Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Integrity of Recruitment Process
In a significant legal ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed rejection orders and directed the state authorities to reconsider applications for driver/operator positions in fire services, emphasizing that the terms of a job advertisement cannot be overridden by subsequent clarifications or claimed typographical errors. This decision reinforces the principle that recruitment rules must remain consistent from start to finish.
Court Quashes Rejection Orders and Public Notice
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar allowed two writ petitions filed by candidates, including Gurvinder Singh and Suminder Singh, who were denied appointment to driver/operator posts in municipal corporations, councils, and panchayats across Punjab. The court invalidated a public notice dated February 19, 2024, and rejection orders from June 28, 2024, and July 9, 2024, holding that the authorities had improperly changed eligibility criteria after the selection process had commenced.
Background of the Recruitment Dispute
The case originated from an advertisement issued on January 28, 2023, for fireman and driver/operator positions. The petitioners applied for driver/operator roles, cleared the written examination and physical efficiency test, but faced rejection because they did not possess a heavy vehicle driving licence for five years as of March 16, 2023, the last date for application submission. However, the advertisement specified that candidates must hold such a licence for at least five years "prior to the date of recruitment in the fire service."
Key Arguments and Legal Precedents
Petitioners' Arguments:
- The advertisement's wording was clear and unambiguous, requiring licence experience prior to the recruitment date, not the application deadline.
- The petitioners met this requirement by the time physical tests and result declarations occurred.
- Altering criteria mid-process violates established law, as per the Supreme Court ruling in 'K Manjusree vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2008)'.
- No corrigendum was issued to amend the advertisement's terms.
State's Defence:
- The state argued that "date of recruitment" was a typographical error intended to mean the advertisement or application date.
- A clarification from the employer department on October 18, 2023, led to the rejections, applied uniformly to all candidates.
Court's Reasoning and Ruling
The court found the advertisement's Clause 7(2) wording unambiguous and noted that the petitioners satisfied the published condition by having five years of licence experience before the recruitment date. It emphasized that eligibility criteria in advertisements are binding and cannot be changed after the selection process begins, citing Supreme Court precedents including 'Tej Parkash Pathak vs Rajasthan High Court (2025)'. The ruling stated that subsequent clarifications cannot prejudice candidates by overriding express terms.
Directives for Reconsideration and Benefits
Authorities have been directed to reconsider the petitioners' candidatures within eight weeks, assessing eligibility based on the date the physical examination results were declared. If found eligible, the petitioners will receive notional benefits and seniority equivalent to appointed candidates, subject to fulfilling other conditions, but without back wages. The writ petitions were allowed without costs, ensuring a fair reassessment in line with the original advertisement.
