Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed the appeal challenging an order of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Court restored the decision of the learned Single Judge, affirming that a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) post reserved for Scheduled Caste (SC) Sports (Women) category, as per the 2020 Punjab Rules, cannot be altered post-advertisement.

The judgment firmly states that once eligibility criteria are notified in an advertisement, they cannot be modified during an ongoing recruitment process. The Court recorded, *"the same would tantamount to 'changing the rules of the game, after the game is played'."

Also Read:“‘Every Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Painted as Rape’: Supreme Court Quashes Case Against Retired Judicial Officer, Citing Abuse of Process”

The appeal arose from recruitment under Advertisement No. 08 dated 04.06.2020 by the Punjab Public Service Commission, which invited applications for 77 posts, including 26 DSP posts. Among them, two were reserved under the SC Sports category.

Following the enactment of the Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020, which mandated 33% horizontal reservation for women, the State withdrew its previous requisition. Subsequently, Advertisement No. 14 dated 11.12.2020 was issued, revising the reservation matrix. Now, one DSP post was reserved under the newly introduced SC Sports (Women) category.

The private respondent, who had applied under the SC Sports category in Advertisement No. 08, contested the reservation under the subsequent advertisement, arguing that the DSP post for SC Sports should not have been reserved for women, citing the 29.01.2021 roster.

Both parties were allowed to carry forward applications from Advertisement No. 08 without reapplication. The private respondent ranked first among SC Sports (male), and the appellant ranked first among SC Sports (women).

The private respondent filed a writ petition challenging only the part of Advertisement No. 14 that reserved the DSP post for SC Sports (Women), which was initially dismissed by a Single Judge. The Judge recorded that "the private respondent cannot be appointed to a post i.e. DSP 'SC Sports' which was reserved for 'SC Sports (Women)'."

The Division Bench later remanded the matter for reconsideration, citing differing departmental views—the Home Department supporting the reservation for SC Sports (Women), and the Department of Social Justice disputing it. The Chief Secretary opined that the reservation was erroneous.

The Supreme Court, however, noted that the roster introduced on 29.01.2021 came after the last date for application (30.12.2020) under Advertisement No. 14 and held that changes cannot apply retroactively. It was recorded, *"the recruitment process had begun with the publication of the advertisement... midway changes could not have taken place."

The Supreme Court upheld the well-reasoned findings of the learned Single Judge.

"Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit."

Relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan, (2025) 2 SCC 1, the Court reiterated the principle that "the State or its instrumentalities cannot tinker with the 'rules of the game' once the recruitment process commences."

On the merits, the Court further stated:

"Once it is accepted that the DSP post in question was reserved for 'SC Sports (Women)' as per advertisement no.14 of 11.12.2020, the appellant must be accepted as the only person qualified in her category who could be appointed."

The Court also dismissed the argument that Advertisement No. 14 was invalid for lack of clarity under the 2020 Rules, as "the advertisement or the 2020 Rules were never challenged" and thus, "respondents now cannot cry foul referring to an event post 11.12.2020."

The Court reiterated that the substitution of the 2020 Rules on 29.12.2020 through an amendment introducing the roster does not impact the rights already accrued through a validly issued advertisement.

Also Read: “Registry Has No Power to Reject Complaint”: Karnataka High Court Quashes RERA's Email Order, Restores Case, Warns Against Usurping Judicial Functions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Division Bench. It reinstated the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 03.03.2023. The Bench directed:

"The directions given in the judgment dated 03.03.2023 shall be complied within three weeks from today."

All pending applications were disposed of, and interim orders vacated.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: P. S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate, Anurag Kulharia, Advocate, Sumit Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Dr. Navya Jannu, Advocate, Aakriti Jain, Advocate-on-Record, Rajat Sangwan, Advocate, Shikhar Narwal, Advocate

For the Respondents: Rajat Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, Karan Sharma, Advocate-on-Record, Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate, Raj Kishor Choudhary, Advocate-on-Record, Shakeel Ahmed, Advocate, Lalit Singla, Advocate, Pratibha Singh, Advocate, Himanshu Gupta, Advocate

Case Title: Prabhjot Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 479

Case Number: SLP (Civil) No. 17747 of 2023

Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran

[Read/Download order]