CWP-8275 CWP-26137 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB Parminder Singh and others State of Punjab 2) Ramandeep Singh State of Punjab CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. since same Public Notices are petitions Accordingly, However, the facts are 2. 09.02.2021 (Annexure P their candidatures were rejected to be considered under Economic Weaker Section (EWS) for General Category. Further, a prayer is also 8275-2025 (O&M) -1- 26137-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of decision: Parminder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and others CWP Ramandeep Singh Versus State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Birinder Pal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Charanpreet Singh, DAG Punjab. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral) At the outset, learned counsel for the same Public Notices are the subject matter of petitions are amenable to be decided Accordingly, both the petitions are taken up together for disposal. However, the facts are being derived from The petitioners have assailed 09.02.2021 (Annexure P-6) and 19.02.2021 their candidatures were rejected to be considered under Economic Weaker Section (EWS) for General Category. Further, a prayer is also IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-8275-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.07.2026 ….Petitioners ….Respondents CWP-26137-2025 (O&M) ….Petitioner ….Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Charanpreet Singh, DAG Punjab. learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the subject matter of challenge, both these amenable to be decided, vide a common order. petitions are taken up together for disposal. derived from CWP-8275-2025. assailed the Public Notices dated 6) and 19.02.2021 (Annexure P-7), vide which, their candidatures were rejected to be considered under Economically Weaker Section (EWS) for General Category. Further, a prayer is also s ….Respondents submits that challenge, both these er. petitions are taken up together for disposal. Notices dated 7), vide which, ally Weaker Section (EWS) for General Category. Further, a prayer is also AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.30 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-8275 CWP-26137 made for issuance of a Mandamus upo candidature 13.01.2021 (Annexure P 3. that the Director, Education Recruitment Directorate, Punjab, online applications fr Master/Mistress (Annexures P Border Area District applied for the posts, as per their eligibility, under General Category the month of March 4. Economically Weaker Sections of the Society (COVID- this regard. Accordingly, they filled their category as General. Subsequently, the respondent 13.01.2021 (Annexure carry out necessary category. However, decision dated 03.11.2020, rendered by a learned Single Bench of this Court in others), withdrew the abovesaid Public Notice dated 09.02.2021 (Annexure P dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure P earlier Notice dated 09.02.2021, it was clarified that the category 8275-2025 (O&M) -2- 26137-2025 (O&M) made for issuance of a Mandamus upon the respondents to consider the candidatures under the said category, 13.01.2021 (Annexure P-5). Shorn of the unnecessary details, the undisputed facts are that the Director, Education Recruitment Directorate, Punjab, online applications from the eligible candidates for various posts of Master/Mistress in different subjects, i.e. (Annexures P-1 to P-3). However, all the posts were earmarked for Border Area Districts in the State of Punj applied for the posts, as per their eligibility, under General Category the month of March/April, 2020. As per the case set up by the petitioners Economically Weaker Sections of the Society 19), it was not feasible for them to procure the certificate(s), in this regard. Accordingly, they filled their category as General. Subsequently, the respondent-department, by way of Public Notice dated 13.01.2021 (Annexure P-5), granted one last chance to carry out necessary corrections/amendments category. However, the respondent-department, as an outcome decision dated 03.11.2020, rendered by a learned Single Bench of this Court in CWP-18337-2020 (Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab and withdrew the abovesaid Public Notice dated 09.02.2021 (Annexure P-6). Thereafter, vide dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure P-7), which was in continuation of the earlier Notice dated 09.02.2021, it was clarified that the category n the respondents to consider their said category, in terms of the notice dated Shorn of the unnecessary details, the undisputed facts are that the Director, Education Recruitment Directorate, Punjab, invited the eligible candidates for various posts of in different subjects, i.e. Science, English and Math 3). However, all the posts were earmarked for Punjab. In response, the petitioners applied for the posts, as per their eligibility, under General Category, in per the case set up by the petitioners, they belong to the Economically Weaker Sections of the Society, but owing to the pandemic 19), it was not feasible for them to procure the certificate(s), in this regard. Accordingly, they filled their category as General. department, by way of Public Notice dated , granted one last chance to the candidates to s/amendments with respect to their department, as an outcome of the decision dated 03.11.2020, rendered by a learned Single Bench of this 2020 (Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab and withdrew the abovesaid Public Notice, by issuing Public Notice Thereafter, vide another Public Notice ), which was in continuation of the earlier Notice dated 09.02.2021, it was clarified that the category, in ir in terms of the notice dated Shorn of the unnecessary