The Punjab and Haryana High Court reaffirms that the State cannot selectively deny appointments to equally placed candidates, absent statutory bar or proven misconduct, and must treat all similarly situated candidates equally; follows judgments in LPA No. 290/2025 and LPA No. 1037/2025. The ruling has binding precedential value for service selection disputes in government recruitment across Haryana.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/7954/2017 of DEEPAK KUMAR Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR |
| CNR | PHHC011056922017 |
| Date of Registration | 19-04-2017 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction of the Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Service Law / Constitutional Law (Articles 14, 226/227) |
| Questions of Law | Whether the State may selectively deny appointment to certain candidates in public service recruitment, where a common selection process occurred and no statutory disqualification is shown. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The State cannot adopt a “pick and choose” policy in making appointments from among candidates deemed similarly situated by its own criteria, unless a clear legal bar exists. Once the State has identified and appointed certain candidates based on a formulated criterion (such as the examiner’s use of two pens), all similarly situated candidates must be treated equally. The absence of a statutory violation by the petitioner precludes selective denial of appointment. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Equal treatment of similarly situated candidates; prohibition on arbitrary state action (reference to State policy and selection criteria) |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners were denied appointment to HCS (Ex. Br.) despite recommendation by HPSC, due to being among those not declared “untainted” in an Enquiry Report. The State appointed others similarly situated but withheld appointment from the petitioners without legal bar or violation of rules. Petitioners sought quashing of the orders rejecting their claim and the Enquiry Report. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana; authorities involved in public service recruitment in Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts hearing similar service/administrative discrimination cases |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court clarifies that, where the State has identified and appointed some candidates based on a specific selection criterion, all other similarly situated candidates must receive the same treatment in the absence of a legal bar.
- Advocates may rely on this judgment to challenge discrimination in public service appointments, particularly where arbitrary distinctions are made between identical cases.
- The judgment reaffirms the non-discretionary obligation of State authorities to ensure equality in service selection processes.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that the issue had already been considered and decided in LPA No. 290 of 2025 (Surender Lather v. State of Haryana & Anr.), which held that the State cannot treat similarly situated candidates differently without a valid legal basis.
- The Division Bench had ruled that, once the State set a criterion (e.g., the use of two pens by examiners) and appointed candidates accordingly, all candidates matching that criterion should benefit in the same manner.
- No statutory violation or legal bar against the petitioner was cited by the State to justify denial of appointment.
- The doctrine of non-arbitrariness and equal protection (implicitly under Article 14) precludes selective appointments.
- The State’s adoption of a “pick and choose” policy was thus impermissible; all similarly placed candidates are entitled to equal treatment.
- The High Court disposed of the writ petitions in line with the cited Division Bench judgments, directing the State to apply their rationale here as well.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The petitioners’ selection and recommendation by the Haryana Public Service Commission were undisputed.
- The State adopted an arbitrary “pick and choose” approach, denying appointment to petitioners while appointing other similarly situated candidates.
- Petitioners sought quashing of the orders rejecting their claims as well as the Enquiry Report which failed to give reasons regarding their status.
Respondent (State of Haryana)
- State Counsel, on instructions, corroborated the submissions made by the petitioners.
- No objection was raised to the application for treating annexures on record.
- State did not contest the applicability of the Division Bench’s decisions to the present case.
Factual Background
Petitioners participated in the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) recruitment process pursuant to Advertisement No. 12 dated 24.01.2004. Although duly selected and recommended by the HPSC, their appointments were denied based on an Enquiry Report that classified only some candidates as “untainted”, without making remarks on others. The State, however, appointed others in similar circumstances. The petitioners challenged the orders rejecting their appointment and the implementation of the Enquiry Report.
Statutory Analysis
- The High Court exercised jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution to review State action in public service recruitment.
- The analysis implicitly invoked Article 14 (equality before the law/prohibition against arbitrary action) though not explicitly cited in the excerpts provided.
- There was no interpretation, reading down, or expansion of statutory rules; the judgment turned on compliance with established constitutional principles governing equality in State action.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations were introduced in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows and applies established law as decided in LPA No. 290/2025 and LPA No. 1037/2025.