Back
Merit Over Maneuvers: High Court Strikes Down Arbitrary Job Allocations
In a resounding affirmation of meritocracy in public hiring, the has ruled that higher-ranked candidates in combined recruitments must get first pick of departments. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, delivering a common judgment in four led by Aman Duddi and others against the (HSSC), declared such allocations a constitutional imperative under . No reassignments were ordered due to time lapsed, but the court mandated systemic reforms to prevent future foul play.
From Exam Triumph to Posting Heartbreak
The saga began with HSSC's advertisement for Junior Engineer (Civil) posts across 19 departments under 35 categories. Candidates like Aman Duddi (65 marks, General category) submitted preferences online via a notice, listing high up. Yet, when results rolled out on , Duddi landed at his 11th choice— —while lower-scorers like Prashant Samadhiya (below 65 marks) snagged Irrigation spots. Similar plights befell petitioners Krishan, Sumeet Kumar Gupta, and Prasoon Sharma. Petitions flew to court in and , alleging mid-process tweaks buried merit.
Petitioners' Cry: Merit Ignored, Favoritism Reigns
Counsel hammered home that petitioners outscored rivals post-written test, document check, and socio-economic scrutiny. Yet HSSC's secret sauce—prioritizing candidates with ≤3 preferences per a concealed
resolution—let lower-merit folks leapfrog.
"Undermining merit guts public employment's soul,"
they argued, citing
K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh
(2008) 3 SCC 512 against post-start criteria changes.
screamed from inconsistent application and non-disclosure, warranting
probe.
's
Dr. Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P.
(
) backed their pitch: higher merit trumps all in preference plays.
HSSC's Defense: Algorithm to the Rescue?
HSSC countered with affidavits claiming a fair software algorithm first allotted to ≤3-preference candidates to avoid vacancies, then others by merit-cum-preference. Notified via gazettes empowered them, they said, insisting no absolute right to top picks exists. Preferences were mandatory; failure meant candidature axed. Departments offered identical pay, minimizing harm. But admissions in Secretary Chinmai Garg's affidavit exposed cracks: the resolution stayed hidden from the website, and even multi-preference lower-rankers like Kunal Chhilar (rank 414, 15 prefs) got prime slots inconsistently.
Unmasking the Opacity: Court's Scalpel on Arbitrariness
Justice Brar dissected the mess through iterative orders, grilling HSSC on mandates and records. Key flaws: undisclosed criteria post-advert, non-uniform algorithm (e.g., rank 469 with 17 prefs got first choice), obliterating
. Drawing from
Dr. Vinay Kumar v. Director of Education
(2006, Allahabad Full Bench), the court enshrined merit's extension to allocations—
"higher merit candidate has first right to opted department over lower ones."
Supreme Court gems like
B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana
(1981) and
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
(1974) reinforced: no arbitrariness in State action, especially sans rules.
Precedents painted a grim picture—manipulated processes invite cancellations, terminations ( State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty , 2011). Transparency? Non-negotiable ( State of Punjab v. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal , 2016). HSSC's "identical pay" dodge flopped: preferences prove posts aren't fungible.
"Merit-based selection is not merely an administrative practice, but a constitutional mandate."
"Lower-ranked candidates cannot steal a march over meritorious candidates... violative of Article 14 and 16."
"The allocation of departments cannot be made in a covert, unfettered and arbitrary manner."
These observations, echoed in media summaries, underscore the verdict's punch.
Reforms Mandated, No Mass Shuffle
Petitions disposed without reshuffling—lapsed time and experience weigh heavy. But Justice Brar fired salvos: Chief Secretaries of Haryana and Punjab must craft transparent, merit-first guidelines within three months, mirroring Dr. Vinay Kumar . HSSC faces probe into conduct. Haryana's top brass to report compliance.
This blueprint fortifies recruitments statewide, signaling: in public jobs, merit isn't optional—it's the Constitution's command. Aspirants denied dream posts may breathe easier; commissions, tread transparently or face the bench.
