Reserved Category Candidate Cannot Be Denied General Category Appointment If Selected on Own Merit Without Availing Relaxation: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Rohit Soni and Others v. State of Haryana and Another
Date of Judgment: 5 August 2026
Citation: CWP-35851-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a reserved category candidate who has not availed any concession or relaxation and scores above the General/Unreserved category cut-off must be considered on open merit. Rejection of the candidate’s reservation certificate for being invalid or issued after the cut-off date cannot deprive such candidate of consideration against an unreserved post.
The Court clarified that this is not a case of subsequent “migration” from reserved to general category. A reserved category candidate who meets the unreserved standard entirely on merit must be treated as competing in the open category itself, flowing from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Summary: The petitioners applied for PGT posts advertised by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) under BC-A/BC-B categories. Their reserved-category candidature was rejected because their certificates were invalid or issued after the prescribed cut-off date. They nevertheless secured marks above the relevant General Category cut-off and had not availed any age, qualification or other reservation relaxation.
HPSC argued that since the petitioners had applied and participated as reserved-category candidates, allowing them to subsequently claim General Category posts would amount to an impermissible change of category. The High Court rejected this contention.
Relying upon Om Roj, Dinesh Kumar, Amritpal Singh and the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajasthan High Court v. Rajat Yadav, the Court reiterated that open category posts are open to everyone purely on merit. A candidate’s belonging to a reserved category cannot become a disadvantage or extinguish the candidate’s right to compete for an unreserved vacancy.
The Court also rejected HPSC’s argument that granting relief would prejudice similarly situated candidates who had not approached the Court, observing that a constitutional right based on open merit cannot be denied to diligent litigants merely because others did not pursue legal remedies.
Decision: The writ petition was allowed and HPSC’s speaking order dated 16 September 2025 was quashed. The respondents were directed to consider the petitioners for appointment as PGTs against General/Unreserved Category posts strictly on merit. If found eligible and meritorious, they would receive consequential notional benefits, while monetary benefits would accrue only from actual joining.