2024 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 28060

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Sudeepti Sharma, JJ
Gurvind Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Haryana Staff Selection Commission – Respondent
RA-LP-19-2024|RA-LP-22-2024|RA-LP-23-2024|RA-LP-24-2024|RA-LP-25-2024|RA-LP-26-2024|RA-LP-29-2024|RA-LP-28-2024|RA-LP-30-2024|RA-LP-31-2024|RA-LP-32-2024|RA-LP-33-2024|RA-LP-34-2024|RA-LP-35-2024|RA-LP-36-2024|RA-LP-37-2024|RA-LP-38-2024|RA-LP-40-2024|RA-LP-57-2024|RA-LP-41-2024|RA-LP-42-2024|RA-LP-43-2024|RA-LP-44-2024|RA-LP-45-2024|RA-LP-46-2024|RA-LP-39-2024|RA-LP-47-2024|RA-LP-48-2024|RA-LP-54-2024|RA-LP-49-2024|RA-LP-51-2024|RA-LP-50-2024|RA-LP-56-2024|RA-LP-63-2024|RA-LP-64-2024|RA-LP-65-2024|RA-LP-81-2024|RA-LP-80-2024|RA-LP-11-2025|RA-LP-27-2024|RA-LP-15-2025|RA-LP-25-2025|RA-LP-27-2025|RA-LP-28-2025|RA-LP-66-2024|RA-LP-73-2024|RA-LP-58-2024|RA-LP-82-2024|RA-LP-45-2025|RA-LP-43-2025|RA-LP-44-2025|RA-LP-42-2025|RA-LP-38-2025|RA-LP-37-2025|RA-CW-290-2024|RA-CW-296-2024|RA-CW-323-2024

A non-speaking dismissal of an Special Leave Petition does not trigger the doctrine of merger. Furthermore, recruitment selections that are statistically distinct from, and untainted by, invalid socio-economic criteria merit protection from the automatic quashing applied to groups where such criteria demonstrably influenced the outcome.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15 and 16 - Recruitment Policy - Socio-economic criteria - Validity of - Benefit of marks introduced via amendment to recruitment policy quashed on ground of violation of equality principles. (Para 79)

(B) Review Jurisdiction - Doctrine of Merger - Applicability - Where Special Leave Petition against a judgment is dismissed via a non-speaking order, the judgment of the High Court does not merge into the Supreme Court order, thus preserving the maintainability of a review petition in the High Court. (Paras 36-39)

(C) Recruitment - Judicial Review - When selection to certain posts is demonstrated to be independent of disputed criteria, and where no qualified candidate was excluded from the selection process, the quashing of such recruitment based on errors found in other group selections is unsustainable. (Paras 54-56)

Facts of the case:
The court dealt with a batch of review applications against a prior judgment that had set aside recruitments for various group posts based on the quashing of socio-economic criteria bonus marks. The review applicants, who were selected candidates, contended that their recruitments were distinct from the groups where excessive applicant-to-post ratios made the improper socio-economic marks prejudicial. They argued they were never granted such marks and were selected on merit, while also noting they were not impleaded in the original proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The court found that for the specific sets of groups under review, the number of eligible candidates for the second-stage examination was low, and the socio-economic criteria did not affect the shortlist. Evidence confirmed selected candidates did not receive the disputed bonus marks, and the selection process had already been completed and acted upon.

Issues: Whether the review applications are maintainable despite the dismissal of a prior Special Leave Petition, and whether the initial judgment's directive to quash all recruitments was based on a flawed factual assumption regarding the impact of socio-economic criteria on specific groups.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that (i) the doctrine of merger does not apply to non-speaking dismissals of SLPs, keeping review jurisdiction intact; and (ii) where recruitments are distinct and proven to be untainted by invalid socio-economic weightage, and where the applicant-to-post ratio precluded the need for such weightage, the mass quashing of these remaining selections is not warranted under the principle of fair play.

Result: Review applications allowed. Recruitments in the specified groups are protected.