Supreme Court settles reservation rules for women in Punjab civil services: Prabhjot Kaur vs. State of Punjab (2025) INSC 479 (9 April 2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 9, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 479

Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Does amending recruitment rules midway through the selection process violate Article 14 of the Constitution? The Supreme Court addressed this question while examining the reservation of posts for women in Punjab government services. This case revolves around conflicting interpretations of reservation rules and their application to the Punjab State Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination-2020.

The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on April 9, 2025, addressed a dispute regarding the reservation of government posts in the State of Punjab, specifically focusing on reservations for women. The bench comprised Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

Case Background

The case originated from a recruitment process initiated by the State of Punjab for various government posts, including those of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). Here’s a chronological breakdown of the key events:

1. April 17, 2020: The State government issued a requisition.
2. June 4, 2020: The Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) issued Advertisement No. 08 for 77 posts, including 26 DSP posts. Two vacancies were reserved for ‘Scheduled Caste Sports’ candidates, one each for DSP and Deputy Superintendent (Jails)/District Probation Officer (DSJ/DPO).
3. June 9, 2020: Respondent No. 5 (private respondent) applied under the ‘Scheduled Caste Sports’ category. The appellant, Prabhjot Kaur, also applied as an SC Sports candidate.
4. October 21, 2020: The Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020 (the ‘2020 Rules’) were notified, providing for 33% horizontal and compartmentalized reservation for women in direct recruitment posts across all categories.
5. December 8, 2020: The State government withdrew its earlier requisition and asked PPSC to withdraw Advertisement No. 08 to comply with the 2020 Rules.
6. December 9, 2020: PPSC issued a public notice withdrawing Advertisement No. 08.
7. December 11, 2020: PPSC issued a new Advertisement No. 14. This time, only one post was available for ‘SC Sports’ (for DSJ/DPO), and one DSP post was reserved for ‘SC Sports (Women)’.
8. December 30, 2020: Last date for submitting applications under Advertisement No. 14. Candidates who had applied under the previous advertisement were allowed to have their applications considered without applying again.
9. December 29, 2020: An amendment was made to the 2020 Rules, providing for 33% reservation for women as per the roster system in ‘Annexure A’.
10. January 29, 2021: The State government issued a 100-point roster for different reserved posts.
11. June 18, 2021: Results of the Punjab State Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination-2020 were declared. The private respondent ranked 1st among males, and the appellant ranked 1st among females, under the ‘SC Sports’ category.
12. October 14, 2021: The private respondent represented to the Chief Minister of Punjab, alleging that reserving the DSP post for ‘SC Sports’ women violated the roster issued on January 29, 2021.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The legal battle unfolded as follows:

• The private respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court, challenging Advertisement No. 14 to the extent that it reserved the DSP post under the ‘SC Sports’ category for women. He sought directions for his appointment as DSP against the ‘SC Sports’ seat.
• An interim order on December 16, 2021, put the counselling for the DSP ‘SC Sports (Woman)’ seat on hold.
• Aggrieved, the appellant also filed a Writ Petition in the High Court.
• March 3, 2023: A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the private respondent’s Writ Petition and consequently, adjudged the appellant’s Writ Petition as infructuous. The Single Judge noted that the private respondent had only challenged Advertisement No. 14 partially and that his application should be considered under Advertisement No. 14, which had no DSP post for ‘SC Sports’ but only for ‘SC Sports (Women)’.
• The private respondent filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court challenging the order of the Single Judge.
• The Division Bench remanded the matter back to the Single Judge for fresh adjudication, after the Chief Secretary of Punjab supported the Department of Social Justice’s view that the DSP post should have been reserved for ‘SC Sports’ and not exclusively for women.
• The appellant then challenged this order of the Division Bench before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal instrument in this case is the Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020. Key aspects include:

• The 2020 Rules mandate 33% reservation for women in all posts filled by direct recruitment in government establishments (Groups A, B, C, D services).
• This reservation is horizontal and compartmentalized, meaning it applies within each category (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, etc.).
• Sub-rule 5 of the 2020 Rules outlines the procedure for reservation of posts.
• An amendment to the 2020 Rules, made on December 29, 2020, provided that the 33% reservation for women would be implemented as per the roster system contained in ‘Annexure A’.

