Back
Screening Test Relaxation Seals Fate: No General Category Migration for Reserved Candidates, Rules P&H High Court
In a significant ruling on reservation policies in public employment, the has dismissed a challenging the selection list for Assistant Environmental Engineer posts in the . Justice Harpreet Singh Brar held that a Backward Class (BC-B) candidate who avails relaxation at the screening test stage cannot migrate to the general category, even if they outperform general candidates in the final merit.
The petitioner, Kartik Saini, a BC-B category aspirant, sought to quash the final result declared by the on , under Advertisement No. 20/2025.
From Application to Aggrieved: The Petitioner's Journey
HPSC advertised 29 Group-B posts of Assistant Environmental Engineer on . The multi-stage process included a screening test, subject knowledge test, and interview. Saini cleared the first two stages but missed selection, securing 40.61 marks as the fourth in the BC-B merit list against three vacancies.
His grievance centered on BC-B candidate Nikhil Yadav (Roll No. 29116), who scored 58.86 in the final merit—higher than the last general selectee Abhimanyu Balyan's 53.09. Saini argued Yadav should migrate to general, freeing a reserved spot for him.
Petitioner's Push: 'Screening Marks Don't Count, So Relax and Migrate'
Saini's counsel urged migration per Supreme Court precedents like Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P. (AIR 2021 SC 233) and a local ruling in Parmila v. State of Haryana (CWP-23917-2023). They highlighted Annexure P-3: screening test marks don't factor into final merit (aggregated from subject test and interview). Yadav allegedly took relaxation only there, making it "inconsequential" for final allocation.
Respondents' Rebuttal: Relaxation at Any Stage Bars the Door
HPSC countered: Yadav scored 56.86 in the screening test, below the general cutoff of 61.8132, qualifying via BC-B relaxation. This "gateway" advantage disqualified migration. They cited Union of India v. G. Kiran (2026 INSC 15) and Ajit Singh v. State of Haryana (2011).
Advertisement Clause 16(ix) explicitly stated relaxed-standard candidates are "deemed unavailable" for unreserved spots, binding all participants.
Court's Sharp Scalpel: Screening as 'Mandatory Eligibility Sieve'
Justice Brar dissected the core issue: Can screening-stage relaxation block general migration? Unanimously, no.
The court likened screening to a "filtering mechanism or gateway," not a formality. Relaxation here provides a "tangible and decisive advantage," enabling progression without which elimination occurs.
Heavily relying on
G. Kiran
(
), the bench quoted:
"those reserved category candidates who have availed of any relaxation or concession at 'any stage of the examination' are not eligible to be adjusted against unreserved vacancies."
Even qualifying prelims via relaxation taints general claims, despite later excellence.
Distinguishing Saurav Yadav , the court noted it applied only to no-relaxation merit selections. Parmila was stayed by Supreme Court (SLP 24552/2025, ) during this process.
Precedents like Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat PSC (2019) 7 SCC 383 and Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan (2018) 11 SCC 352 reinforced: initial relaxations permeate the process.
The advertisement's force-of-law status ( Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat , 2023 INSC 145) sealed it—Yadav stayed BC-B.
Justice Brar invoked : Saini participated sans protest, challenging post-failure ( Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar , 2010 12 SCC 576). No vested appointment right exists ( Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court , 2024 INSC 847).
Key Observations Straight from the Bench
"A screening test... operates as a filtering mechanism or a gateway, without clearing which a candidate cannot progress... Any relaxation granted at the screening stage directly confers a tangible and decisive advantage."
"The Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Kiran's case (supra) has clearly held that a reserved category candidate who avails relaxation at any stage of the examination, including the preliminary/screening stage, cannot thereafter claim allocation against an unreserved vacancy."
"It is that advertisement shall have the and bind the parties."
"A candidate who participates in the selection process without protest and is unsuccessful cannot subsequently challenge the process."
Final Verdict: Petition Dismissed, Principles Crystallized
The writ stands dismissed, no costs. Justice Brar outlined seven binding principles, affirming Yadav's BC-B placement and Saini's non-selection.
This reinforces rigid reservation boundaries in multi-stage hires, prioritizing "general standards" purity. Public recruiters must now scrutinize relaxations holistically, curbing post-hoc migration claims— a win for process integrity amid Haryana's competitive job market.
