PRABHJOT KAURversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

                 [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
     facts of this case in order to better appreciate the controversy before
     us. These facts are as follows:
     a.    On the basis of a requisition issued by the State government
           on 17.04.2020, the Respondent no. 4-Punjab Public Service
           Commission (‘Public Service Commission’) issued
           advertisement no. 08 on 04.06.2020 for recruitment to 77
           posts in the State government services through the Punjab
           State Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination-2020.
           This included the 26 posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police
           (‘DSP’) with which we are presently concerned. The preliminary
           examination was tentatively scheduled for September 2020
           while the last date for submitting online applications was fixed
           as 30.06.2020.
     b.    In this advertisement, which is advertisement no.08, some
           seats were reserved for members of the SC community. For
196                                                           [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


            our purposes, it is relevant that a total of two vacancies were
            advertised for ‘Scheduled Caste Sports’-one for DSP and the
            other for Deputy Superintendent (Jails)/District Probation Officer
            (‘DSJ/DPO’).
       c.   Respondent no. 5 herein (‘private respondent’) applied in the
            ‘Scheduled Caste Sports’ category on 09.06.2020. Appellant
            too had applied as SC Sports candidate.
       d.   Meanwhile, on 21.10.2020, the Punjab Civil Services
            (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020 (‘2020 Rules’)
            were made and notified.
       e.   These Rules are applicable to all posts to be filled by direct
            recruitment in all government establishments in Groups A, B, C,
            D services, and importantly it provided for 33% reservation for
            women in all posts. Under the 2020 Rules, this reservation is to
            be horizontal and compartmentalized, which means reservation
            within each category of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,
            Backward Classes, Other Backward Classes, Economically
            Weaker Sections, and Open Category. Sub-rule 5 of the 2020
            Rules provides for the procedure for reservation of posts.
       f.   In light of the notification of the 2020 Rules, the State government
            withdrew its requisition dated 17.04.2020, on which was based the
            advertisement no.08 dated 04.06.2020, which was issued by the
            Public Service Commission. The reason being that now a fresh
            requisition would have to be now issued in compliance with the
            2020 Rules, which mandated 33% reservation for women. As a
            result, on 08.12.2020, the State government wrote to the Public
            Service Commission asking for the withdrawal of advertisement
            no.08 dated 04.06.2020 (a public notice with respect to withdrawal
            of the advertisement no.08 was issued by the Public Service
            Commission on the very next day i.e. 09.12.2020).
       g.   On 11.12.2020, the Public Service Commission issued a new
            advertisement which is advertisement no.14. However, there was
            a material difference when it comes to reservations for the ‘SC
            Sports’ category. This time, only one post for ‘SC Sports’ was
            available, but this was now for the post of Deputy Superintendent
            (Jails)/DPO. Thereafter, one DSP post was reserved for ‘SC
            Sports (Women)’, a category which was created pursuant to
            the 2020 Rules.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                         197

                Prabhjot Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.


     h.    It is pertinent to note that in accordance with the decision
           taken to avoid undue inconvenience to such candidates who
           had applied earlier under the previous advertisement no.08
           (04.06.2020), it was decided that such candidates need not
           apply afresh under the new advertisement no.14 (11.12.2020),
           and their earlier applications would be considered.
     i.    The last date for submitting applications in terms of fresh
           advertisement no.14 was 30.12.2020.
     j.    On 29.12.2020, an amendment was made to the 2020 Rules
           which provided for 33% reservation for women as per the roster
           system contained in ‘Annexure A’.
     k.    Pursuant to the amendment, the State government issued
           a 100-point roster for different reserved posts in the State
           government services on 29.01.2021.
     l.    After successful completion of the Punjab State Civil Services
           Combined Competitive Examination-2020, the results were
           declared on 18.06.2021.
     m.    In the merit list, the private respondent stood 1st amongst
           males, while the appellant stood 1st amongst females, under
           the ‘SC Sports’ category.
     n.    On 14.10.2021, the private respondent made a representation
           to the Chief Minister of Punjab, alleging that the DSP post for
           ‘SC Sports’ should not have been reserved for women, and that
           this is in violation of the roster issued by the State government
           on 29.01.2021.
     o.    The private respondent then filed a Writ Petition before the
           High Court praying for quashing of the advertisement no.14
           dated 11.12.2020, not in its entirety, but only to the extent that
           it reserved the DSP post under the ‘SC Sports’ category for
           women, in violation of the roster of 29.01.2021, and further
           praying for directions to the State government to appoint the
           private respondent as DSP against the ‘SC Sports’ seat.
     p.    An interim order passed on 16.12.2021 in the Writ Petition filed
           by the private respondent recorded that the counselling for the
           post of DSP ‘SC Sports (Woman)’ seat was kept in abeyance
           by the State. Aggrieved by this, the appellant also filed a Writ
198                                                           [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


