LexPRABHJOT KAUR versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 193 : 2025 INSC 479 Prabhjot Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 5132 of 2025) 09 April 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter involves the question of reservations of posts in the government services of the State of Punjab; including reservation for women for the post of DSP under the ‘SC Sports’ category. Headnotes† Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020 – Punjab State Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2020 – Advertisement dated 11.12.2020 was issued following the 2020 Rules thus, DSP post in question was reserved for ‘SC Sports (Woman)’ – 2020 Rules amended, roster introduced – Private respondent had stood 1st amongst males, while the appellant was 1st amongst females, under the ‘SC Sports’ category – Writ Petition filed by the private respondent challenging the advertisement, only to the extent that it reserved the DSP post under the ‘SC Sports’ category for women in violation of the roster introduced, and for his appointment as DSP against the ‘SC Sports’ seat – Writ Petition dismissed by Single Judge – Division Bench remanded the matter to Single Judge – Challenge to: Held: ‘Rules of the game’ cannot be tinkered with once the recruitment process commences – Once an eligibility criteria was declared by means of a fresh Advertisement i.e. Advertisement dated 11.12.2020, the same cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process, as the same would tantamount to ‘changing the rules of the game, after the game is played’ – Post 11.12.2020 no change could have been made – The crucial date in the present case is the advertisement dated 11.12.2020 which follows the 2020 Rules where 33% of reservation was to be made for women on every government post – Thus, DSP SC Sports was * Author 194 [2025] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports reserved for women – This was mentioned in the advertisement dated 11.12.2020 – Private respondent cannot be appointed to this post – Petitioner as well as the private respondent were selected against their respective categories – The advertisement dated 11.12.2020 (in its entirety) or the 2020 Rules were never challenged – Respondents now cannot cry foul referring to an event post 11.12.2020 where the so called roster system came into existence – Impugned order set aside, order of Single Judge upheld. [Paras 20-22, 24, 25] Case Law Cited Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan [2024] 12 SCR 28 : (2025) 2 SCC 1 – followed. K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. [2008] 2 SCR 1025 : (2008) 3 SCC 512 – relied on. Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan (2013) 4 SCC 540 – referred to. List of Acts Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020. List of Keywords Recruitment advertisement; Punjab State Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2020; Reservation of posts; ‘SC Sports’ category; ‘SC Sports’ category for women; Post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP); Deputy Superintendent (Jails) (DSJ)/District Probation Officer (DPO); Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020; Reservation for women; 33% of reservation for women; ‘Changing the rules of the game, after the game is played’; Rules of the game cannot be changed midway; Punjab Public Service Commission; Roster system. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5132 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2023 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 287 of 2023 [2025] 5 S.C.R. 195 Prabhjot Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Anurag Kulharia, Sumit Kumar Sharma, Dr. Navya Jannu, Ms. Aakriti Jain. Advs. for the Respondents: Rajat Bhardwaj, A.A.G., Gurminder Singh, Sr. Adv., Gurnoor S. Sandhu, Virendra Singh, Ms. Lara Siddiqui, Dhruv Kaushik, Dr. Abhay Kant Upadhyay, Karan Sharma, Raj Kishor Choudhary, Dhruv Kaushik, Ms. Pratibha Singh. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. By way of the present appeal, the appellant challenges an order of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh passed on 18.07.2023. 3. This appeal involves the question of reservations of posts in the government services of the State of Punjab; including reservation for women. It is necessary here to elaborate upon some essential f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.