Having Taken the Chance as a General Candidate, Reservation Cannot Be Claimed After Failure: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Savita v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission
Date of Judgment: 23 July 2026
Citation: CWP-7609-2017
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a candidate who consciously applies under the General Category, participates in the entire recruitment process without objection, and seeks a change to a reserved category only after being unsuccessful cannot claim such alteration. In the absence of any statutory provision or advertisement permitting correction of category after the prescribed cut-off date, mere inadvertence in filling the application form does not create an enforceable legal right. Allowing such changes after completion of the selection process would unsettle the recruitment process and prejudice the rights of other candidates.
Summary: The petitioner approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking a writ directing the Haryana Staff Selection Commission to treat her candidature under the Economically Backward Persons in General Castes (EBPGC) category instead of the General Category for recruitment to the post of PGT Hindi pursuant to Advertisement No. 4/2015. She contended that although she belonged to the EBPGC category, she inadvertently selected the General Category while submitting the online application and later submitted a representation requesting correction.
The State opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner had voluntarily applied under the General Category, received an admit card reflecting that category, and participated in the entire recruitment process without protest. It was submitted that permitting a change after declaration of the result would amount to changing the rules of the game after the process had concluded.
The Court examined the application form and admit card, both of which unequivocally showed that the petitioner had opted for the General Category. It observed that she never objected to the category before or during the recruitment process and raised the issue only after failing to secure selection.
Relying upon the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court, particularly J&K Public Service Commission v. Israr Ahmad, (2005) 12 SCC 498, the Court reiterated that a candidate’s category crystallizes on the last date of submission of the application and cannot ordinarily be altered thereafter unless expressly permitted by the recruitment rules or advertisement.
The Court further distinguished the judgments in Usha Dhillon v. State of Haryana and Haryana Staff Selection Commission v. Sarla, holding that those decisions were rendered on their own peculiar facts and did not establish a universal rule permitting post-cut-off category changes.
Holding that mere inadvertence cannot override the recruitment conditions or prejudice other eligible reserved category candidates, the Court dismissed the writ petition for want of merit.
Decision: The Court refused to permit alteration of the petitioner’s category from General to EBPGC after completion of the recruitment process and upheld the respondent Commission’s action.