Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Challenge to Sub-Inspector Merit List; Terms Petition Belated and Merit-Based Claims Non-Maintainable
Case Name: Arshdeep Singh Anand and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 13 November 2025
Citation: CWP-33598-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the provisional and final merit lists for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector (TSS Cadre). The Court held that the petitioners approached the Court after an unexplained delay of nearly two years and failed to challenge the recruitment process at the appropriate stage. It was observed that shifting EWS category candidates to the General category at this late stage would lead to administrative chaos and fresh litigation from other categories. The Court reiterated that fence-sitters who remain silent during the process cannot seek intervention after completion of selection and issuance of appointment letters.
Summary: The petitioners participated in recruitment for the post of Sub-Inspector under Advertisement No. 7/2021 and applied under the EWS category. They cleared Phase-I and Phase-II examinations and later claimed that certain meritorious EWS candidates scoring higher marks should have been shifted to the General category, thus creating additional vacancies under the EWS quota. The petitioners argued that doing so would entitle them to appointment, particularly since 85 posts were still lying vacant. The State opposed the petition, submitting that the recruitment involved multiple reservation categories and cross-utilization of seats. It was further submitted that re-allocation at this late stage would disturb the settled selection list, prejudice already appointed candidates, and lead to further rounds of litigation.
Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that recruitment concluded in 2023, appointment letters were issued in October 2023, and the petitioners consciously remained inactive. Since the relief sought would require reopening of an already concluded selection process after appointments had been issued, no interference was warranted. The Court held that the petition lacked merit and was barred by delay and acquiescence.