details, the undisputed facts are invited the eligible candidates for various posts of Science, English and Math 3). However, all the posts were earmarked for In response, the petitioners , in they belong to the t owing to the pandemic 19), it was not feasible for them to procure the certificate(s), in this regard. Accordingly, they filled their category as General. department, by way of Public Notice dated the candidates to with respect to their the decision dated 03.11.2020, rendered by a learned Single Bench of this 2020 (Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Notice another Public Notice ), which was in continuation of the in AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.30 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-8275 CWP-26137 which the fee would be considered fina was declared on not achieve their goal Court on the ground that question, the 5. respondent Gurpreet Singh (supra) Further, the respon factor in pandemic, petitions at hand deserve to be allowed. 6. issue raked up by the petitioners is no more Notice dated 19.02.2021 legal, by a Coordinate Bench of this Court 25.11.2024, rendered in a bunch of 17 petitions, lead case being CWP-4483 only that, the decision (supra) was challenged by a set of the petitioners in an intra was dismissed on 08.08.2025. Thus, the matter has attained finality. He asserts that, in fact, the department had while permitting the column of 8275-2025 (O&M) -3- 26137-2025 (O&M) which the fee paid by the candidate had been would be considered final. Eventually, result of the written examination was declared on 08.02.2021 (Annexures P achieve their goal. In this backdrop, Court on the ground that had they been considered in , they would have been selected. Learned counsel for the petitioner respondent-department wrongly relied upon the ratio Gurpreet Singh (supra), while rejecting the claim of the petitioners. Further, the respondent-department, while determining the matter, the exceptional circumstances created due to outbreak of the pandemic, when the entire nation was under the lockdown. petitions at hand deserve to be allowed. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, issue raked up by the petitioners is no more Notice dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure P-7) by a Coordinate Bench of this Court .2024, rendered in a bunch of 17 petitions, lead case being 4483-2021 (Ashu Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and others). only that, the decision (supra) was challenged by a set of the petitioners in an intra-court appeal (LPA-795-2025), was dismissed on 08.08.2025. Thus, the matter has attained finality. He asserts that, in fact, the department had while permitting the candidates to carry out necessary changes as regards the column of category, and that too had been confirmed as per challan, , result of the written examination (Annexures P-9), but the petitioners could . In this backdrop, they seek indulgence of this had they been considered in the Category in Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the department wrongly relied upon the ratio laid down in , while rejecting the claim of the petitioners. , while determining the matter, did not exceptional circumstances created due to outbreak of the was under the lockdown. Thus, the , on the other hand, submits that the issue raked up by the petitioners is no more res integra, as the impugned 7), has already been held to be by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide decision dated .2024, rendered in a bunch of 17 petitions, lead case being 2021 (Ashu Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and others). Not only that, the decision (supra) was challenged by a set of the petitioners 2025), which met the same fate, and was dismissed on 08.08.2025. Thus, the matter has attained finality. He asserts that, in fact, the department had resorted to a wrong decision, the candidates to carry out necessary changes as regards category, and that too, post commencement of the confirmed as per challan, , result of the written examination the petitioners could they seek indulgence of this in submits that the laid down in , while rejecting the claim of the petitioners. did not exceptional circumstances created due to outbreak of the Thus, the submits that the impugned held to be decision dated .2024, rendered in a bunch of 17 petitions, lead case being Not only that, the decision (supra) was challenged by a set of the petitioners the same fate, and was dismissed on 08.08.2025. Thus, the matter has attained finality. , the candidates to carry out necessary changes as regards commencement of the AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.30 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-8275 CWP-26137 selection process. Therefore, though at a later stage, the department had retracted its steps, and withdrew the impugned notice. 7. also perused the record. 8. relevant clauses of condition No.7 (General Conditions) of the advertisement in question: 9. that no candidate is allowed to make any alteration, inc column of category, once a duly filled form is submitted. It is a settled position of law that the selection process has already commenced. the considered opinion that, in fact, the notice dated (Annexure P the advertisement. 8275-2025 (O&M) -4- 26137-2025 (O&M) selection process. Therefore, though at a later stage, the department had retracted its steps, and withdrew the impugned notice. