Participation in Selection Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Cancellation of Remaining Lineman Posts
Case Name: Karaj Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others; Kulwant Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 27 February 2026
Citation: CWP-12999-2020 and CWP-19647-2020
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that candidates who merely participated in a recruitment process do not acquire any vested right to appointment. Once the Court had earlier permitted filling only 1,000 posts of Linemen against the recruitment advertisement, the remaining posts could not be filled from the same selection list as they constituted future vacancies.
Summary: The petitions were filed seeking quashing of an order dated 01.10.2019 by which the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) rejected the claim of the petitioners for appointment as Linemen pursuant to advertisement No. CRA-267 of 2011. The petitioners also challenged the decision of the Board of Directors dated 03.02.2014 cancelling recruitment against the remaining posts beyond those already filled.
The dispute arose from an advertisement issued in January 2011 inviting applications for approximately 5,000 posts of Lineman on contractual basis. However, during the recruitment process a public interest litigation was filed alleging that the corporation already had surplus manpower and that filling such a large number of posts would lead to unnecessary expenditure of public funds.
In that litigation, the High Court initially permitted the corporation to fill only 1,000 posts of Lineman as an interim measure. The recruitment process therefore proceeded only to that extent. Subsequently, the Board of Directors of the corporation decided to cancel recruitment against the remaining posts under the same advertisement.
The petitioners contended that they had successfully participated in the selection process and that the cancellation of the remaining posts without granting them appointment was arbitrary. They argued that the decision was taken without providing them an opportunity of hearing and violated principles of natural justice. It was also submitted that the corporation itself had earlier acknowledged the availability of several vacant posts and had later taken an inconsistent stand by cancelling the recruitment.
The petitioners further relied on earlier judicial directions granting age relaxation and argued that once they had been permitted to participate in the recruitment process, their legitimate expectation to appointment should be protected.
The respondent-corporation opposed the petitions contending that the earlier orders of the High Court had clearly restricted the recruitment to 1,000 posts. It was argued that once those posts were filled, the selection process stood exhausted and no candidate could claim appointment against future vacancies.
The Court noted that the controversy had already been examined in earlier decisions of Coordinate Benches in Berojgar Linemen Union (Punjab) v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Balwinder Singh v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited. Those judgments had upheld the decision of the corporation to restrict recruitment under the advertisement to 1,000 posts and to treat subsequent vacancies as future vacancies requiring a fresh recruitment process.
Relying on settled principles of service jurisprudence, the Court reiterated that inclusion of a candidate in a selection list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment. The State is not bound to fill all advertised vacancies and may decide not to do so for valid reasons. The Court also emphasized that appointments cannot be made beyond the number of notified vacancies, as doing so would violate the constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity in public employment under Articles 14 and 16.
It further held that the petitioners could not rely on age relaxation orders to claim appointment under the earlier advertisement. Such directions were only intended to enable them to participate in subsequent recruitment processes and did not create any enforceable right to appointment under the earlier selection.
Since the issue had already been conclusively decided by earlier Coordinate Bench judgments, the Court held that judicial discipline required it to follow the same view.
Decision: The High Court dismissed both writ petitions and upheld the decision of PSPCL restricting recruitment under advertisement No. CRA-267 of 2011 to 1,000 posts and cancelling recruitment against the remaining posts.