Introduction:

In a significant ruling reaffirming the principles of fairness, certainty, and procedural discipline in public recruitment, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, while deciding Baljinder Kaur v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (CWPOA No. 1968 of 2019), categorically held that a candidate who consciously chooses not to apply under a reserved category cannot later claim the benefit of reservation after failing in the selection process. The judgment, delivered by Justice Ranjan Sharma on 17 November 2025, addresses a recurring issue in service jurisprudence—whether a candidate can approbate and reprobate by first competing in the general category and then invoking reservation benefits upon being unsuccessful. The Court firmly answered this in the negative, observing that once a candidate waives the benefit of reservation at the application stage, she loses both the locus and the legal right to subsequently seek appointment against a reserved post. The case arose from a challenge to the appointment of a Punjabi Teacher under the OBC category, with the petitioner contending that she herself belonged to the OBC category and should have been considered against the reserved post. The judgment underscores that reservation is an option that must be consciously exercised at the threshold, not a fallback mechanism to be invoked after the outcome of a selection process is known.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner:

The petitioner, an aspirant for the post of Punjabi Teacher, approached the High Court by filing a writ petition challenging the appointment of respondent No. 4, who had been selected against an OBC reserved post pursuant to an advertisement issued in 2010. The petitioner contended that she herself belonged to the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category and was thus entitled to be considered against the reserved vacancy earmarked for OBC candidates.

It was argued that the selection authorities had acted arbitrarily and unfairly by appointing respondent No. 4, while ignoring the petitioner’s legitimate claim. According to the petitioner, since she fulfilled the requisite educational qualifications and belonged to the OBC category, her candidature ought to have been adjusted against the reserved post. The petitioner sought to invoke the constitutional mandate of Articles 14 and 16, asserting that denial of appointment amounted to discrimination and violation of equal opportunity in public employment.

The petitioner further contended that the very purpose of reservation is to ensure representation of backward classes in public services, and therefore, a hyper-technical approach in denying her the benefit of reservation defeated the object of social justice. It was urged that mere non-submission of an OBC certificate at the time of application should not be treated as fatal, particularly when her social status as an OBC candidate was not in dispute.

In essence, the petitioner sought a post-selection reclassification of her candidature from General category to OBC category, arguing that the authorities should have considered her claim substantively rather than rejecting it on procedural grounds.

Arguments on Behalf of the State and the Selected Candidate:

Opposing the writ petition, the State of Himachal Pradesh, represented by the Deputy Advocate General, submitted that the petitioner’s challenge was wholly misconceived and legally untenable. It was pointed out that the advertisement clearly specified reservation for OBC candidates and required applicants to apply under the appropriate category and submit valid certificates along with their application forms.

The State emphasized that despite being aware of her OBC status, the petitioner had voluntarily applied under the General category and had not enclosed her OBC certificate at the time of application. Having made a conscious choice to compete in the General category, the petitioner could not be permitted to turn around after failing in the selection process and seek the benefit of reservation as an afterthought.

It was further argued that allowing such a claim would seriously undermine the integrity and certainty of recruitment processes. If candidates are permitted to shift categories post-selection, it would open the floodgates to endless litigation and disrupt the finality of selections.

Counsel for the selected candidate, respondent No. 4, submitted that her appointment was perfectly valid, as she had applied under the OBC category, possessed the requisite qualifications, and had submitted the necessary OBC certificate in compliance with the advertisement. It was contended that the petitioner’s grievance was not against any illegality in the respondent’s appointment, but was merely an attempt to salvage her own unsuccessful candidature.

The respondents relied on settled principles of service law, asserting that reservation benefits must be claimed at the initial stage, and that candidates cannot be allowed to “sit on the fence” and invoke reservation only after assessing their chances of success.

Court’s Judgment and Reasoning:

After hearing the parties at length and examining the record, Justice Ranjan Sharma dismissed the writ petition, holding that it was devoid of merit. The Court began by noting that the factual position was undisputed: although the advertisement provided for reservation in favour of OBC candidates, the petitioner had applied as a General category candidate and had not submitted her OBC certificate along with the application.

The Court observed that reservation in public employment is not automatic; it is a benefit that must be consciously claimed by the candidate in accordance with the terms of the advertisement. Once a candidate chooses to apply under the General category, she is deemed to have waived the benefit of reservation, and such waiver cannot be undone after the selection process has concluded.

Justice Sharma made a categorical observation that became the fulcrum of the judgment:

“…once the petitioner has chosen not to avail benefit of reservation available as OBC candidate, then, after participation and having remained unsuccessful, the petitioner has neither any locus nor any right to turn around and claim appointment against OBC post…”

The Court further held that permitting post-selection claims for reservation would amount to allowing candidates to approbate and reprobate, a practice firmly disapproved by law. Such conduct, the Court noted, would not only be unfair to other candidates who had applied correctly under the reserved category but would also erode the sanctity of the recruitment process.

The High Court also took note of the fact that the selected candidate had fulfilled all eligibility criteria, including submission of the OBC certificate, and was therefore rightly appointed. There was no allegation of fraud, manipulation, or procedural irregularity in her selection.

Rejecting the petitioner’s plea that denial of reservation defeated the object of social justice, the Court clarified that procedural compliance is an integral part of substantive equality. Social justice cannot be invoked selectively or opportunistically, particularly when a candidate has consciously chosen a particular course of action.

The Court concluded that the petitioner, having elected to compete in the General category, could not seek a “second bite at the cherry” by invoking reservation after being unsuccessful. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the appointment of the selected candidate was upheld.