            Petition before the High Court. Both these Writ Petitions were
            decided by way of a common order dated 03.03.2023 by the
            learned Single Judge, which has given rise to the present
            litigation.
4.     In a well-considered decision, the learned Single Judge dismissed
       the private respondent’s Writ Petition (consequently, the appellant’s
       Writ Petition was adjudged infructuous). At the outset, the learned
       Single Judge notes that the private respondent had not challenged
       the subsequent advertisement no.14 dated 11.12.2020 in its entirety,
       but only insofar as it reserved the DSP post under the ‘SC Sports’
       category for women. It was also noticed that even though the private
       respondent had applied in the earlier round under advertisement
       no.08 and he did not apply under the subsequent advertisement
       no.14 in light of the leeway given to candidates who had already
       applied, his application must be considered under advertisement
       no.14 dated 11.12.2020, which did not have any post for DSP ‘SC
       Sports’ (since the only DSP post against the ‘SC Sports’ category
       came to be reserved for women under the 2020 Rules). There was
       no post other than Deputy Superintendent (Jails)/DPO ‘SC Sports’
       for which the private respondent’s application could be considered.
       Resultantly, the private respondent (i.e., the Petitioner before the High
       Court) cannot be appointed to a post i.e. DSP ‘SC Sports’ which was
       reserved for ‘SC Sports (Women)’. Meanwhile the private respondent
       who had in any case made the selections, joined the post of Deputy
       Superintendent (Jails), albeit under protest.
5.     The learned Single Judge highlighted the fact that the roster points
       fixed by government communication dated 29.01.2021 came only
       after the last date for submission of applications under the fresh
       advertisement no.14, which was 30.12.2020. Further, the State
       government never revised/reviewed the requisition in light of the
       roster, and hence, the requisition for one DSP post for ‘SC Sports
       (Woman)’ continued.
6.     The private respondent challenged this order of the learned Single
       Judge by filing a Letters Patent Appeal, which went before the Division
       Bench of the High Court.
7.     The Division Bench laid emphasis on the contradictory stand adopted
       by two departments of the State government before the learned
       Single Judge during the proceedings in the Writ Petition(s). While the
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                         199

                Prabhjot Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.


