The Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside a service commission’s order rejecting meritorious candidates from reserved categories, directing that they be appointed to general-category posts where their marks exceed the unreserved cut-off and no reservation benefit has been availed.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, a group of candidates who had applied for Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) positions under the Backward Class-A (BC-A) or Backward Class-B (BC-B) categories, sought appointment in the General/Unreserved category after their reservation certificates were deemed invalid. They argued that, having secured marks higher than the General-category cut-off and having taken no reservation benefit, they were entitled to be considered for the unreserved vacancies advertised under Advertisement Nos. 18-37 of 2024.
Key Facts
- Advertisement No. 18-37 of 2024 issued on 23.07.2024 for 3,069 PGT posts; closing date 14.08.2024.
- Petitioners applied under BC-A/BC-B categories and submitted reservation certificates that were issued after the cut-off date.
- Screening Test (SKT) marks of petitioners exceeded the General-category cut-off; specific mark of 79 versus 70 for the last selected General candidate was highlighted.
- HPSC rejected the petitions on the ground that the certificates were invalid or issued after 14.08.2024.
- The petitioners obtained interim permission to appear for the interview in a prior writ petition (order dated 05.08.2025, CWP No. 20026 of 2024).
- Respondent-3 Commission issued a speaking order on 16.09.2025 rejecting the petitioners’ request for General-category consideration.
Procedural History
- 23.07.2024: Advertisement issued for PGT posts.
- 14.08.2024: Application deadline.
- 05.08.2025: Order in CWP No. 20026 of 2024 allowing representations to HPSC.
- 16.09.2025: Impugned speaking order rejecting General-category consideration.
- 07.07.2026: Writ petition reserved.
- 05.08.2026: Judgment pronounced.
- 03.11.2025: Division Bench decision in LPA No.1397 of 2025 (HPSC Vs Pardeep Kumar) referenced.
- 06.09.2024: Coordinate Bench decision in Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana cited.
- 28.04.2022: Supreme Court observation in Om Roj v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission.
- 31.01.2024: Division Bench order in LPA No.1203-2022 affirmed earlier precedent.
- 25.05.2026: Review applications disposed, clarifying entitlement of meritorious candidates without reservation benefit.
- 09.03.2026: Review applications heard.
- 12.05.2026: Respondents asked to clarify benefit availed.
Parties' Positions
- Petitioners: Assert that the General category is open to all on merit; invalid certificates should not bar consideration where no reservation benefit was taken and marks exceed the General cut-off.
- Respondents (Commission): Argue that the certificates were issued after the prescribed date, violating Clause 11(ii) and Clause 16(iii) of the advertisement; therefore the candidates cannot be shifted to the General category and such a shift would prejudice other candidates.
Relief Sought
The petitioners prayed for:
- Quashing of the speaking order dated 16.09.2025.
- A writ of mandamus directing the Commission to appoint them to General/Unreserved PGT posts on merit.
- Notional benefits from the date of actual joining and costs.
- Completion of the appointment process within six weeks of receipt of the certified order.
The Legal Issue
Whether a candidate belonging to a reserved category, whose reservation certificate is invalid or issued after the cut-off date and who has not availed any reservation benefit, can be denied consideration for an unreserved post despite securing marks higher than the General-category cut-off.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- The Open/General category is constitutionally guaranteed to be filled on merit; denial violates Articles 14 and 16.
- Precedents Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, Om Roj v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission, and Rajat Yadav v. Rajasthan High Court hold that meritorious reserved-category candidates may be considered for General posts when they outscore the General cut-off and have not taken any reservation benefit.
- Clause 11(vi) of the advertisement itself states that candidates selected on the same standards as General candidates shall not be adjusted against reserved vacancies.
For the Respondents
- The advertisement expressly required fresh certificates issued in the financial year 2024-2025; the petitioners’ certificates were issued after the cut-off, rendering them non-compliant.
- Allowing a post-cut-off shift would contravene Clause 16(iii) and prejudice other candidates who accepted the rejection.
- The principle of “migration” of meritorious candidates applies only at the final stage of selection, not at the screening stage.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by noting that the issue was not res integra, given the extensive jurisprudence on merit-based consideration of reserved-category candidates. It reiterated the constitutional mandate that the General category be filled from the merit list first, followed by allocation of reserved seats. The Court quoted the Coordinate Bench observation that a candidate who applied under a reserved category but is found ineligible for reservation “has a right of selection and appointment under general category” when his marks exceed the last selected General candidate.
"It is the basic principle of reservation, which the respondents need to be aware and be careful in future, that first and foremost general category seats are to be filled from the merit list as per result and thereafter the reserved category seats are to be allocated as per the quota assigned thereto."
The Court distinguished the respondents’ reliance on Clause 16(iii) by emphasizing that the clause pertains to procedural compliance, not to the substantive right of a meritorious candidate to be considered for an open vacancy. It observed that the Supreme Court in Rajat Yadav clarified that when a reserved-category candidate secures marks higher than the General cut-off in a screening examination, the candidate must be treated as competing in the General category itself, rendering any “migration” terminology unnecessary.
Further, the Court held that the invalidity of a reservation certificate does not create a bar to General-category consideration where the candidate has taken no reservation benefit. The earlier Division Bench decisions in Om Roj and Dinesh Kumar were applied, confirming that the entitlement flows from merit, not from the existence of a valid certificate. The Court rejected the argument that allowing such consideration would prejudice other candidates, noting that the principle of equality under Articles 14 and 16 outweighs any speculative prejudice.
Consequently, the impugned speaking order dated 16.09.2025 was quashed, and the Commission was directed to appoint the petitioners to the General/Unreserved PGT posts on merit, with notional benefits accruing from the date of actual joining.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court quashed the speaking order of 16.09.2025, directed the respondents to consider the petitioners for appointment to General/Unreserved PGT posts based on merit, ordered that notional benefits be granted from the date of actual joining, and mandated completion of the appointment process within six weeks of receipt of the certified order. Costs were awarded to the petitioners.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Merit Trumps Invalid Certificates
- Candidates from reserved categories who have not availed any reservation benefit and score above the General cut-off must be treated as General candidates.
- Invalid or late-issued reservation certificates do not bar consideration for open vacancies.
No Need for Formal “Migration” at Screening Stage
- The requirement of “migration” applies only at the final selection stage; at the screening stage, merit alone determines eligibility for General posts.
- Service commissions must apply the merit principle uniformly, irrespective of the category under which a candidate originally applied.
Procedural Compliance Is Not a Substantive Bar
- Clause-specific documentary requirements (e.g., certificate issue date) affect eligibility for reservation benefits but cannot be used to deny a meritorious candidate’s right to a General post.
- Courts will scrutinise any attempt to invoke procedural technicalities to defeat the constitutional guarantee of equality.
Practitioners should:
- Advise reserved-category candidates to ensure certificates are valid if they intend to claim reservation benefits.
- Emphasise merit arguments when certificates are defective and no benefit has been taken.
- Cite Indra Sawhney, Om Roj, and Rajat Yadav to support claims for General-category consideration.
