Reserved Candidate Availing Relaxation At Screening Stage Cannot Claim Migration To General Category: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a reserved category candidate who avails relaxation at the screening stage of a multi-tier selection process cannot subsequently seek migration to the General category on the basis of higher marks secured in the final merit.

Dismissing the plea, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "A reserved category candidate who avails relaxation at any stage of the examination process, including the preliminary/screening stage, cannot thereafter claim allocation against an unreserved vacancy."

The petitioner had challenged the final result dated 15.12.2025 for the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer (Group-B) in the Haryana State Pollution Control Board, issued pursuant to Advertisement No. 20/2025 by the Haryana Public Service Commission.

He sought quashing of the result and a direction to revise the merit list by including his name.

The selection process comprised three stages — Screening Test, Subject Knowledge Test and Interview. The petitioner, who applied under the BC-B category, cleared the first two stages but was not selected in the final result.

The petitioner contended that a BC-B candidate, Nikhil Yadav, had secured 58.86 marks in the final merit, higher than the last selected General category candidate, who had secured 53.09 marks. According to him, Yadav ought to have been migrated to the General category on merit, which would have enabled the petitioner (who secured 40.61 marks and was next in the BC-B merit list) to be selected against the reserved vacancy.

It was further argued that since the screening test was only for shortlisting and its marks were not counted in the final merit, any relaxation availed at that stage was inconsequential to the ultimate selection.

The Commission and the State opposed the plea, submitting that in the Screening Test held on 02.11.2025, the General category cut-off was 61.8132 marks, whereas Nikhil Yadav secured only 56.86 marks. He was shortlisted for the next stage solely by availing relaxed standards applicable to the BC-B category.

Thus, having taken relaxation at the threshold stage, he could not be treated as a General category candidate.

The Court considered the core issue as whether a reserved category candidate who avails relaxation at the screening stage can be migrated to the General category based on performance in subsequent stages.

Answering in the negative, Justice Brar held that a screening test at the threshold of a multi-stage selection process operates as a “mandatory eligibility sieve” and not a mere formality.

“Any relaxation granted at the screening stage directly confers a tangible and decisive advantage, as it enables a candidate to cross the threshold and gain access to the subsequent stages,” the Court observed.

The Court relied extensively on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. G. Kiran & Ors. (decided on 06.01.2026), wherein it was held that a reserved category candidate who avails relaxation at any stage of the examination — including the preliminary stage — cannot claim adjustment against unreserved vacancies.

The judgment clarified that even if the preliminary examination is qualifying in nature, availing relaxed standards at that stage disentitles the candidate from being treated as selected on “General Standards”.

The Court held that Saurav Yadav was distinguishable since, in that case, the candidates had not availed any relaxation at any stage of the selection process. Migration is permissible only where a candidate is selected purely on merit without availing relaxed standards.

The High Court further noted that the judgment in Parmila could not assist the petitioner, particularly as its operation had been stayed by the Supreme Court prior to the present selection process.

Advertisement Binding On Candidates

Significantly, the Court referred to Clause 16(ix) of Advertisement No. 20/2025, which expressly provided that where a relaxed standard is applied in selection of SC/BC-A/BC-B candidates, such candidates shall be counted against reserved vacancies and deemed unavailable for consideration against unreserved vacancies.

Observing that an advertisement has the force of law and binds the parties, the Court held that Nikhil Yadav was rightly treated as a BC-B candidate throughout.

Participation Without Protest

The Court also reiterated the settled principle that a candidate who participates in a selection process without protest and challenges it only after being unsuccessful cannot be permitted to question the process. Reliance was placed on Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar and other precedents.

No Vested Right To Appointment

Reaffirming that selection confers only a right of consideration and not a vested right to appointment, the Court found no arbitrariness, mala fide or statutory violation in the selection process.

Holding that Nikhil Yadav had availed relaxation at the screening stage and was therefore ineligible for migration to the General category, the Court concluded that the petitioner, who was fourth in the BC-B merit list, had no claim to selection against the three reserved vacancies.

Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Ms. Preeti Chhikara, Advocate for Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.3-HPSC.

Title: KARTIK SAINI v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Click here to read order