Arguments

The arguments presented by the involved parties were as follows:

• Appellant (Prabhjot Kaur):
  • The learned Single Judge had correctly considered the contradictory stands of the Home Department and the Department of Social Justice.
  • The Division Bench should not have interfered with the Single Judge’s well-reasoned order.
  • The Chief Secretary’s stand was incorrect because the roster was issued nearly two months after the last date for submitting application forms and cannot be applied retrospectively.
  • The principle applicable to horizontal reservation differs from vertical reservation, with horizontal reservation lacking the concept of a ‘roster system’.
• Private Respondent:
  • Advertisement No. 14 of December 11, 2020, violates the 2020 Rules.
  • Vertical reservations must be within each horizontal category, and reserving one DSP post for women within the SC category is unsustainable.
  • Relied on the amendment to the 2020 Rules, stating that 33% reservation for women must align with roster points introduced on January 29, 2021.
  • The roster points apply from the date of the amendment to the 2020 Rules.
  • Advertisement No. 14 was an extension of Advertisement No. 08.
  • The State government is bound to follow Statutory Rules, not the advertisement.
  • By participating in the selection process, the private respondent accepted the prescribed procedure.
  • Even if he is appointed to the post of DSP SC Sports, the appellant will be appointed DSJ SC Sports.
• State of Punjab:
  • The appeal should be dismissed as it was filed prematurely.
  • Supported the Chief Secretary’s stand that the DSP post was erroneously reserved for ‘SC Sports (Woman)’.
  • Advertisement No. 14 should be withdrawn, and a fresh advertisement should be issued.
  • The manner of implementing 33% reservations for women was under active consideration when Advertisement No. 14 was issued.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the Division Bench of the High Court erred in remanding the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication.
2. Whether the advertisement no.14 dated 11.12.2020 can be altered or withdrawn midway through the recruitment process.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512 [Supreme Court of India]: The principle that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has been played.
• Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan, (2013) 4 SCC 540 [Supreme Court of India]: A three-Judge Bench doubted the correctness of K. Manjusree and referred the matter to a Constitution Bench.
• Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan, (2025) 2 SCC 1 [Supreme Court of India]: A five-Judge Constitution Bench upheld the principle laid down in K. Manjusree that the State cannot tinker with the rules of the game once the recruitment process commences.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Prabhjot Kaur vs. State of Punjab was primarily influenced by the principle that the rules of a recruitment process cannot be altered midway. The Court emphasized that once the recruitment process has commenced based on a specific advertisement and set of rules, any changes to the eligibility criteria or reservation policies would be unfair and arbitrary. This principle, established in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. and reinforced by the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan, weighed heavily in the Court’s reasoning.

Additionally, the Court considered the fact that the private respondent had participated in the recruitment process without protest and only raised objections after the merit list was released. This conduct was seen as an acceptance of the prescribed procedure, further supporting the Court’s decision.

The court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The advertisement dated 11.12.2020 clearly stated that the DSP SC Sports post was reserved for women.
• The 2020 Rules, which mandated 33% reservation for women, were in effect at the time of the advertisement.
• The roster system came into existence after the advertisement date, and therefore, could not be applied retrospectively.
• The private respondent participated in the recruitment process without protest and only raised objections after the merit list was released.

The Court quoted:

“…changing the rules of the game, after the game is played”

“Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies”

“Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit.”

Key Takeaways

• Recruitment rules cannot be altered midway through the selection process.
• Advertisements and rules in effect at the time of the advertisement are crucial.
• Participation in a recruitment process without protest implies acceptance of the rules.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the directions given in the judgment dated 03.03.2023 shall be complied within three weeks from today.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that recruitment rules cannot be altered midway through the selection process. This reaffirms the principle established in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. and upheld by the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Division Bench’s order and upholding the Single Judge’s order dated 03.03.2023. The Court emphasized that the recruitment process must adhere to the rules and advertisements in effect at the time of commencement and that changes cannot be made midway.