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, and has also perused the record. Before delving into the merits, it is expedient to refer to relevant clauses of condition No.7 (General Conditions) of the advertisement in question:- “xii. Candidates will occurred while filling the online form. The Education Recruitment Directorate, Punjab responsibility in this regard xiii. While applying online c to fill their form themselves café attendant. Once the date is after approval, no change will be allowed and no other opportunity will be given. Any counter request in this regard will not be accepted by the office xv. The decision Education Recruitment Punjab regard this be final and applicable to all.” A bare perusal of the abovesaid conditions that no candidate is allowed to make any alteration, inc column of category, once a duly filled form is submitted. It is a settled position of law that rules of the game cannot be altered midway the selection process has already commenced. the considered opinion that, in fact, the notice dated (Annexure P-5) itself, was in contravention of the terms and conditions of the advertisement. selection process. Therefore, though at a later stage, the department had retracted its steps, and withdrew the impugned notice. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, and has Before delving into the merits, it is expedient to refer to the relevant clauses of condition No.7 (General Conditions) of the will be responsible for any mistake occurred while filling the online form. The Education , Punjab will not have any While applying online candidates are advised elves while taking the help of cyber date is filled in the application form change will be allowed and no other opportunity will be given. Any counter request in this regard will not be accepted by the office. taken by the Directorate of Education Recruitment Punjab regard this recruitment will be final and applicable to all.” the abovesaid conditions makes it vivid that no candidate is allowed to make any alteration, including in the column of category, once a duly filled form is submitted. It is a settled rules of the game cannot be altered midway, when the selection process has already commenced. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that, in fact, the notice dated 13.01.2021 contravention of the terms and conditions of selection process. Therefore, though at a later stage, the department had This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, and has the relevant clauses of condition No.7 (General Conditions) of the be responsible for any mistake occurred while filling the online form. The Education will not have any andidates are advised of cyber the application form change will be allowed and no other opportunity will be given. Any counter request in this regard taken by the Directorate of will makes it vivid luding in the column of category, once a duly filled form is submitted. It is a settled , when Therefore, this Court is of 13.01.2021 contravention of the terms and conditions of AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.30 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-8275 CWP-26137 10. Notice dated 13.01.2021 (Annexure P wrongly filled the category column in their application form granted one last chance to correct the same: 11. to an accidental omission or Rather, their pleaded case is that they candidates belonging to the General Category, the requisite certificates/documents with respect to Weaker Section (E claim of the petitioners is founded result of an afterthought reserved category, but certificate/documents not entitled to claim the benefit of such category. Public Notice, from which the petitioners seek to derive a benefit, stood withdrawn, they cannot assert any claim founded thereon. 8275-2025 (O&M) -5- 26137-2025 (O&M) The matter at hand has one more dimension. V dated 13.01.2021 (Annexure P wrongly filled the category column in their application form granted one last chance to correct the same: “…The category was wrongly filled by many candidates who applied for these vacanci department on applications received for correction of the category has decided to give one last chance to correct the category to such candidates. Hence, the department while opinion the portal is hereby instruction the concerned candidates that they by doing login on department’s website xxxxx through their login ID till 17.01.2021, correction be made in the regard….” Concededly, it is not the case of the petitioners that they, due an accidental omission or inadvertence, had Rather, their pleaded case is that they candidates belonging to the General Category, the requisite certificates/documents with respect to Weaker Section (EWS) for General Category. Thus, it is quite clear that claim of the petitioners is founded on speculations result of an afterthought. Indisputably, if a candidate reserved category, but is not equipped with the necessary certificate/documents on the date of submission of application not entitled to claim the benefit of such category. Public Notice, from which the petitioners seek to derive a benefit, stood withdrawn, they cannot assert any claim founded thereon. The matter at hand has one more dimension. Vide Public dated 13.01.2021 (Annexure P-5), the candidates, who had wrongly filled the category column in their application forms, were granted one last chance to correct the same:- The category was wrongly filled by many candidates who applied for these vacancies, therefore, the department on applications received for correction of the category has decided to give one last chance to correct the category to such candidates. Hence, the department while opinion the portal is hereby instruction the concerned tes that they by doing login on department’s website xxxxx through their login ID till 17.01.2021, correction be Concededly, it is not the case of the petitioners that they, due inadvertence, had filled the wrong category. consciously filled the form as candidates belonging to the General Category, due to unavailability of the requisite certificates/documents with respect to the Economically WS) for General Category. Thus, it is quite clear that on speculations, and their move