High Court Directs Reconsideration of LDC Termination Based on Superior Merit Claims: Punjab and Haryana High Court - 2025-11-20

Court Mandates Review of LDC Termination Following Merit-List Discrepancy

In a significant order impacting service law and recruitment transparency, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has directed the State of Haryana to reconsider the termination of a Lower Division Clerk (LDC). The petitioner, Sumit Sharma, alleged that he was wrongfully terminated despite securing marks superior to those of candidates selected under the same advertisement.

The Backdrop: From Appointment to Termination

Sumit Sharma was appointed as an LDC in 2020 following the Haryana Staff Selection Commission's recruitment process under Advertisement No. 03/2016. After serving for nearly three years with an unblemished record and fulfilling mandatory professional requirements, his services were abruptly terminated in 2023. The Commission cited a failure to submit a Gradation Certificate under the Outstanding Sports Person (OSP) category as the primary reason for withdrawing its recommendation.

Despite an initial legal challenge against his termination being dismissed in July 2023, the petitioner later discovered evidence through the Right to Information (RTI) Act suggesting a different narrative. The revised merit list revealed that the last candidate selected in the General category had secured 80 marks, whereas the petitioner had scored 100—significantly higher than the threshold for employment.

Legal Contentions and Precedents

Armed with his RTI findings, the petitioner approached the High Court, invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Represented by his counsel, the petitioner relied on the Division Bench judgment in Rakesh Kumar vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission and the decision in Parveen vs State of Haryana , arguing that candidates with higher marks cannot be sidelined in favor of those lower in the merit list.

The State and the Commission agreed to a time-bound review, leading the Court to bypass a lengthy hearing on the merits in favor of an administrative disposal of the petitioner's June 2025 representation.

Key Observations

The judgment underscores the importance of transparency and merit-based selection. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar highlighted:

• "The revised merit list (Annexure P-18), in pursuance of advertisement No.03/2016, Category No.03, unequivocally demonstrates that the last selected candidate in the General category secured only 80 marks whereas the petitioner has secured 100 marks."
• "Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent No.4."
• "Respondent No.4 is directed to consider the representation dated 16.06.2025 ... and pass a speaking order in terms of the Instructions dated 30.04.2018."

The Court’s Directive

The Court has mandated that the competent authority (Respondent No. 4) provide a speaking order within two months. This process must include an opportunity for a personal hearing for the petitioner, ensuring that the principles of natural justice are upheld.

This development serves as a critical check on recruitment processes, signaling to public authorities that discrepancies identified by candidates via the RTI Act must be addressed with rigorous administrative scrutiny. Whether the petitioner will be reinstated remains to be seen, but theHigh Court's intervention ensures that his claims of merit will finally be adjudicated on record.