A writ petition challenging reservation criteria in a recruitment advertisement becomes non-justiciable if the advertisement is withdrawn prior to judgment; the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismisses such petitions as not pressed, granting liberty to revive only if cause persists. The decision affirms existing administrative and writ practice, with limited precedential value.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/12774/2021 of KULDIP SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | PHHC010599782021 |
| Date of Registration | 13-07-2021 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Limited; does not decide the merits of legal questions raised |
| Type of Law | Administrative law, Constitutional law (Reservation in public services) |
| Questions of Law | Effect of withdrawal of an administrative recruitment advertisement on pending writ petitions |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The writ petition, which challenged the reservation of both Principal posts for women in the advertisement dated 26.04.2021, was rendered infructuous upon the State’s withdrawal of the advertisement during the pendency of the proceedings. The petitioner did not wish to press the petition further on account of this withdrawal but sought liberty to revive if a cause of action survived. The Court accordingly dismissed the petition as not pressed, with permission to revive subject to future cause. The judgment leaves the primary legal issue regarding the reservation ratio undecided and provides a procedural pathway when administrative action is withdrawn during litigation. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner challenged a recruitment advertisement reserving both Principal posts in the Sports Persons category for women, contending this amounted to 100% reservation, contrary to the statutory 33% reservation for women. However, the impugned advertisement was withdrawn by the State during the pendency of the petition. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Parties to the petition; minimal precedential impact for other litigants |
| Persuasive For | None, as no merits were adjudicated |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- When the administrative action challenged in a writ petition is withdrawn by the State during pendency, the petition is generally dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to revive if a cause of action survives.
- The core substantive legal issue is left undecided and may be raised afresh if circumstances warrant in the future.
- Advises practitioners to request liberty for revival to safeguard rights if similar cause arises again.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that the impugned recruitment advertisement which was challenged by the petitioner was withdrawn by the State during the pendency of the writ petition.
- On being informed of this withdrawal, the petitioner submitted that the petition need not be pressed at that stage, while seeking liberty to revive if there is a surviving cause.
- The Court accepted this submission and dismissed the writ petition as not pressed, expressly granting liberty for revival if future circumstances so require.
- The Court did not engage with or decide on the underlying legal question concerning reservation for women in public posts.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought quashing of the recruitment advertisement dated 26.04.2021, contending that reserving both Principal positions for women amounted to 100% reservation, contrary to the statutory 33% reservation under the Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women), Rules, 2020.
- Upon withdrawal of the impugned advertisement by the State, did not press the petition but requested liberty to revive if necessary.
Respondent (State)
- Informed the Court, through counsel and departmental official, that the contested recruitment advertisement had been withdrawn during the pendency of the litigation.
Factual Background
The petitioner challenged a government recruitment advertisement dated 26.04.2021, which reserved both Principal posts in the Sports Persons category for women candidates, allegedly violating the 33% reservation cap under the relevant Punjab rules. During the pendency of the writ petition, the State withdrew the impugned advertisement. The petitioner thereafter sought dismissal of the petition as not pressed, requesting liberty to revive if any cause still survived.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment references the Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women), Rules, 2020 notified on 21.10.2020.
- The issue pertained to whether 100% reservation of certain posts for women violated the statutory 33% cap.
- However, since the matter was not adjudicated on merits due to the withdrawal of the advertisement, no interpretive analysis of the rules or statutes was entered into by the Court.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in this judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations are introduced in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows established practice that a writ petition challenging administrative action becomes infructuous and is dismissed as not pressed if the action is withdrawn before judgment, with liberty to revive if a live cause recurs.