.
(7) If the mischief played is so widespread and all pervasive,
affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the
persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully
deprived of their selection, it will neither be possible nor
necessary to issue individual show-cause notice to each
selectee. The only way out would be to cancel the whole
selection.
(8) When the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud
and delivered in deceit, individual innocence has no place
and the entire selection has to be set aside.”
39 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -40-
CWP-16533-2023
13. A similar view has been reiterated by the Constitution Bench
of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi
& Ors., AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1806 : JT 2006 (4) SC 420,
observing that any appointment made in violation of the Statutory
Rules as also in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
would be a nullity. “Adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution is a must in the process of public employment”. The
Court further rejected the prayer that ad hoc appointees working
for long be considered for regularisation as such a course only
encourages the State to flout its own rules and would confer undue
benefits on some at the cost of many waiting to compete.
xxx xxx xxx
15. Where any such appointments are made, they can be
challenged in the court of law. The quo warranto proceeding
affords a judicial remedy by which any person, who holds an
independent substantive public office or franchise or liberty, is
called upon to show by what right he holds the said office,
franchise or liberty, so that his title to it may be duly determined,
and in case the finding is that the holder of the office has no title,
he would be ousted from that office by judicial order. In other
words, the procedure of quo warranto gives the Judiciary a
weapon to control the Executive from making appointment to
public office against law and to protect a citizen from being
deprived of public office to which he has a right. These
proceedings also tend to protect the public from usurpers of public
office who might be allowed to continue either with the
connivance of the Executive or by reason of its apathy. It will,
thus, be seen that before a person can effectively claim a writ of
quo warranto, he has to satisfy the Court that the office in
question is a public office and is held by a usurper without legal
authority, and that inevitably would lead to an enquiry as to
whether the appointment of the alleged usurper has been made in
accordance with law or not. For issuance of writ of quo warranto,
the Court has to satisfy that the appointment is contrary to the
statutory rules and the person holding the post has no right to
hold it. (Vide: The University of Mysore & Anr. v. C.D. Govinda
Rao & Anr., AIR 1965 Supreme Court 491; Shri Kumar Padma
Prasad v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1992 Supreme Court
1213 : JT 1992 (2) SC 247; B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu &
Anr., AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3435 : JT 2001 (8) SC 40; The
Mor Modern Co-operative Transport Society Ltd. v. Financial
40 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -41-
CWP-16533-2023
Commissioner and Secretary to Govt., Haryana & Anr., AIR
2002 Supreme Court 2513 : JT 2002 (5) SC 125; Arun Singh v.
State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1413 : JT 2006
(3) SC 389; Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto & Ors.,
2010(4) S.C.T. 286 : AIR 2010 Supreme Court 3515 : JT 2010
(9) SC 192; and Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v.
Dhobei Sahoo & Ors., (2014) 1 SCC 161 : JT 2013 (14) SC 522).
16. Another important requirement of public appointment is that
of transparency. Therefore, the advertisement must specify the
number of posts available for selection and recruitment. The
qualifications and other eligibility criteria for such posts should
be explicitly provided and the schedule of recruitment process
should be published with certainty and clarity. The advertisement
should also specify the rules under which the selection is to be
made and in absence of the rules, the procedure under which the
selection is likely to be undertaken. This is necessary to prevent
arbitrariness and to avoid change of criteria of selection after the
selection process is commenced, thereby unjustly benefiting
someone at the cost of others.
xxx xxx xxx
26. In Binod Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Ram Ashray Mahoto &
Ors., 2005(2) S.C.T. 663 : AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2103 : JT
2005 (11) SC 56, this Court did not accept the contention that
appointment could be made to Class-IV post in Subordinate
Courts under the Civil Court Rules without advertisement in the
newspapers inviting applications for the posts as that would lead
to lack of transparency and violation of the provisions of
Article 16 of the Constitution. The Court terminated the services
of such appointees who had worked even for 15 years observing
that the Court otherwise “would be guilty of condoning a gross
irregularity in their initial appointment.”
35.6. Lastly, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State
of Punjab and another Vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal, (2016) 6 SCC 1,
speaking through Justice T.S. Thakur, made the following observations in this
context: –
“17. In S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, AIR 1967 Supreme
41 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -42-
CWP-16533-2023Court 1427, this Court held that absence of arbitrary power is the
first essential of “Rule of Law” upon which rests our
Constitutional system. This Court ruled that in a system governed
by rule of law, any discretion conferred upon the executive
authorities must be confined within clearly defined limits. This
Court quoted with approval, the following observations of
Douglas J. in United States v. Wunderlick, 1951 342 US 98:96
Law Ed 113:
“Law has reached its finest moments when it has freed man
from the unlimited discretion of some ruler Where discretion
is absolute, man has always suffered.”
