Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Priority Appointment Claim to Kanungo Post; Holds No Right to Appointment Outside Articles 14 and 16

Case Name: Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Date of Judgment: 15 January 2026

Citation: CWP-2525-1999

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Namit Kumar

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that no person can claim appointment to a public post on priority basis merely on the ground of belonging to a reserved category or being the son of an ex-serviceman, in the absence of any statutory rule or instruction conferring such a right. The Court further held that appointments to public posts must strictly conform to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and be made only through a duly advertised selection process.

Summary: The writ petition was filed seeking quashing of the appointment orders of respondent Nos.4 and 5 to the post of Kanungo and a direction to appoint the petitioner to the said post. The petitioner claimed priority appointment on the ground that he belonged to the Scheduled Caste category and that his father was an ex-serviceman. He relied upon an application dated 04.10.1997, which was recommended by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division.

The petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No.4 on compassionate grounds, contending that it was illegal, and also assailed the promotion of respondent No.5 to the post of Kanungo on the ground that it was made against a direct quota post and during the currency of punishment. During the hearing, it was brought to the notice of the Court that respondent No.5 had already retired on attaining the age of superannuation.

The Court found that respondent No.4 had been appointed on compassionate grounds due to the death of his father, who was serving as a Science Master in the Education Department, and that such appointment was made in accordance with the prevailing policy. The Court held that no illegality could be found in the compassionate appointment. It further held that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the promotion of respondent No.5, particularly when he was not an in-service candidate and when the respondent had already retired.

With regard to the petitioner’s claim for appointment to the post of Kanungo, the Court held that no rule or instruction was produced to show that a person belonging to a reserved category or being the son of an ex-serviceman had a right to priority appointment. The Court reiterated that public appointments must be made only by advertising the posts and by considering all eligible candidates in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The Court declined to interfere with the appointments and promotions challenged by the petitioner and held that no right to priority appointment had been established.