Recommendation Isn’t Appointment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Declines to Override Governor in PSHRC Member Selection Dispute
Case Name: Birendra Singh Rawat v. State of Punjab and Another
Date of Judgment: 06 November 2025
Citation: CWP-20952-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S. Shekhawat
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that mere recommendation by the Selection Committee under Section 22 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 does not confer any enforceable or vested right to appointment as Member of the Punjab State Human Rights Commission. The Governor, being the statutory appointing authority, retains discretion, and unless the recommendation culminates in approval and notification under warrant and seal, no right crystallizes in favour of the candidate.
Summary: The petitioner sought quashing of a fresh advertisement dated 28.06.2025 inviting applications for the post of Member (Non-Judicial), PSHRC, and prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to finalize the earlier selection process initiated vide advertisement dated 29.10.2022 .
Pursuant to the 2022 advertisement, the petitioner applied and his name was recommended by the duly constituted Selection Committee under Section 22 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Police verification was conducted and the file was forwarded to higher authorities. However, the Governor’s Secretariat returned the file on 26.09.2024, and no formal appointment notification was issued .
The petitioner argued that once the Selection Committee recommended his name, the Governor had no discretion to withhold appointment and that issuance of a fresh advertisement was arbitrary.
The State contended that recommendation is only recommendatory in nature and does not bind the Governor. Since the earlier process did not fructify into an appointment, it was decided to initiate the process de novo in public interest.
The Court observed that the petitioner had not challenged the foundational administrative decision whereby the file was returned by the Governor’s Secretariat. In absence of challenge to that operative decision, the fresh advertisement could not be indirectly assailed.
On merits, the Court reiterated that inclusion in a select list or recommendation does not create an indefeasible right to appointment. The Governor alone is the competent authority under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act. The candidate’s right is limited to fair consideration, not automatic appointment .
Relying upon settled precedents including Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India and State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, the Court held that the State is under no legal duty to fill all advertised vacancies and courts will not compel appointment absent arbitrariness or mala fides .
Noting that the earlier process had remained inconclusive for nearly three years and that posts of public importance cannot remain vacant indefinitely, the Court upheld initiation of fresh recruitment.
Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The Court declined to quash the fresh advertisement or to direct appointment of the petitioner as Member (Non-Judicial), PSHRC .