Ranjeet Kum t Kumar Singh and others SUS v. Punjab State State Power Corporation Limited and and another
Case Details
CWP-17 atters 17410-2023 and connected matters 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA DIGARH NJAB AND HARYANA 255(3 cases) cases) Date of 2025 ate of Decision: November 03, 2025 1. CWP-17410-2023 Ranjeet Kum t Kumar Singh and others SUS VERSUS Punjab State State Power Corporation Limited and and another .....Petitioner ioners ...Responden ondents 2. CWP-18754-2023 Ranjeet Singh t Singh and others State of Punja f Punjab and another SUS VERSUS .....Petitioner ioners ...Responden ondents 3. Sahib Dyal CWP-20801-2023 Punjab State State Power Corporation Limited and ed and another SUS VERSUS .....Petitioner ioners ...Responden ondents CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
nt of this Court in Jagjit Singh Gill & (CWP Gill & Ors. vs. PSPCL & Anr. (CWP No.11726 of 26 of 1997, decided on 22.11.2012) t ent to 012) to assert that any amendment to the service re vice regulations must be notified in the in the Gazette to be enforceable. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for t short for the respondents has filed a short reply by way y way of affidavit and raised prelim g the preliminary objections regarding the maintainabili inability of the writ petition. It is s ner(s) It is submitted that the petitioner(s) participated i pated in the GATE-2023 examination ify, ination and having failed to qualify, cannot now now challenge the selection proce n the process. Reliance is placed on the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.20 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17 atters 17410-2023 and connected matters 3 resolution pa ion passed by the Board of Director .2013, irectors of PSPCL dated 29.11.2013, which approv approved recruitment based on GATE ended GATE scores. It is further contended that PSPCL, PCL, being a company incorporated u is not ted under the Companies Act, is not required to no d to notify its recruitment rules in the o in the official Gazette. 4. I have heard learned counsel f ed the nsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It transpires that the petitioner, b ost of oner, being an aspirant for the post of Assistant Eng nt Engineer/OT (Civil), participated i ation, ated in the GATE-2023 examination, which was th was the prescribed eligibility criterion dated iterion as per the Public Notice dated 23.09.2022 a 022 and the subsequent Advertisem dated rtisement No. CRA-300/2023 dated 03.07.2023. H 023. Having been unsuccessful in se ks, as l in securing the qualifying marks, as evidenced by ced by the result declared by the cond itioner e conducting authority, the petitioner has now app w approached this Court to challenge ment. allenge the very same advertisement. The challeng allenge is mounted primarily on the g n of a n the grounds that the stipulation of a GATE qualif qualification is contrary to the PSEB Civil) e PSEB Service of Engineers (Civil) Regulations, tions, 1965, and that no amendment ement dment incorporating this requirement was ever noti er notified in the official Gazette. 6. The law on the subject is well ch of well-settled. A Two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble n’ble Supreme Court in Ranjan Kum Ors. Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2014) 16 SC 6 SCC 187, while speaking through J rough Justice Dipak Misra held: “13. T when t well th somers was vit 13. The next submission which has b hen the Respondents had appeared ell the process, they could not hav mersault saying that the procedure as vitiated. In this connection, it is ap that has been presented before us is that fully ared in the interview knowing fully t have resiled later on or taken a en a ent dure as adopted by the department ated is apt to refer to the principle stated PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.20 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17 atters 17410-2023 and connected matters 4 in Om (Supp) the fac examin realise writ P Court. Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh K upp) SCC 285, in the said case a thr e fact that the Petitioner in the wri amination without protest and fil alised that he would not succeed in it Petitioner should not have been urt. ” 986 sh Kumar Shukla and Ors., 1986 a three-Judge Bench, taking note of te of writ petition had appeared for the the he d filed the petition only after he d in the examination, held that the t the igh een granted any relief by the High 7. Similarly, A Two Judge Bench urt in Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Madras Ins Institute of Development Stu K. Studies & Anr. vs. Dr. K. Sivasubrama ramaniyan & Ors. (2016) 1 SCC rough SCC 454, while speaking through Justice M.Y. M.Y. Eqbal