SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 19788

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
N.S. Shekhawat, J
Birendra Singh Rawat – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CWP-20952-2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Naveen Bhardwaj, Kishore Bhardwaj, Nishtha
For the Respondents: Animesh Sharma

A candidate recommended by a selection committee does not acquire an indefeasible or vested right to appointment, as the appointing authority retains the statutory discretion to accept or reject recommendations and may initiate a de novo recruitment process if legitimate administrative reasons exist.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - Sections 21 and 22 - Appointment of Member of State Human Rights Commission - Recommendation of Selection Committee - Whether the recommendation of the Selection Committee creates an indefeasible right to be appointed.

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Principles of Legitimate Expectation - Judicial review of administrative decisions - Whether the High Court can compel the government to complete a recruitment process after a decision to abandon it in the interest of public administration.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a fresh advertisement for the post of Member (Non-Judicial) of the State Human Rights Commission, contending that he had already been recommended for the post by the Selection Committee in a prior recruitment process and that his appointment should be finalized by the Governor.

Findings of Court:
The court held that a recommendation by a Selection Committee is merely recommendatory in nature and does not confer any vested or indefeasible right to appointment. The competent authority, in this case the Governor, retains discretion as to whether or not to make an appointment.

Issues: Whether the recommendation of the Selection Committee creates an enforceable legal right to appointment and whether the court can compel the state to fill a vacancy based on a previous, abandoned selection process.

Ratio Decidendi: The statute vests final authority in the Governor, and the failure of the nomination to fructify as an appointment entitles the government to initiate a de novo recruitment process in the interest of public administration, provided the decision is not arbitrary or mala fide.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges fresh recruitment after being recommended for a public post by a committee. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. state argues recommendation is not binding and the governor is not answerable to the court. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court finds that failure to challenge the foundational administrative decision renders the petition incomplete. (Para 6 , 7)
4. established precedent confirms that selection recommendations confer no vested right to appointment against state discretion. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)

N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned advertisement DPR/PB/2668/12/2025-26/657 (Annexure P-7), whereby, the respondents had invited fresh applications for appointment to the post of Member, Punjab State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘PSHRC’) as the duly constituted Selection Committee had already recommended the name of the petitioner for the said post in pursuance of an advertisement No. DPR/PB/18140 dated 29.10.2022 (Annexure P-1) and the Government had neither rejected nor accepted the said recommendations. A further prayer was made to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to finalize the appointment process already initiated vide advertisement dated 29.10.2022 (Annexure P-1) for the post of Member, PSHRC and to offer appointment to him forthwith.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the PSHRC was constituted under Section 21 of the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the PHR Act 1993’). Still further, Section 22 of the PHR Act 1993 deals with the appointment of the Chairperson and Members of the PSHRC and the same has been reproduced below:-

Section 22 of the PHR Act 1993

“22. Appointment of Chairperson and Members of State Commission.-

(1) The Chairperson and Members shall be appointed by the Governor by warrant under his hand and seal:

Provided that every appointment under this sub-section shall be made after obtaining the recommendation of a Committee consisting of,-

(a) the Chief Minister - Chairperson;

(b) Speaker of the Legislative Assembly - Member,

(c) Minister in-charge of the Department of Home in that State -Member,

d) Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly - Member."

3. As per the aforesaid provisions of law, the appointment of Chairperson or the member is made on the recommendations of the Selection Committee. He further contended that vide advertisement No.DPR-/PB/ 18140 dated 29.10.2022 (Annexure P-1), the Government of Punjab invited the applications from various individuals for the post of Member (Non-Judicial) in the PSHRC. The petitioner, being a social-welfare oriented person, duly applied for the said post on 11.01.2023. The meeting of Selection Committee consisting of Chief Minister, Punjab, Home Minister, Speaker of Legislative Assembly and Leader of Opposition was held for scrutinizing the applications for the post of the Member (Non-Judicial) at the residence of Chief Minister, Punjab. As per the knowledge of the petitioner, the file of the petitioner was sent to higher authorities on 07.08.2023 for further action. The petitioner also came to know that the police verification was conducted on 10.09.2024 and he had a reason to believe that he had been selected for the post of Member (Non-Judicial) PSHRC. However, the formal notification under the warrant and seal of the Governor of Punjab did not arrive even after the lapse of reasonable time period. The petitioner also made inquiries through the RTI Act with regard to the status of selection process, however, he was intimated that the matter was “under process” and the information would be shared once finalized. The petitioner filed an appeal under the Right to Information Act and the appellate authority also declined to disclose any further i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top