was a , if a candidate belongs to a is not equipped with the necessary on the date of submission of application, he/she is not entitled to claim the benefit of such category. Further, since the Public Notice, from which the petitioners seek to derive a benefit, stood withdrawn, they cannot assert any claim founded thereon. ide Public 5), the candidates, who had , were The category was wrongly filled by many , therefore, the department on applications received for correction of the category has decided to give one last chance to correct the category to such candidates. Hence, the department while opinion the portal is hereby instruction the concerned tes that they by doing login on department’s website xxxxx through their login ID till 17.01.2021, correction be Concededly, it is not the case of the petitioners that they, due filled the wrong category. filled the form as due to unavailability of ally WS) for General Category. Thus, it is quite clear that , and their move was a belongs to a is not equipped with the necessary is the Public Notice, from which the petitioners seek to derive a benefit, stood AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.30 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-8275 CWP-26137 12. that the respondent (supra) is concerned only. Once the advertisement itself, as indicated above, unequivocally stipulated which had corrections in their application form, after commencement of the recruitment process. ratio laid down in abovesaid case, prudently and rectified the error by withdrawin 13. assailed the which was dismissed, thereby upholding the stand of the department not to permit the candidates to make any The relevant observations are as under: 8275-2025 (O&M) -6- 26137-2025 (O&M) So far as the star argument raised on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent-department wrongly relied upon is concerned, the same was noted for the purpose of rejection Once the advertisement itself, as indicated above, unequivocally d the terms and conditions, it was the respondent had grossly erred by permitting corrections in their application form, after commencement of the recruitment process. Therefore, upon realising its mistake ratio laid down in abovesaid case, the respondent prudently and rectified the error by withdrawin Furthermore, a few of the candidates, being aggrieved, assailed the Public Notice dated 19.02.2021 which was dismissed, thereby upholding the stand of the department not to permit the candidates to make any changes in their application forms. The relevant observations are as under:- “12. A bare perusal of the said conditions reproduced hereinbefore would show that no change in the application form is to be allowed for any purpose. Once the said clause existed in the Advertisement, the change of category being allowed by the respondents 13/14.01.2021 was arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the provisions of the terms and conditions of the Advertisement. 13. Further, the impugned order dated 19.02.2021 was passed by the respondents keeping in view the various representation received against public notice dated 13/14.01.2021 by the other candidates competing in the said selection. Once, a decision was taken by the highest level to conduct the selection process in terms of the original advertisement, the petitioners cannot raise any grievance raised on behalf of the petitioners department wrongly relied upon Gurpreet Singh , the same was noted for the purpose of rejection Once the advertisement itself, as indicated above, unequivocally the terms and conditions, it was the respondent-department permitting the candidates to undertake corrections in their application form, after commencement of the , upon realising its mistake by virtue of the the respondent-Department acted prudently and rectified the error by withdrawing the Public Notice. the candidates, being aggrieved, Public Notice dated 19.02.2021 in Ashu Sharma (supra), which was dismissed, thereby upholding the stand of the department not changes in their application forms. 12. A bare perusal of the said conditions reproduced hereinbefore would show that no change in the application form is to be allowed for any purpose. Once the said clause existed in the Advertisement, the change of category being allowed by the respondents vide public notice dated 13/14.01.2021 was arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the provisions of the terms and conditions of the Advertisement. 13. Further, the impugned order dated 19.02.2021 was passed by the respondents keeping in view the various representation received against public notice dated 13/14.01.2021 by the other candidates competing in the said selection. Once, a decision was taken by the highest level to conduct the selection process in terms of the original ers cannot raise any grievance raised on behalf of the petitioners Gurpreet Singh , the same was noted for the purpose of rejection Once the advertisement itself, as indicated above, unequivocally department undertake corrections in their application form, after commencement of the of the acted the candidates, being aggrieved, , which was dismissed, thereby upholding the stand of the department not changes in their application forms. 