Review Applications Allowed; Court Distinguishes Between Recruitment Processes, Permits Selected Candidates in 24 Groups to Continue Service
In a significant judgment delivered on March 27, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Sudeepti Sharma) disposed of 57 review applications challenging the quashing of recruitment processes conducted by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) based on the use of socio-economic criteria marks. The judgment marks an important clarification in recruitment jurisprudence concerning the application of socio-economic criteria in the Common Eligibility Test (CET) for Group-C and Group-D posts.
Background:
The controversy originated from the Haryana Government's recruitment policy dated May 5, 2022, which introduced socio-economic criteria marks as a weightage addition to CET marks. The CET was conducted in two phases: CET-I (qualifying exam) and CET-II (main examination for selection). The policy allowed candidates to claim additional marks under socio-economic criteria, which were added to their CET marks to determine the final merit (CET Score).
Legal Proceedings:
The recruitment process, especially the merit list that incorporated socio-economic marks, was challenged in multiple writ petitions and appeals. The High Court initially quashed the recruitment for Groups 56 and 57 citing deficiencies in the merit list preparation and verification of socio-economic claims. The recruitment for these groups was later re-conducted without socio-economic marks, and the fresh selections were upheld.
However, the High Court had also quashed the recruitment for posts included in 24 other groups, where the application of socio-economic criteria marks was argued to be non-impactful due to fewer candidates competing for the posts.
Key Findings and Decision:
1. Distinction Between Groups:
The Court drew a clear distinction between the recruitment for Groups 56-57 and the 24 other groups. It found that in the case of Groups 56-57, the number of candidates far exceeded the available posts (more than 4-5 times), and socio-economic marks materially influenced the shortlisting. Therefore, the quashing of recruitment in these groups was justified.
2. Recruitment in 24 Groups Upheld:
For the 24 groups, the Court observed that the number of candidates was less than 4-5 times the number of available posts. The selection for these groups was made purely on CET marks without any benefit of socio-economic marks. The Court accepted affidavits from the Commission and the State confirming that no socio-economic weightage was granted to candidates selected in these groups.
3. Procedural Fairness and Non-Impleadment:
The Court noted that the review applicants who were selected in the 24 groups had not been impleaded in earlier proceedings and were not given an opportunity to be heard before their appointments were set aside. Given that the recruitment process for these groups did not involve socio-economic criteria marks, the Court found that the applicants suffered prejudice.
4. Directions and Observations:
- The recruitment process for Groups 56-57 remains set aside and fresh recruitment conducted.
- The selections and appointments made for the 24 groups stand upheld, and the selected candidates are permitted to continue in service.
- Directions issued in the earlier judgment to frame rules to regulate recruitment processes and restrict discretionary powers of Commission officials were held to be directory and applicable only to future recruitments.
5. Merits of Review:
The Court rejected the argument that the review applications were barred by merger doctrine despite the dismissal of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) by the Supreme Court. It held that a mere dismissal of SLP without granting leave does not attract merger, and genuine distinctions in facts and issues between the groups justified reconsideration.
Implications:
This judgment provides clarity on the application of socio-economic criteria marks in recruitment, emphasizing the need for factual differentiation based on candidate-to-post ratios. It affirms that the mere presence of a policy does not warrant quashing the entire recruitment if the benefit of such criteria was not availed in the selection process. The Court’s emphasis on procedural fairness highlights the importance of affording affected candidates an opportunity to be heard before setting aside appointments.
The Haryana Staff Selection Commission is directed to ensure transparency and consistency in future recruitments by framing detailed rules governing examinations and selection processes.
Bottom Line:
Review of judgment quashing recruitment process based on socio-economic criteria marks; differentiation between recruitment in Groups 56-57 and posts included in 24 groups.
Statutory provision(s): Articles 14, 15, 16 of the Constitution of India; Proviso 9(i) of CET Policy dated 05.05.2022
