Introduction:

In the case of Deepak and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, the Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) cannot introduce a priority list at a later stage of candidate selection if it was not explicitly mentioned in the initial advertisement. The case stemmed from a challenge brought forth by candidates in the ex-servicemen category who alleged that the introduction of a priority list during the main examination unfairly benefited disabled ex-servicemen and their dependents. Justice Jagmohan Bansal, presiding over the matter, emphasised that recruitment must adhere strictly to the advertised terms and conditions and that any deviation would undermine the rule of law.

Arguments:

The petitioners, represented by Advocates Rajat Mor and Surya Dhanda, contended that the HSSC’s sudden introduction of a priority list at the main stage unfairly altered the selection process. They argued that the priority list, which favoured disabled ex-servicemen over other candidates within the same category, was neither mentioned in the advertisement nor backed by statutory provisions. This, they claimed, resulted in candidates with lower merit securing positions at the expense of higher-scoring applicants. They emphasised that any changes in selection criteria must be predefined and published to maintain transparency and fairness in public recruitment.

On the other hand, the respondents, represented by Advocates Shruti Jain Goyal and Nikita Goel, defended the priority list, stating that government instructions permitted the prioritisation of disabled ex-servicemen and their family members at the final selection stage. They argued that HSSC’s move was a step towards ensuring equitable representation and social justice for disabled ex-servicemen, a group deserving of special consideration. However, the respondents faced scrutiny over the timing of this implementation, as it was introduced during the mains exam rather than at the final selection stage, as prescribed by government instructions.

Court’s Judgment:

After examining the submissions, Justice Jagmohan Bansal held that HSSC’s actions were arbitrary and beyond the scope of the original advertisement. The Court underscored that recruitment agencies cannot alter selection criteria midway through the process, as doing so would violate fundamental principles of transparency and merit-based selection. It was noted that while government instructions allowed for prioritisation of disabled ex-servicemen at the final selection stage, applying this priority during the main examination was contrary to the rules.

The Court ruled that the respondent must follow the advertisement’s original terms and conditions and that any prioritisation should only be implemented at the final selection stage. By setting aside the priority list introduced at the main stage, the Court reaffirmed the principle that recruitment must adhere strictly to pre-declared criteria to ensure fairness and predictability in government hiring processes.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, with directions that HSSC reconsider the selection process in compliance with the law. The decision reinforced that while affirmative action is an essential component of public recruitment, it must be executed in a legally sound and procedurally fair manner.