     Home Department took the view that the DSP post was reserved, for
     the ‘SC Sports (Women)’ category, the Department of Social Justice
     was of the view that the DSP post in question should be reserved
     for ‘SC Sports’ (in other words, it should not be reserved for women
     alone). The Division Bench was of the opinion that the learned
     Single Judge accepted the stand taken by the Home Department
     while arriving at his decision. The Division Bench, however, called
     upon the Chief Secretary of Punjab to resolve the conflict between
     the stands taken by the two above-mentioned Departments of the
     State Government. The Chief Secretary supported the stand of the
     Department of Social Justice, on the ground that a mistake had
     crept into the advertisement no.14, and that the DSP post should
     have been reserved for ‘SC Sports’, and not ‘SC Sports (Women)’.
8.   In light of the stand taken by the Chief Secretary, the Division
     Bench remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh
     adjudication of both the Writ Petitions (filed by the appellant and
     private respondent, respectively). This is the order which has been
     challenged before us by the appellant.
9.   Sri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant,
     would submit that the learned Single Judge had considered the
     contradictory stands taken by the Home Department and Department
     of Social Justice before passing a well-reasoned order, which the
     Division Bench ought not to have interfered with. Learned Senior
     Counsel further argues that the stand of the Chief Secretary before
     the Division Bench is incorrect since the roster was issued nearly
     two months after the last date of submitting application forms under
     the advertisement no.14 expired, and it cannot be implemented
     retrospectively. The learned Senior Counsel would also argue that
     the principle applicable to horizontal reservation is different from the
     one applied to vertical reservation and horizontal reservation has no
     concept of ‘roster system’, where only vertical reservation applies.
10. On the other hand, Sri Gurminder Singh, learned Senior Counsel
    representing the private respondent, would argue that the
    advertisement no.14 of 11.12.2020 is violative of the 2020 Rules to
    begin with. Vertical reservations in terms of the 2020 Rules have to
    be within each horizontal category, and the reservation of one post
    for DSP for women within the SC category cannot be sustained in
    the eyes of the law. The learned Senior Counsel would also place
200                                                        [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       reliance on the amendment to the 2020 Rules, in terms of which
       33% reservation for women has to be as per roster points introduced
       on 29.02.2021. Hence, it is incorrect to state that the roster points
       would not apply to the advertisement no.14 because the roster points
       apply from the date of the amendment to the 2020 Rules.
11. Sri Rajat Bharadwaj, learned Additional Advocate General appearing
    for the State of Punjab, would submit that this appeal deserves to
    be dismissed since it has been filed prematurely, because all that
    the Division Bench did by way of the impugned order was direct a
    fresh adjudication of the matter on merits in light of what had been
    submitted by the Chief Secretary of the State. On merits, the learned
    Additional Advocate General fully supported the stand taken by the
    Chief Secretary before the Division Bench, which was that the DSP
    post in question was erroneously reserved for ‘SC Sports (Woman’),
    and as a result, the advertisement no.14 deserves to be withdrawn
    and a fresh advertisement issued.
12. Regarding reservations for women the learned counsel for the private
    respondent would argue that although the 2020 Rules provide the
    percentage of reservation for women to be 33%, these have not
    been correctly applied. This issue was highlighted by the DGP while
    sending the fresh requisition pursuant to which the subsequent
    advertisement no.14 of 11.12.2020 was issued. It is the case of
    the private respondent that in the absence of roster points under
    the original (unamended) 2020 Rules, which 2 posts out of the 7
    DSP posts under the SC category would be reserved for women
    was not clear. Hence, the requisition itself was premature since the
    manner of reservation of posts for women within the scheme of
    vertical reservation was not yet finalized. The private respondent
    would thus seek to convince this Court that the manner in which
    33% reservations are to be provided to women was under active
    consideration by the State government when the fresh advertisement
    no.14 of 11.12.2020 was issued.
13. The private respondent draws our attention to the amendment to
    the 2020 Rules, notified on 29.12.2020 (i.e. one day before the last
    date for submitting application forms under advertisement no.14),
    which provided for the manner of implementing 33% reservation
    for women as per roster points provided in Annexure ‘A’. According
    to this, no reservation for women is provided for the ‘SC Sports’,
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                       201

                Prabhjot Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.


