CWP-17423 IN TH 229(2 cases) 1. Gurvinder Si State of Punja 2. Suminder Sin State of Punja CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. writ petitions sake of brevit 1 423 & 18262 of 2024 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA cases) Date o der Singh and others VERSUS f Punjab and others der Singh and others VERSUS f Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. Shakti Mehta, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab. REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) This common order shall dispo titions as they arise from a similar fa brevity, the facts are taken from CWP NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH Date of Decision: February 02, 2026 CWP-17423-2024 (O&M) .....Petitioners SUS ..Responden CWP-18262-2024 (O&M) .....Petitioner SUS ..Responden HARPREET SINGH BRAR te for the petitioner(s). unjab. l dispose of the aforementioned civil ilar factual matrix. However, for the CWP-17423-2024. 2026 ioners ondents itioner ondents civil or the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.06 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17423 2. Constitution seeking quas passed by r consideration impugned pu mandamus ha of the petitio has been mad reserve the p outcome of th 3. respondent N for the posts Municipal Co mentions tha for at least 0 the petitioner vide impugn ground that vehicles for a advertisemen successfully 2 423 & 18262 of 2024 Prayer in this writ petition filed tution of India, is for issuance of a w quashing of the impugned order date by respondent No.3 vide which eration for recruitment has been rejec ned public notice dated 19.02.2024 (A has been sought for directing the r petitioners for their appointment as D en made to issue ad-interim order or d the post vacant qua the candidature e of the present petition. Learned counsel for the petiti dent No.3 issued an advertisement da posts of Fireman and Driver/Opera ipal Councils and Panchayats. The s ns that the candidate must hold a lice east 05 years prior to the date of recr itioner for consideration to the post o mpugned order dated 09.07.2024 (A that the petitioners was not holdin s for at least 05 years prior to the las sement i.e. 16.03.2023. It is subm sfully qualified the written examina n filed under Articles 226/227 of the of a writ in the nature of certiorari er dated 09.07.2024 (Annexure P-11) hich claim of the petitioners for rejected, as well as for quashing of 24 (Annexure P-7). Further, a writ of g the respondents to consider the case t as Driver/Operator. Lastly, a prayer er or directions to the respondents to dature of the petitioners till the final petitioners inter alia contends that ent dated 28.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) Operator in Municipal Corporations, The said advertisement categorically a license for driving heavy vehicles f recruitment. However, the claim of post of Driver/Operator was rejected (Annexure P-11) solely on the holding a driving license for heavy the last date of application under the submitted that the petitioners had amination as well as the physical of the rari 11) rs for ing of rit of e case prayer nts to final s that 1) tions, rically hicles im of jected n the heavy er the s had ysical PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.06 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17423 efficiency tes Driver/Opera (Annexure P driving heav recruitment respondents a He further ar the advertisem eligibility co order(Annexu to the expres to the judgm vs. State of A 4. applied unifo picking. It is typographica from the em 18.10.2023, p be passed. H experience c license is calc 3 423 & 18262 of 2024 cy test and were otherwise eligible /Operator. Learned counsel conte ure P-1) stipulates that the candida heavy vehicles for not less than f , whereas in the impugned dents assessed eligibility with referenc ther argues that the selection process c ertisement and culminates with the de lity conditions cannot be altered nnexure P-11) has thus been passed b express terms of the advertisement(A judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Su of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 3 SCC 5 Per contra, learned State counse uniformly to all candidates and tha . It is argued that the reference to th aphical mistake and that the recruiti he employer-department. The said , pursuant to which the impugned sed. He further submits that petitioner nce certificate even if the time peri is calculated from the date of recruitm igible for appointment to the post of contends that the advertisement andidate must possess a licence for than five years prior to the date of gned order (Annexure P-11), the eference to the date of advertisement cess commences with the issuance of the declaration of the result, and that ltered mid-process. The impugned assed by applying a criterion contrary ent(Annexure P-1) which is contrary ’ble Supreme Court in K. Manjusree C 512. counsel submits that the criteria were nd that this is not a case of cherry e to the date of advertisement was a ecruiting agency sought clarification said clarification was received on ugned order (Annexure P-11) came to itioners No.10 and 17 do not have the e period with respect to the driving cruitment. ost of ement ce for ate of , the ment. nce of d that ugned ntrary ntrary sree were herry- was a cation ed on me to ve the riving PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.06 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17423 5. record with t advertisemen prescribed: license for he had in fact m the advertisem conditions lai Driver/Opera the responden or even after experience. 6. mentioned in tinkered with the Hon’ble part of which “28. In Bhimr 4 423 & 18262 of 2024 I have heard learned counsel f with their able assistance. It transpire sement (Annexure P-1), the following “2. Holding License of driving h years prior to the date of recruit Undisputedly, although the pet for heavy vehicles for five years as on fact met the threshold prior to the date ertisement (Annexure P-1). Thus, the s laid down therein and were eligibl /Operator. Admittedly, no corrigendum pondents at any point of time after th n after the declaration of the result nce. It is a settled principle of la ned in the advertisement is sacrosa d with after the commencement of th n’ble Supreme Court in K. Manjusr which is reproduced below: 8. In Maharashtra State Road Tran himrao Mandve, 2001(10) SCC 51 nsel for the parties and perused the nspires that as per Clause 7(2) of the llowing eligibility condition has been ing heavy vehicles not less than five cruitment in fire service.” (emphasis added) he petitioners did not hold a driving s as on the date of advertisement, they e date of recruitment, as prescribed in us, the petitioners fulfill the eligibility eligible for appointment to the post of gendum or amendment was issued by fter the issuance of the advertisement sult with regards to calculation of of law that the eligibility criteria acrosanct and cannot be altered or t of the selection process, as held by jusree’s case (supra), the relevant Transport Corporation v. Rajendra 51, this Court observed that 'the ed the of the been five iving t, they bed in ibility ost of ed by ement ion of riteria ed or by levant ndra 'the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.06 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17423 rules o cannot the pro much chang the res and im 29. Th prescr minimu marks selecti minimu the au rules, intervi not for written any p minimu want t before commi examin either an add minimu changi the en minim clarification express term candidates. 5 423 & 18262 of 2024 les of the game, meaning thereby, nnot be altered by the authorities co e process of selection has commenc uch more serious. Here, not only anged, but they were changed after e results of the game were being d impermissible. . The resolution dated 30.11.2004 escribed earlier. The previous pro inimum marks for interview. Ther arks prescribed for written exam lection process is impermissible. We inimum marks for any interview is no e authority making rules regulating les, the minimum marks both terviews, or prescribe minimum ma t for interview, or may not prescribe itten examination or interview. Wh y procedure, the Selection Comm inimum marks, as stated above. Bu ant to prescribe minimum marks fore the commencement of selec mmittee prescribed minimum m amination, before the commencemen ther during the selection process or additional requirement that the inimum marks in the interview. What anging the criteria after completion e entire selection proceeded on th inimum marks for the interview.” As such, the plea of typog ation with respect to the conditions s terms of the advertisement (Annexu reby, that the criteria for selection ies concerned in the middle or after enced.' In this case the position is only the rules of the game were after the game has been played and ing awaited. That is unacceptable 004 merely adopted the procedure procedure was not to have any Therefore, extending the minimum xamination, to interviews, in the . We may clarify that prescription of is not illegal. We have no doubt that ting the selection, can prescribe by th for written examination and marks for written examination but cribe any minimum marks for either . Where the rules do not prescribe ommittee may also prescribe the But if the Selection Committee rks for interview, it should do so selection process. If the selection marks only for the written ement of selection process, it cannot s or after the selection process, add the candidates should also secure What we have found to be illegal, is etion of the selection process, when n the basis that there will be no (emphasis added) typographical error or subsequent itions prescribed cannot override the nnexure P-1) to the prejudice of the tion after n is were and able dure any um the n of that e by and but ither ribe the ittee o so tion itten nnot add cure l, is hen no quent de the of the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.06 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17423 7. Parkash Pa conclusively advertisemen Justice Mano 8. (Annexure P cannot be sus aside. The r candidature o accordance w (Annexure P certified cop petitioners sh of the physica 6 423 & 18262 of 2024 A Constitution Bench of Ho Pathak Versus Rajasthan High sively held that selection process co sement and culminates with declarati Manoj Misra, the following was held: “(A) COMMENCEMENT/END PROCESS 13. The process of recruitme advertisement and ends with the It consists of various steps like i applications, rejection of defect of ineligible candidates, condu interview or viva voce and pr candidates for appointment”. In view of the above discussion, ure P-7) and the impugned order date be sustained in the eyes of law and th The respondents/competent authority ature of the petitioners for the post ance with the eligibility conditions p ure P-1), within a period of eight wee d copy of this order. For the sake o ers shall be determined with reference hysical examination was declared for of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tej igh Court, 2025(2) SCC 1 has ess commences with issuance of the claration of result. Speaking through s held:- END OF THE RECRUITMENT itment begins with the issuance of h the filling up of notified vacancies. ike inviting applications, scrutiny of efective applications or elimination nducting examinations, calling for d preparation of list of successful ssion, public notice dated 19.02.2024 er dated 28.06.2024 (Annexure P-11) and thus, are hereby quashed and set thority are directed to consider the e post of Driver/Operator strictly in ions prescribed in the advertisement ht weeks from the date of receipt of a sake of clarity, the eligibility of the ference to the date on which the result for the respective posts. Tej has of the rough ENT e of cies. y of tion for ssful .2024 11) nd set er the tly in ement t of a of the result PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.06 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17423 9. notional bene were selected fulfillment of rules. Howev any back wag 10. allowed in th 11. disposed of. 12. February 0 P.C 7 423 & 18262 of 2024 The petitioners, if otherwise fou al benefits and grant of seniority at p elected in pursuance of advertiseme ent of all other eligibility conditions a owever, it is made clear that the pet ck wages. Accordingly, both the above in the aforesaid terms. No order as to Pending miscellaneous applicat ed of. Photocopy of this order be place (HAR ary 02, 2026 Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable : ise found eligible, shall be entitled to y at par with their counterparts, who tisement (Annexure P-1), subject to itions as prescribed under the relevant the petitioners shall not be entitled to abovementioned writ petitions are r as to costs. pplication(s), if any, shall also stand placed on the file of connected case. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No led to , who ect to levant led to s are stand case. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.06 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document