Can an Applicant Who Wrongly Claims Reservation in a Recruitment Process Later Seek Appointment Under the General Category? High Court of Punjab & Haryana Reaffirms No Provision for Post-Facto Change in Reserved Category Claims — Selection Cancellation Upheld, Binding Authority for Recruitment Challenges

LawSikho
October 30, 2025
Category: High Court of Punjab and Haryana

Applicants who apply under an incorrect reserved category in government recruitment, and are later found ineligible for that reservation, cannot demand appointment under the general category. The Punjab & Haryana High Court reiterates existing precedent, holding that such errors are attributable solely to the candidate and that there is no provision for changing category after results; this decision operates as binding precedent within the jurisdiction for similar recruitment challenges

Summary

Category	Data
Case Name	CWP/9315/2015 of SANJAY SINGH AND ORS Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
CNR	PHHC010997302015
Date of Registration	08-05-2015
Decision Date	28-10-2025
Disposal Nature	DISMISSED
Judgment Author	MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Court	High Court of Punjab & Haryana
Bench	Single Judge Bench: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Precedent Value	Binding within Punjab & Haryana and persuasive for other High Courts in analogous facts
Type of Law	Service Law / Public Employment / Recruitment
Questions of Law	Whether candidates who wrongly claim reservation and are found ineligible can subsequently seek appointment under the general category in recruitment to public posts.
Ratio Decidendi	Candidates bear responsibility for choosing the correct category at the time of application for public employment. There is no legal provision to change or transpose category post-selection when the wrong reservation is claimed. Appointment secured by misidentification leads to cancellation upon discovery of the error. Where considerable time has lapsed since the recruitment process, the claim is further weakened. The error or misconception of the candidate does not create a right to appointment under any other category.
Facts as Summarised by the Court	Petitioners, all general category ex-servicemen, applied for constable posts under BC(A)/BC(B) categories in 2013, believing their community was considered as SBC. Upon document scrutiny, their selection was cancelled after it was found they did not belong to the reserved category claimed. They sought appointment under general category, which was not permitted.

Practical Impact

Category	Impact
Binding On	All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court
Persuasive For	Other High Courts and recruitment bodies dealing with similar fact patterns

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

The judgment clarifies that there is no statutory or administrative provision for post-facto rectification or conversion of reservation category to general merit in public recruitment after results are declared.
Responsibility for category selection in recruitment forms rests solely with the applicant; errors cannot confer subsequent rights or claims.
Considerable lapse of time since completion of the recruitment process can further bar relief to aspirants.
This decision will bind future service law litigation concerning category misdeclaration in recruitment within the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s jurisdiction.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

The Court noted that the petitioners, belonging to the general category, applied under the BC(A)/BC(B) reservation due to their belief that their community qualified as SBC, but this was factually incorrect.
It was established on the record that there was no reservation for the petitioners’ actual category and no provision exists to change the category once declared in the recruitment process.
The error in claiming reservation was solely attributed to the petitioners, and such mistakes cannot provide grounds for subsequent appointment under the general (or any other) category.
The Court highlighted the significant passage of time—over 10 years since the recruitment process concluded—as an additional reason for refusing relief.
Dismissal was thus deemed appropriate as the petition lacked merit under existing legal and administrative standards.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

Admitted they were aware of belonging to the general category but applied under BC(A)/BC(B) due to the mistaken belief their community was considered SBC.

State (Respondent)

Asserted that there was no reservation for SBC at the relevant time.
Argued that petitioners’ application under a wrong category was an attempt to wrongfully claim reservation benefits.

Factual Background

The petitioners, ex-servicemen from the general category, applied for recruitment as constables pursuant to an advertisement dated 07.05.2013. They submitted applications under the BC(A)/BC(B) reserved categories, believing their community fell within the SBC classification. Selection was initially granted under the reserved category. However, during document verification, it was revealed the petitioners were ineligible for the claimed reservation, leading to cancellation of their appointments. The petitioners then sought directions for appointment in the general category.

Statutory Analysis

The judgment addresses recruitment guidelines as issued by the Haryana Police Recruitment Board.
It is noted that there is “no provision to change category” post-application; neither statutory law nor recruitment rules support such post-facto amendments.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.

Procedural Innovations

No new procedural directions or innovations are set out in this judgment.

Alert Indicators

✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms established principles regarding category selection in public employment procedures and does not break new legal ground.