Mid-Process Category Shift Without Option Held Arbitrary: Punjab & Haryana HC Grants EBPGC Consideration to SBC Candidates in Teacher Recruitment
Case Name: Ravinder Singh Chaudhary & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 17.04.2026
Citation: CWP-8165-2019 (O&M) & connected matters
Bench: Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that changing candidates’ category from SBC to General during the selection process, without giving them an opportunity to opt for another eligible reserved category like EBPGC, is arbitrary and violative of fairness. Such candidates are entitled to be considered under EBPGC category.
Summary: The petitioners had applied for teaching posts under the Special Backward Class (SBC) category pursuant to recruitment advertisements issued in 2015. During the selection process, the State decided not to fill SBC category posts and treated such candidates as General category candidates without offering them an option to shift to another eligible category like EBPGC.
The petitioners, having obtained EBPGC certificates before declaration of final results, sought change of category through representations, but the same were rejected on the ground that such certificates were issued after the closing date of applications.
The Court found that the decision to withhold SBC category posts was taken after the recruitment process had commenced and was not communicated to candidates in time. Despite this material change, candidates were not given any opportunity to opt for another reserved category. This denial was held to be arbitrary and violative of the principle of level playing field.
Rejecting the State’s contention that candidates had an initial option to apply under EBPGC, the Court held that once the SBC category itself was excluded mid-process, fairness required that affected candidates be given a fresh opportunity to exercise their option. The Court relied on earlier precedent where similarly situated candidates were granted relief, and noted that candidates cannot be penalized for administrative lapses of the State.
The Court further observed that the State itself had been granting conditional appointments to EBPGC candidates in similar cases, subject to outcome of pending litigation regarding validity of such reservation.
Decision: The writ petitions were allowed. The High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners for appointment under the EBPGC category based on their merit, subject to verification of eligibility. Appointments, if granted, shall be conditional and subject to the final outcome of pending cases challenging EBPGC reservation, with necessary undertakings to be furnished by the appointees.