Parmila vs. HPSC — LPA No. 329 of 2024 & CWP No. 17188 of 2024
FACTS OF THE CASE:
-
Advertisement by HPSC:
- Advt. No. 29/2023 & 44/2023 dated 24.06.2023.
- 250 posts of PGT (Maths) for rest of Haryana & 65 posts for Mewat cadre.
- 3-stage selection process:
- Screening Test – qualifying (cut-off 25%)
- Subject Knowledge Test – 87.5% weightage (cut-off 35%)
- Interview – 12.5% weightage
-
Dispute Origin:
- Parmila (BC-B category) scored 41.85 marks in Screening Test.
- She was excluded from next stage due to BC-B category cut-off being higher.
- Meanwhile, General category candidates with lower marks (38.04 – 41.58) were selected for the Subject Knowledge Test.
-
Parmila’s Argument:
- She should have been considered under General category based on merit.
- Quoted Supreme Court judgments that merit > category and migration is allowed even at earlier stages.
LEGAL ISSUE:
Can a reserved category candidate who scores more than the General category cut-off in the screening test be considered under the General (Open) category at that stage?
ARGUMENTS FOR MIGRATION AT SCREENING STAGE:
-
Supreme Court Precedents:
- Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P. (2021):
- Open category is not exclusive to general caste.
- Reserved category candidates can occupy unreserved seats based on merit at any stage.
- Sadhana Singh Dangi (2022) & Ramnaresh (2024):
- Denying reserved candidates seats in open category based on merit is discriminatory and violates Article 14.
- Indra Sawhney Case (1992): Reservation is about representation, not restriction.
-
Interpretation of “Open Category”:
- Meant for anyone irrespective of caste, provided merit is higher.
- Category-wise shortlisting must not override merit at any stage.
-
Constitutional Logic (R.K. Sabharwal, 1995):
- Reserved category candidates selected on merit should not be counted against quota.
- Hence, they should compete in open pool first.
-
Justice Ravindra Bhat (Saurav Yadav, concurring):
“If merit is sacrificed in the name of category, it defeats the purpose of open competition.”
ARGUMENTS AGAINST MIGRATION (HPSC's View):
-
Precedent from Punjab & Haryana HC in Naveen Rao (2019) and others:
- Migration is only allowed at final selection, not screening.
- Screening is just a qualifying test, not part of final merit.
- Cut-offs must be applied category-wise at screening stage.
-
M.P. High Court view (Pushpendra Patel case, 2023):
- Screening is for shortlisting, not comparative merit.
- Migration applies only where merit list is drawn, i.e., after main exam.
-
Chattar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (SC 1997):
- Candidates opted for reservation category and cannot claim open seats later.
HIGH COURT’S FINAL RULING (April 9, 2025):
-
Rejects Commission’s Argument:
- Even if screening is not counted in final merit, it’s still a decisive stage.
- Excluding meritorious reserved candidates from open category undermines fairness.
-
Clarifies the Rule:
- First, prepare an Open Category list (4x posts) including all candidates based on merit, irrespective of category.
- Then, prepare reserved category-wise lists based on cut-offs.
- This approach aligns with SC guidelines and Article 14 of the Constitution.
-
Result:
- Parmila is allowed to appear for Subject Knowledge Test.
- HPSC must revise screening result as per merit + open category inclusion.
“The Constitution demands equality of opportunity. If a reserved category candidate scores more than general cut-off, excluding them just because of their category violates Article 14.”
key legal points:
- Open category = open for all (SC: Saurav Yadav).
- Merit must always prevail, even during shortlisting.
- Denial of such migration is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
“Screening test is not just a formality. If it decides who moves to the next stage, it’s a gatekeeper—and it must follow the constitutional principle of merit-first.”
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
