No Vested Right in Committee Nod: P&H High Court Greenlights Fresh PSHRC Member Hunt

In a ruling underscoring administrative flexibility in public appointments, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a writ petition by Birendra Singh Rawat, who sought to block a new recruitment drive for Member (Non-Judicial), Punjab State Human Rights Commission (PSHRC). Justice N.S. Shekhawat held that a Selection Committee's recommendation under Section 22 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, does not create an enforceable right, especially after the Governor returned the file without approval.

From Application to Stalemate: The Timeline Unravels

The saga began with an advertisement on October 29, 2022 (Annexure P-1), inviting applications for the PSHRC's Non-Judicial Member post. Petitioner Rawat, a social welfare advocate, applied on January 11, 2023. A high-powered Selection Committee—chaired by the Chief Minister and including the Speaker, Home Minister, and Leader of Opposition—met on February 6, 2023, and recommended Rawat's name on January 11, 2024.

Police verification followed in September 2024, fueling Rawat's hopes. But on September 26, 2024, the Governor's Secretariat returned the file (Annexure R-1). RTI queries yielded vague "under process" replies, citing Section 8(1)(i). Nearly three years later, in June/July 2025, Punjab issued a fresh advertisement (Annexure P-7), prompting Rawat's writ under Article 226 for quashing it and mandating his appointment.

Petitioner's Cry: 'My Recommendation Deserves Delivery'

Rawat's counsel argued the Committee's nod under Section 22 bound the Governor, creating a legitimate expectation. They claimed no rejection occurred, police clearance was done, and fresh ads violated fairness. Citing R.S. Mittal v. Union of India (1995) and Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991), they urged finalizing the old process, decrying the fresh call as arbitrary.

State's Rebuttal: Governor's Word is Final, Process Lapsed Fairly

The State countered that Section 22 vests appointment solely with the Governor via warrant under hand and seal—the Committee's role is purely recommendatory. The returned file effectively closed the 2022 process. No appointment issued, so de novo recruitment served public interest, keeping the vital PSHRC post from idling. Rawat skipped reapplying, negating discrimination claims. They invoked Sunil Modi v. State of Maharashtra (2025:BHC-AS:1039-DB) barring directions to Governors (Article 361) and Supreme Court precedents like Baitarani Gramiya Bank v. Pallab Kumar (2003), stressing no indefeasible right from select lists.

Judicial Dissection: Recommendation ≠ Right, Delay Demands Action

Justice Shekhawat dissected the law: the Governor alone appoints; Committee inputs are advisory. Rawat's failure to challenge the file's return fatally undermined his attack on the fresh ad. "A fresh advertisement issued pursuant to the competent authority's directions cannot be impugned indirectly, especially when the principal decision remains unchallenged."

Drawing from Supreme Court lore— Shankarsan Dash (no duty to fill vacancies), State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha (select list confers no mandamus right), Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Dr. Vinay Kumar (2022)—the bench affirmed employers' leeway absent arbitrariness. Rawat's cited cases didn't fit, as no foundational rejection challenge existed. Nearly three years' delay, with no mala fides proved, warranted fresh hiring for public efficacy.

Key Observations from the Bench

  • On Enforceable Rights : "Mere inclusion in a select list or recommendation for appointment does not confer an indefeasible or vested right to appointment. The candidate acquires only a right to fair and non-arbitrary consideration."

  • Deficient Challenge : "The failure to challenge the foundational decision is fatal and no substantive relief can be granted in the absence of challenge to the operative administrative decision."

  • Public Duty Over Personal Claim : "Posts of public importance cannot remain unfilled for an indefinite duration... The administrative necessity and public interest justify the de novo recruitment, where earlier process becomes stale or inconclusive."

  • Administrative Prerogative : "The employer always retains the discretion to abandon or reinitiate any recruitment provided, such decision is not vitiated by arbitrariness or perversity."

Dismissed: Ripple Effects for Future Aspirants

The petition stands dismissed (November 6, 2025). No costs. This reinforces that statutory bodies like PSHRC can't stagnate; delays invite restarts without private rights trumping public need. Aspirants eyeing such roles must reapply afresh—recommendations alone won't suffice without gubernatorial seal. The ruling, as highlighted in legal circles, prioritizes institutional functionality, ensuring human rights watchdogs stay staffed amid procedural hiccups.