Three reserved candidates to be considered for judge posts: HC
Chandigarh: Punjab and Haryana high court has held that three backward class (BC) candidates are entitled to be considered for appointment as civil judge (junior division)-cum-judicial magistrate according to their merit.
The ruling came on two petitions filed by Shivadeep Singh Hans, Balvir Kaur and Sharanpreet Kaur, who had applied pursuant to the Punjab Public Service Commission’s (PPSC) Sept 6, 2022, recruitment advertisement. Of the 159 posts advertised, 15 were reserved for BC candidates.
The petitioners contended that four candidates — Divyani Luthra (562), Dauphin Ghothra (561.63), Yogita (560.88) and Manmeet Kaur (556.63)—had been placed in the BC category despite scoring more than the last selected unreserved-category candidate, Manav Garg (554), and not claiming reservation benefits.
They said shifting the candidates to the unreserved category would create vacancies in the BC category, making them—next in order of merit—eligible for appointment. The petitioners had scored 530.63, 530.50 and 530.38 marks, respectively.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor held that the four candidates were liable to be placed in the unreserved category. It said the law required reserved-category candidates who secured higher marks than general-category candidates to be adjusted against the general category.
“...there is no doubt that these four candidates were liable to be placed in the unreserved category and should not have been placed in the BC category,” the bench said.
However, the court clarified that Manmeet Kaur, fourth in the BC merit list, need not be displaced. The three petitioners would be considered for appointment against the vacancies created.
The bench also considered the position of four private respondents—Deepak Madaan, Prerna Gupta, Jiya Garg and Manav Garg—who had been appointed against unreserved-category posts in March 2024 and had completed one year of training. Noting that four vacancies were available and that the need for more judicial officers could hardly be overemphasised, the court said the petitioners could be accommodated without dislodging them.
Allowing the petitions, the court held that the petitioners would be considered for appointment in the BC category according to their merit and would be entitled to seniority. Salary and other actual benefits, however, would accrue only from the date of appointment; other benefits, including seniority, would be notional.
The court said the relief was justified as the petitioners had approached it before the selection process concluded and their claims had been protected by an interim order passed on February 2, 2024. It clarified that the judgment would not create any fresh claim for candidates belonging to other categories.
The ruling came on two petitions filed by Shivadeep Singh Hans, Balvir Kaur and Sharanpreet Kaur, who had applied pursuant to the Punjab Public Service Commission’s (PPSC) Sept 6, 2022, recruitment advertisement. Of the 159 posts advertised, 15 were reserved for BC candidates.
The petitioners contended that four candidates — Divyani Luthra (562), Dauphin Ghothra (561.63), Yogita (560.88) and Manmeet Kaur (556.63)—had been placed in the BC category despite scoring more than the last selected unreserved-category candidate, Manav Garg (554), and not claiming reservation benefits.
They said shifting the candidates to the unreserved category would create vacancies in the BC category, making them—next in order of merit—eligible for appointment. The petitioners had scored 530.63, 530.50 and 530.38 marks, respectively.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor held that the four candidates were liable to be placed in the unreserved category. It said the law required reserved-category candidates who secured higher marks than general-category candidates to be adjusted against the general category.
“...there is no doubt that these four candidates were liable to be placed in the unreserved category and should not have been placed in the BC category,” the bench said.
However, the court clarified that Manmeet Kaur, fourth in the BC merit list, need not be displaced. The three petitioners would be considered for appointment against the vacancies created.
The bench also considered the position of four private respondents—Deepak Madaan, Prerna Gupta, Jiya Garg and Manav Garg—who had been appointed against unreserved-category posts in March 2024 and had completed one year of training. Noting that four vacancies were available and that the need for more judicial officers could hardly be overemphasised, the court said the petitioners could be accommodated without dislodging them.
Allowing the petitions, the court held that the petitioners would be considered for appointment in the BC category according to their merit and would be entitled to seniority. Salary and other actual benefits, however, would accrue only from the date of appointment; other benefits, including seniority, would be notional.
The court said the relief was justified as the petitioners had approached it before the selection process concluded and their claims had been protected by an interim order passed on February 2, 2024. It clarified that the judgment would not create any fresh claim for candidates belonging to other categories.
Next Story