18. A similar sentiment was expressed by this Court in E.P.
Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., (1974) 4 SCC 3 where
this Court declared that Article 14 is the genus while Article 16 is
a specie and the basic principle which informs both these Articles
is equality and inhibition against discrimination. Equality,
declared this Court, was antithetic to arbitrariness. The Court
described equality and arbitrariness as sworn enemies, one
belonging to the rule of law in a republic and the other to the
whims and caprice of an absolute monarch. Resultantly if an act is
found to be arbitrary, it is implicit that it is unequal both
according to political logic and constitutional law, hence violative
of Article 14 and if it affects any matter of public employment it is
also violative of Article 16. This Court reiterated that Articles 14
and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness
and inequality of treatment.
19. Then came the decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India, (1978) 2 SCR 621, where this Court held that the
42 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -43-
CWP-16533-2023
principle of reasonableness both legally and philosophically is an
essential element of equality and that non-arbitrariness pervades
Article 14 with brooding omnipresence. This implies that wherever
there is arbitrariness in State action whether, it be legislative or
executive Article 14 would spring into action and strike the same
down. This Court held, that the concept of reasonableness and
non-arbitrariness pervades the constitutional scheme and is a
golden thread, which runs through the entire Constitution.
20. In Ramana Shetty v. International Airport Authority 1979
AIR (SC) 1628, this Court relying upon the pronouncements of
E.P Royappa and Maneka Gandhi (supra) once again declared
that state action must not be guided by extraneous or irrelevant
considerations because that would be denial of equality. This
Court recognised that principles of reasonableness and rationality
are legally as well as philosophically essential elements of
equality and non-arbitrariness as projected by Article 14, whether
it be authority of law or exercise of executive power without the
making of a law. This Court held that State cannot act arbitrarily
in the matter of entering into relationships be it contractual or
otherwise with a third party and its action must conform to some
standard or norm, which is in itself rational and non-
discriminatory.
21. In D.S. Nakra v. Union of India, 1983 (1) SCC 305, this
Court reviewed the earlier pronouncements and while affirming
and explaining the same held that it must now be taken to be
settled that what Article 14 strikes at is arbitrariness and that any
action that is arbitrary must necessarily involve negation of
equality.
43 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -44-
CWP-16533-2023
22. In Dwarkadas Marfatia v. Board of Trustees of the port of
Bombay, 1990(1) RCR (Rent) 495 : 1989 (3) SCC 293, this Court
had an occasion to examine whether Article 14 had any
application to contractual matters. This court declared that every
action of the state or an instrumentality of the State must be
informed by reason and actions that are not so informed can be
questioned under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution.”
CONCLUSION
36. Upon a comprehensive analysis, this Court is of the considered
opinion the allocation of departments cannot be made in a covert, unfettered
and arbitrary manner. Such allocation must necessarily be made while adhering
to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and/or
statutory rules. Accordingly, the questions framed above are answered in the
following terms: –
‘In combined selections, a single process is used to recruit for
multiple departments, and the principle of merit must extend
beyond merely preparing a merit list to governing departmental
allocation. A higher-performing candidate earns a superior claim
to preference, as merit must be both recognized and rewarded.
Accordingly, higher-ranked candidates must be given priority in
choosing departments; otherwise, the very purpose of a
competitive examination stands defeated. Merit position,
therefore, must be duly respected in service allocation. Any
arbitrary deviation from merit would fall foul of Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution.’
37. Further, the Court is conscious of the fact that with the efflux of
time, the petitioner(s) and other selected candidates have acquired considerable
experience and may also have earned promotions. As such, disturbing the
44 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -45-
CWP-16533-2023
allocation of departments at this stage would not only create administrative
chaos, but would also be against public interest.
38. However, the act and conduct of the respondent-Commission in
allocating departments to the selected candidates through an opaque and
capricious process is deeply troubling and must be addressed. Therefore, in
order to avoid recurrence of such a scenario, the Chief Secretaries to the
Governments of Haryana and Punjab, respectively, are directed to issue
appropriate instructions to ensure that:
a) A lawful, comprehensive and rational criterion is devised for
selection to public employment as well as for the allocation of
departments in cases involving a consolidated process, so as to
ensure transparency and preserve the integrity of the recruitment
process.
b) The criteria for such allocation of the departments are in line with
the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High
Court in Dr. Vinay Kumar‘s case (supra). The criteria so
formulated must be declared in advance, at the time of issuance of
the advertisement.
c) The said instructions shall be issued within a period of 03 months
of the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
39. Since the present scenario makes out a clear case of misconduct,
the Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana is also directed to examine
45 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::
CWP-12842, 12870 & 12872-2020 -46-
CWP-16533-2023
the suitability of inquiring into the conduct of the members and office-bearers
of the respondent-Commission and desirability of taking appropriate action
against those, who are responsible for the same. Accordingly, appropriate order
in this regard shall be passed.
40. A compliance report shall be filed with the Registry of this Court
with respect to the action taken before expiry of 03 months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
41. In view of the foregoing, all the aforementioned four writ petitions
are disposed of.
42. The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
43. A copy of this order be sent to learned State counsel for the States
of Punjab and Haryana as well as the respective Chief Secretaries to the
Governments of Punjab and Haryana for necessary information and
compliance.
44. Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases.
[ HARPREET SINGH BRAR ]
09.03.2026 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
46 of 46
::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 05:46:06 :::