12. A bare perusal of the said conditions reproduced hereinbefore would show that no change in the application form is to be allowed for any purpose. Once the said clause existed in the Advertisement, the change of category being vide public notice dated 13/14.01.2021 was arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the 13. Further, the impugned order dated 19.02.2021 was passed by the respondents keeping in view the various representation received against public notice dated 13/14.01.2021 by the other candidates competing in the said selection. Once, a decision was taken by the highest level to conduct the selection process in terms of the original ers cannot raise any grievance AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.30 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-8275 CWP-26137 8275-2025 (O&M) -7- 26137-2025 (O&M) keeping in view the settled principle of law noticed hereinafter as the selection has been made as per the terms and conditions of the Advertisement, which have been applied uniformly upon all. 14. As per the judgment of th Court of India in Civil Appeal No.7677 of 2021 titled as The State of Bihar and others vs. Madhu Kant Ranjan and another, decided on 16.12.2021 the Advertisement are sacrosanct and the same have to be complied with under all circumstances. That being so, the terms and conditions of the original advertisement that no change will be permitted in the application form after the same is submitted, has to be complied with by the respondents and the public notice date contrary to the said terms and conditions and therefore, by reconsidering the issue, the respondents rightly withdrew the said public notice dated 13/14.01.2021 by issuing the notice dated 19.02.2021. The relevant paragraph 9 of the judgment is as under:- “9. As per the settled proposition of law, a candidate/applicant has to comply with all the conditions/eligibility criteria as per the advertisement before the cut-off date mentioned therein unless extended by the recruiting authority. documents, which are submitted alongwith the application form, which are required to be submitted as per the advertisement have to be considered. Therefore, when the respondent No.1 petitioner did not produce the photocopy ‘B’ certificate alongwith the original application as per the advertisement and the same was submitted after a period of three years from the cut that too after the physical test, he was not entitled to the additional five marks of keeping in view the settled principle of law noticed hereinafter as the selection has been made as per the terms and conditions of the Advertisement, which have been 14. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Civil Appeal No.7677 of 2021 titled as The State of Bihar and others vs. Madhu Kant Ranjan and another, decided on 16.12.2021, the terms and conditions of the Advertisement are sacrosanct and the same have to be with under all circumstances. That being so, the terms and conditions of the original advertisement that no change will be permitted in the application form after the same is submitted, has to be complied with by the respondents and the public notice dated 13/14.01.2021, is contrary to the said terms and conditions and therefore, by reconsidering the issue, the respondents rightly withdrew the said public notice dated 13/14.01.2021 by issuing the notice dated 19.02.2021. The relevant paragraph 9 of the “9. As per the settled proposition of law, a candidate/applicant has to comply with all the conditions/eligibility criteria as per the advertisement off date mentioned therein unless extended by the recruiting authority. Also, only those documents, which are submitted alongwith the application form, which are required to be submitted as per the advertisement have to be considered. Therefore, when the respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner did not produce the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith the original application as per the advertisement and the same was submitted after a period of three years from the cut-off date and that too after the physical test, he was not entitled to the additional five marks of the NCC ‘B’ certificate. keeping in view the settled principle of law noticed hereinafter as the selection has been made as per the terms and conditions of the Advertisement, which have been e Hon’ble Supreme Civil Appeal No.7677 of 2021 titled as The State of Bihar and others vs. Madhu Kant Ranjan and , the terms and conditions of the Advertisement are sacrosanct and the same have to be with under all circumstances. That being so, the terms and conditions of the original advertisement that no change will be permitted in the application form after the same is submitted, has to be complied with by the d 13/14.01.2021, is contrary to the said terms and conditions and therefore, by reconsidering the issue, the respondents rightly withdrew the said public notice dated 13/14.01.2021 by issuing the notice dated 19.02.2021. The relevant paragraph 9 of the “9. As per the settled proposition of law, a candidate/applicant has to comply with all the conditions/eligibility criteria as per the advertisement off date mentioned therein unless Also, only those documents, which are submitted alongwith the application form, which are required to be submitted as per the advertisement have to be considered. original writ of the NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith the original application as per the advertisement and the same was submitted off date and that too after the physical test, he was not entitled to the NCC ‘B’ certificate. AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.30 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-8275 CWP-26137 8275-2025 (O&M) -8- 26137-2025 (O&M) In these circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court has erred in directing the appellants to appoint the respondent No.1 on the post of Constable considering the select list dated 08.09.2007 and of NCC ‘B’ certificate.” 15. Further, as per the settled principle of law, no change can be allowed in the category once, the said category has been filled by the candidate himself/herself. In the present case, the respon 13/14.01.2021 allowed the change of the category and that too after holding of the written examination. The same is not permissible and the respondents rectified their mistake. 16. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.198 of 2005 titled as J & K Public Service Commission vs. Israr Ahmad and others, decided on 07.01.2005, no change in the category once applied for, can be done at a later stage. The relevant paragraph 6 of the said judgmen “6. We have considered the rival contentions advanced by both the parties. The contention of the first respondent cannot be accepted as he has not applied for the selection as a candidate entitled to get reservation. He did not produce any certificate alon with his application. The fact that he has not availed the benefit for the preliminary examination itself is sufficient to treat him as a candidate not entitled to get reservation. He passed the preliminary examination as a general candidate and at the subsequent stage of the main examination he cannot avail the the reservation on the ground that he was successful in getting the required certificate only at a later stage. The nature and status of the candidate who was applying for the selection could only In these circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court has erred in directing the appellants to appoint the respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner on the post of Constable considering the select list dated 08.09.2007 and allotting five additional marks of NCC ‘B’ certificate.” 15. Further, as per the settled principle of law, no change can be allowed in the category once, the said category has been filled by the candidate himself/herself. In the present case, the respondents by public notice dated 13/14.01.2021 allowed the change of the category and that too after holding of the written examination. The same is not permissible and the respondents rectified their mistake. 16. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme ourt of India in Civil Appeal No.198 of 2005 titled as J & K Public Service Commission vs. Israr Ahmad and others, decided on 07.01.2005, no change in the category once applied for, can be done at a later stage. The relevant paragraph 6 of the said judgment is as under:- “6. We have considered the rival contentions advanced by both the parties. The contention of the first respondent cannot be accepted as he has not applied for the selection as a candidate entitled to get reservation. He did not produce any certificate along with his application. The fact that he has not availed the benefit for the preliminary examination itself is sufficient to treat him as a candidate not entitled to get reservation. He passed the preliminary examination as a general candidate and at the ubsequent stage of the main examination he cannot avail the the reservation on the ground that he was successful in getting the required certificate only at a later stage. The nature and status of the candidate who was applying for the selection could only be In these circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court has erred in directing the appellants to original writ petitioner on the post of Constable considering the select list allotting five additional marks 15. Further, as per the settled principle of law, no change can be allowed in the category once, the said category has been filled by the candidate himself/herself. In dents by public notice dated 13/14.01.2021 allowed the change of the category and that too after holding of the written examination. The same is not 16. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme ourt of India in Civil Appeal No.198 of 2005 titled as J & K Public Service Commission vs. Israr Ahmad and others, decided on 07.01.2005, no change in the category once applied for, can be done at a later stage. The relevant “6. We have considered the rival contentions advanced by both the parties. The contention of the first respondent cannot be accepted as he has not applied for the selection as a candidate entitled to get g with his application. The fact that he has not availed the benefit for the preliminary examination itself is sufficient to treat him as a candidate not entitled to get reservation. He passed the preliminary examination as a general candidate and at the ubsequent stage of the main examination he cannot avail the the reservation on the ground that he was successful in getting the required certificate only at a later stage. The nature and status of the candidate be AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.30 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-8275 CWP-26137 14. LPA-795- Single Judge, and therefore, dismissed the appeal, while observing as under:- 8275-2025 (O&M) -9- 26137-2025 (O&M) treated alike and once a candidate has chosen to opt for the category to which he is entitled, he cannot later change the status and make fresh claim. The Division Bench was not correct in holding that as a candidate he had also had the qualification a production of the certificate at later stage would make him entitled to seek reservation. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and allow the appeal.” As already narrated above, even the Division Bench, in -2025, has concurred with the view arrived at by the learned Single Judge, and therefore, dismissed the appeal, while observing as “6. It is trite law that the rules of the game cannot be changed midway once the recruitment process has commenced. The recruitment process begins with the issuance of the advertisement inviting applications to fill the vacancies. The respondents had permitted the change after the process of recruitment had been initiated but withdrew it after objections were raised against it. no vested right to seek change in the category. Reliance can be placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors in Civil Appeal no 2635 07.11.2024. The relevant extract of the judgement is reproduced hereunder:- “42. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms: (1) Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies; treated alike and once a candidate has chosen to opt for the category to which he is entitled, he cannot later change the status and make fresh claim. The Division Bench was not correct in holding that as a candidate he had also had the qualification and the production of the certificate at later stage would make him entitled to seek reservation. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and allow As already narrated above, even the Division Bench, in s concurred with the view arrived at by the learned Single Judge, and therefore, dismissed the appeal, while observing as 6. It is trite law that the rules of the game cannot be changed midway once the recruitment process has itment process begins with the issuance of the advertisement inviting applications to fill the vacancies. The respondents had permitted the change after the process of recruitment had been initiated but withdrew it after objections were raised against it. The appellants have no vested right to seek change in the category. Reliance can be placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors in Civil Appeal no 2635-2636 of 2013 decided on The relevant extract of the judgement is “42. We, therefore, answer the reference in the (1) Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies; treated alike and once a candidate has chosen to opt for the category to which he is entitled, he cannot later change the status and make fresh claim. The Division Bench was not correct in holding that as a nd the production of the certificate at later stage would make him entitled to seek reservation. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and allow As already narrated above, even the Division Bench, in s concurred with the view arrived at by the learned Single Judge, and therefore, dismissed the appeal, while observing as 6. It is trite law that the rules of the game cannot be changed midway once the recruitment process has itment process begins with the issuance of the advertisement inviting applications to fill the vacancies. The respondents had permitted the change after the process of recruitment had been initiated but withdrew it The appellants have no vested right to seek change in the category. Reliance can be placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors vs. Rajasthan High Court & 2636 of 2013 decided on The relevant extract of the judgement is “42. We, therefore, answer the reference in the (1) Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.30 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-8275 CWP-26137 8275-2025 (O&M) -10- 26137-2025 (O&M) (2) Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified at the commencement of the recruitment CIVIL APPEAL NO.2634 OF 2013 process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non arbitrariness; (3) The decision in K. Manjusree (supra) lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha(supra). Subash Chander Marwaha(supra) deals with the right to be appointed from the Select List whereas K. Manjusree(supra) deals with the right to be placed in the Select List. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues; (4) Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, nondiscriminatory/ non nexus to the object sought to be achieved. (5) Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However, where the Rules are non or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps; (6) Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality for CIVIL APPEAL NO.2634 OF 2013 bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. (2) Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified at the commencement of the recruitment PEAL NO.2634 OF 2013 process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non- (3) The decision in K. Manjusree (supra) lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Chander Marwaha(supra). Subash Chander Marwaha(supra) deals with the right to be appointed from the Select List whereas K. Manjusree(supra) deals with the right to be placed in the Select List. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different (4) Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, nondiscriminatory/ non-arbitrary and has a rational he object sought to be achieved. (5) Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However, where the Rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the (6) Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality for CIVIL APPEAL NO.2634 OF 2013 bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. (2) Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified at the commencement of the recruitment PEAL NO.2634 OF 2013 process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article - (3) The decision in K. Manjusree (supra) lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Chander Marwaha(supra). Subash Chander Marwaha(supra) deals with the right to be appointed from the Select List whereas K. Manjusree(supra) deals with the right to be placed in the Select List. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different (4) Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, arbitrary and has a rational (5) Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the (6) Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality for CIVIL APPEAL NO.2634 OF 2013 bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.30 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-8275 CWP-26137 15. of the terms and conditions of the advertisement, was allowed to out any change in the column of category, after submission of the form 8275-2025 (O&M) -11- 26137-2025 (O&M) However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list.” 7. It was also stipulated in the advertisement (Annexure P that once the application form was submitted, no change would be permitted, and the candidate would be held liable for the particulars furnished therein. Relevant Clauses xii and xiii of the Advertisement (Annexure P hereunder:- “xii. Any mistake committed by the candidate at the time of filling the online form for t himself is liable. Education Recruitment Directorate Punjab is not liable for the same. xiii. At the time of applying online, the candidates who are taking the assistance of cybercafe attendant are advised to fill the form themselves, the dat application form, after the same be approved. Same cannot be rectified and further be not given any other chance regarding the same, no application regarding this will be entertained by the department.” xx xx xx 9. Furthermore, the public notice dated 13.01.2021 (Annexure P-17), which allowed candidates to change their category after the written examination had been conducted, was in contravention of the settled law and was, therefore, withdrawn by the respondent dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure P candidate was permitted to change the category.” In the matter at hand also, eventually, no candidate, in terms and conditions of the advertisement, was allowed to out any change in the column of category, after submission of the form However, if vacancies exist, the State or its mentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the 7. It was also stipulated in the advertisement (Annexure P-1) that once the application form was submitted, no change he candidate would be held liable for the particulars furnished therein. Relevant Clauses xii and xiii of the Advertisement (Annexure P-1) are reproduced “xii. Any mistake committed by the candidate at the time of filling the online form for that candidate himself is liable. Education Recruitment Directorate Punjab is not liable for the same. xiii. At the time of applying online, the candidates who are taking the assistance of cybercafe attendant are advised to fill the form themselves, the data to be filled in the application form, after the same be approved. Same cannot be rectified and further be not given any other chance regarding the same, no application regarding this will be entertained by the department.” xx he public notice dated 13.01.2021 17), which allowed candidates to change their category after the written examination had been conducted, was in contravention of the settled law and was, therefore, withdrawn by the respondent-Department vide public notice dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure P-22), meaning thereby that no candidate was permitted to change the category.” In the matter at hand also, eventually, no candidate, in view terms and conditions of the advertisement, was allowed to carry out any change in the column of category, after submission of the forms. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its mentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the 1) that once the application form was submitted, no change he candidate would be held liable for the particulars furnished therein. Relevant Clauses xii 1) are reproduced “xii. Any mistake committed by the candidate at the hat candidate himself is liable. Education Recruitment Directorate Punjab is not liable for the same. xiii. At the time of applying online, the candidates who are taking the assistance of cybercafe attendant are advised to fill a to be filled in the application form, after the same be approved. Same cannot be rectified and further be not given any other chance regarding the same, no application regarding he public notice dated 13.01.2021 17), which allowed candidates to change their category after the written examination had been conducted, was in contravention of the settled law and was, therefore, ublic notice 22), meaning thereby that no view carry . AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.30 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-8275 CWP-26137 Suffice it to say, of candidates, permitting such a course would open a Pandora's box, leading to process cannot be taken to its logical end. 16. dealt with in the cases referred to above, this Court has no reason to draw any view, contrary to the set dismissed. 17. accordingly. case. 22.07.2026 Ak Sharma 8275-2025 (O&M) -12- 26137-2025 (O&M) Suffice it to say, in a selection process of such magnitude involving lakhs of candidates, permitting such a course would open a Pandora's box, leading to unforeseen complications and ramifications process cannot be taken to its logical end. Furthermore, since the issue has already been exhaustively dealt with in the cases referred to above, this Court has no reason to draw any view, contrary to the settled law. Accordingly, the writ petition dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of, accordingly. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected .2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable in a selection process of such magnitude involving lakhs of candidates, permitting such a course would open a Pandora's box, and ramifications. And, the selection process cannot be taken to its logical end. Furthermore, since the issue has already been exhaustively dealt with in the cases referred to above, this Court has no reason to draw tled law. Accordingly, the writ petitions are Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of, A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE Yes Yes/No in a selection process of such magnitude involving lakhs of candidates, permitting such a course would open a Pandora's box, , the selection Furthermore, since the issue has already been exhaustively dealt with in the cases referred to above, this Court has no reason to draw are Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of, A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.30 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document