     but the State government failed to amend the advertisement and
     carry out the changes in advertisement no.14. Furthermore, the
     amendment to the 2020 Rules and the notification introducing the
     roster points were never challenged by any party before any Court,
     and have thus attained finality. The implementation of the roster
     system of 29.01.2021 introduced in pursuance of the Amendment
     to the 2020 Rules would not amount to a retrospective application
     of the same since substitution of a provision results in repeal of the
     earlier provision, i.e., old rule ceases to exist and the new rule is
     brought into existence in its place. In other words, the roster system
     takes effect from 29.12.2020, i.e., before the last date of submission
     of applications under advertisement no.14, since that is the day on
     which the 2020 Rules were amended. The private respondent also
     argues that advertisement no.14 of 11.12.2020 was an extension of
     the earlier advertisement no.08 of 04.06.2020, since the manner of
     implementation of the 2020 Rules was never clarified by the State
     government earlier. The State government is bound to follow Statutory
     Rules and not the advertisement which in this case is contrary to the
     2020 Rules. Further, by participating in the selection process, the
     private respondent accepted the prescribed procedure. Lastly, the
     private respondent argues that even if he is appointed to the post
     of DSP SC Sports, the appellant will be appointed DSJ SC Sports
     (post which he presently occupies).
14. Heard all the parties and perused the material on record.
15. The Chief Secretary of the State filed an affidavit on directions of
    the Division Bench to the effect that the DSP post in question was
    erroneously reserved for ‘SC Sports (Woman)’ and the advertisement
    no.14 deserves to be withdrawn and a fresh advertisement issued.
    But the fact is that this was never done. In fact, even the private
    respondent did not challenge the advertisement no.14 in its entirety
    (nor did anyone else). Hence, the advertisement no.14 dated
    11.12.2020 holds the field and it is only under this advertisement
    that the respective rights of the appellant and private respondent
    can be determined.
16. The roster on which the private respondent is relying upon came later,
    on 29.01.2021, even after the last date for submitting applications
    under the subsequent advertisement no.14 of 11.12.2020 had passed.
    Hence, it cannot influence the rights and entitlements of those who
202                                                           [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       had applied and taken part in the recruitment process under the
       advertisement no.14 of 11.12.2020. The recruitment process had
       begun with the publication of the advertisement calling for applications
       and the process ends with filling of the vacancies. The selection
       process had begun and midway changes could not have taken place.
17. As per advertisement no.14 dated 11.12.2020, there was only one
    post of DSP against ‘SC Sports’, which was reserved for women under
    the 2020 Rules, when 33% reservation was mandated for women.
    The private respondent simply cannot be appointed to this post.
18. It must be remembered that the private respondent participated
    in the entire recruitment process without protest, and made a
    representation only after the merit list was released by the Public
    Service Commission. Though the private respondent was not
    exempted from applying afresh pursuant to advertisement no.14
    of 11.12.2020, it was not open for the private respondent to plead
    ignorance of the terms of the advertisement at such a belated stage.
19. What is important to be noted here is that the present Petitioner
    applied under the category “SC Sports (Women)” which we may
    add, at the cost of repetition, was a category created pursuant to
    the 2020 Rules, in order to meet the mandate of reservation of 33%
    seats for women. The private respondent on the other hand, applied
    under the category “SC Sports (80).”
20. Consequently, both the Petitioner as well as the private respondent
    came be selected against their respective categories. On 26.04.2022,
    private respondent was appointed as Deputy Superintendent (Jails)
    and on 10.03.2023. The Petitioner being the only SC Sports (Women)
    to have qualified is now likely to be given the post of DSP.
21. We have already taken note of the two contradictory stances which
    were taken by the Department of Home and the Department of Social
    Justice, Empowerment & Minorities, which prompted the Division
    Bench to direct the Chief Secretary to bury the hatchet. On the other
    hand, the learned Single Judge proceeded to decide the issue by
    accepting the stance taken by the Department of Home which was
    that the post of DSP was rightly reserved against the category “SC
    Sports (Women)” on which the Petitioner was selected. We are in
    agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge for the
    reason that once an eligibility criteria was declared by means of a
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                             203

                Prabhjot Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.


     fresh Advertisement i.e. Advertisement No. 14 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’ as held by this Court in K. Manjusree v.
     State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512.
22. We must also take note of the fact that the correctness of
    K. Manjusree (supra) was doubted by a three-Judge Bench of this
    Court in Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan, (2013)
    4 SCC 540 and the matter was referred to a Constitution Bench,
    which ultimately, held that K. Manjusree (supra) is good law which
    still holds the field and it is not at variance with earlier precedents
    and hence, the salutary principle laid down in K. Manjusree (supra)
    that the State or its instrumentalities cannot tinker with the ‘rules of
    the game’ once the recruitment process commences was ultimately
    upheld by the five-Judge Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak
    v. High Court of Rajasthan, (2025) 2 SCC 1. While answering the
    reference, this Court concluded as follows:
           “65. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following
           terms:
           65.1. Recruitment process commences from the issuance
           of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with
           filling up of vacancies;
           65.2. 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. Even
           if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or
           the advertisement, the change would have to meet the
           requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy
           the test of non-arbitrariness;……”
23. Once it is accepted that the DSP post in question was reserved for
    ‘SC Sports (Women)’ as per advertisement no.14 of 11.12.2020,
    the appellant must be accepted as the only person qualified in her
    category who could be appointed. This is because she is the only
    SC woman candidate who successfully cleared all the tests for the
    post of DSP.
204                                                        [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


24. The crucial date in the present case is the advertisement dated
    11.12.2020. This advertisement follows the 2020 Rules where 33%
    of reservation was to be made for women on every government post.
    Thus, DSP SC Sports was reserved for women. This was mentioned
    in the advertisement dated 11.12.2020. This advertisement or the
    2020 Rules were never challenged. The respondents now cannot
    cry foul referring to an event post 11.12.2020 where the so called
    roster system came into existence. We have not even considered
    the need to examine the legality of this roster in principle. Sufficient
    will it be for our purpose to hold that post 11.12.2020 no change
    could have been made.
25. We thus allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order passed
    by the Division Bench, by upholding the order of the learned Single
    Judge dated 03.03.2023. The directions given in the judgment dated
    03.03.2023 shall be complied within three weeks from today.
26. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
27. Interim order(s), if any, stand(s) vacated.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey