Isabella Mariam

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, Single Bench of Justice N.S. Shekhawat, dismissed a writ petition challenging the State's decision to restart the recruitment process for the post of Member (Non-Judicial) at the Punjab State Human Rights Commission. The petitioner, whose name had been put forward by the Selection Committee pursuant to an earlier advertisement, sought to have the fresh recruitment process set aside and the earlier recommendation acted upon. The Court held that a Selection Committee's recommendation confers no enforceable right to appointment, as the Governor retains final appointing authority under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. With the earlier process having remained inconclusive for nearly three years and no arbitrariness or malafide established, the Court found the de novo recruitment to be a legitimate exercise of administrative discretion in the public interest.

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quashing of a fresh advertisement issued for appointment to the post of Member (Non-Judicial) in the Punjab State Human Rights Commission (PSHRC). The petitioner contended that pursuant to an earlier advertisement dated 29.10.2022, he had applied for the said post and his name was recommended by the duly constituted Selection Committee under Section 22 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The Committee comprised the Chief Minister, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Minister in-charge of the Home Department, and Leader of Opposition.

Also Read: "Cruelty Of The Highest Order": Supreme Court Pulls Up Husband For Ousting Wife And Denying Her Access To Six-Month-Old Twins; Directs Parties To Appear With Children

According to the petitioner, the recommendation was forwarded to the competent authority and police verification was conducted. However, no formal notification under the warrant and seal of the Governor was issued. The petitioner submitted that without rejecting the earlier recommendation, the State issued a fresh advertisement in 2025 inviting applications for the same post.

The State contended that although the Selection Committee recommended the petitioner’s name, the Governor’s Secretariat returned the file on 26.09.2024. It was submitted that since the matter did not fructify into an appointment, the process stood concluded and the Government was competent to initiate a fresh selection process in public interest. The State further argued that recommendation does not confer an enforceable right to appointment.

The Court observed that “Since the Governor had returned the file and the candidature of the petitioner was virtually rejected, in that eventuality, the failure to challenge the foundational decision is fatal and no substantive relief can be granted in the absence of challenge to the operative administrative decision, which formed the basis of a subsequent action.”

It further recorded that “A fresh advertisement issued pursuant to the competent authority's directions cannot be impugned indirectly, especially when the principal decision remains unchallenged.”

Addressing the nature of recommendation, the Court stated that “any recommendation made by the Selection Committee, irrespective of its stature or composition, is merely recommendatory in nature and does not culminate in appointment, unless approved and notified by the competent authority.”

The Court referred to settled law and noted that “mere inclusion in a select list or recommendation for appointment does not confer an indefeasible or vested right to appointment. The candidate acquires only a right to fair and non-arbitrary consideration.”

Relying on precedents, the Court reproduced that “Even if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates do not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed against the existing vacancies.”

On administrative discretion, the Court observed that “the employer always retains the discretion to abandon or reinitiate any recruitment provided, such decision is not vitiated in arbitrariness or perversity.”

Regarding delay and fresh recruitment, the Court recorded that “the matter remained pending for almost 03 years and the initiation of a fresh recruitment process, after passage of considerable time, constitutes a legitimate administrative response aimed at ensuring efficacy in public administration.” The Court further stated that “no arbitrariness, discrimination or malafide has been pleaded or proved by the petitioner.”

It added that “the posts of public importance cannot remain unfilled for an indefinite duration… The administrative necessity and public interest justify the de novo recruitment, where earlier process becomes stale or inconclusive.”

Also Read: Seriousness Of Offence Alone Not A Ground To Cancel Pre-Arrest Bail: P&H High Court Refuses Bail Cancellation In Fake ED Officer Impersonation Extortion Case

The Court held, “In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is ordered to be dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate with Mr. Kishore Bhardwaj, Advocate and Ms. Nishtha, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Animesh Sharma, Addl. A.G., Punjab

Case Title: Birendra Singh Rawat Vs. State of Punjab and another

Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:179779

Case Number: CWP-20952-2025 (O&M)

Bench: Justice N.S. Shekhawat