#Articles 14 and 16

The Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the Haryana PSC’s post-shortlisting interview cut-off, finding that mid-process changes to recruitment criteria breach constitutional equality and reservation guarantees. It ordered a fresh evaluation of candidates strictly per the original advertisement’s minimum qualifying marks, protecting all aspirants affected by the arbitrary change.

CAT Jammu rules that permanent absorption in a post mandating Public Service Commission selection cannot bypass statutory recruitment rules, even for employees with long temporary service. The judgment reinforces that lateral entry or absorption must comply with prescribed selection processes, impacting government hiring policies and service law compliance.

Supreme Court rules that offering contractual appointments for regular vacancies without justified reasoning violates constitutional guarantees of equality and public employment. The appellant is entitled to regular appointment with seniority and benefits from the initial appointment date, reinforcing the principle of non-arbitrariness in public employment.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that barring degree-holding pharmacists from Grade-II recruitment violates the constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity in public employment. This decision mandates immediate revision of recruitment rules to include B.Pharm and M.Pharm candidates, setting a precedent for merit-based inclusion across state health services.

Delhi High Court rules that contractual employees engaged through transparent public recruitment and serving over 15 years cannot be indefinitely kept on contractual terms. The Court mandates consideration for regularisation under Articles 14 and 16, rejecting the State's use of contractual labels to bypass constitutional guarantees for public employment.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh holds that altering recruitment criteria mid-process without notification violates Articles 14 and 16, invalidating selections ab initio.

CAT Jammu holds that uninterrupted service on a sanctioned post creates enforceable rights under Articles 14 and 16, directing regularization from date of officiation.

Central Administrative Tribunal upholds policy restricting police absorption to Government ITI diploma holders, rejecting claims of arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16.

Central Administrative Tribunal holds that parity in pay fixation under Articles 14 and 16 requires identical service conditions, not mere similarity in designation.