observed that: “20. … selecti no long 24. In others, this Co 20. …whether a person who conscio lection cannot turn around and ques longer res integra. . In the case of Ramesh Chandra Sh hers, 2013(3) S.C.T. 657 : (2013) 11 is Court following the earlier decisio "In view of the propositions l judgments, it must be held tha process of selection with full k was being made under the G had waived their right to ques methodology adopted by the B the learned Single Judge and t Court committed grave error made by the respondents.”” sciously takes part in the process of ss of n, is question the method of selection, is a Shah and others v. Anil Joshi and and h of 3) 11 SCC 309, recently a Bench of cisions held as under :- ns laid down in the above noted oted the that by having taken part in the ull knowledge that the recruitment ent ents e General Rules, the respondents the question the advertisement or the e Board for making selection and and nd the Division Bench of the High igh ance ror by entertaining the grievance 8. A Two Judge Bench of the Ho n of he Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and Ot d Others v. S. Vinodh Kumar and O while nd Others (2007) 8 SCC 100, while speaking thro ng through Justice S.B Sinha observed served that, "19. In "19. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Sh 127, it was further observed:- 127, it SCC i v. Shakuntala Shukla (2002) 6 SCC "34. There is thus no doubt that by conduct would not arise in t seem to be well settled that in th the interview and participates t of the interview is not `palat pel bt that while question of any estoppel se in the contextual facts but the law e law rs at in the event a candidate appears at esult tes therein, only because the result turn alatable' to him, he cannot turn PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.20 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17 atters 17410-2023 and connected matters 5 round and subsequently conten was unfair or there was some la view ntend that the process of interview e lacuna in the process." 9. The same principle was reiterate Bench eiterated in another Two Judge Bench of the Hon’b Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sadanand mtaz nanda Halo and Others v. Momtaz Ali Sheikhan hand Others (2008) 4 SCC 619 rough 619, which while speaking through Justice V.S. S V.S. Sirpurkar observed that, "59. It cannot course This p Union also r Kumar specifi withou examin such e that the unsuccessful candidates ates 9. It is also a settled position tha e of e selection process. There are of nnot turn back and assail the se by this Court to this general rule. rule. urse the exceptions carved out by this Court in its latest judgment in t in is position was reiterated by this ourt ar (2007) 8 SCC 100 ..The Court nion of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar n Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh ilesh so referred to the judgment in Om held C 285, where it has been held mar Shukla 1986 Supp SCC 2 tion date appears in the examination ecifically that when a candidate is found to be not successful in the the ithout protest and subsequently is fo ging tertaining the petition challenging amination, the question of enterta ...." ch examination would not arise...." 10. In the present case, the petitio ity to petitioner(s) had the opportunity to appear in the in the GATE-2023 examination purs dated n pursuant to the public notice dated 23.09.2022. H 022. Having taken a chance and fail pen to nd failed to qualify, it is not open to them to chall challenge the selection process at this at this stage. 11. Moreover, the Electricity (Supp pealed (Supply) Act- 1948 stands repealed and under th der the new Electricity Act - 2003 th aking 003 there is no provision for making publication o tion of rules and regulations and not fficial d notification of the same in official Gazette. The e. The respondent-Corporation by rely 61 of y relying on the Section 43 and 61 of the Articles ticles of Association, in its affidav d the affidavit, has placed on record the resolution of ion of the Board of Directors dated 2 ed the ated 29.11.2013, which approved the recruitment ment of Assistant Engineers (OT) . The (OT) based on GATE scores. The Corporation, ation, being a company incorporated ct, is orated under the Companies Act, is PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.20 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17 atters 17410-2023 and connected matters 6 governed by ed by its Articles of Association and ted to n and is not statutorily mandated to notify its serv its service regulations in the official Ga Gazette. 12. In view of the above, the pe from the petitioner(s) are estopped from challenging t ging the selection process after havi e writ r having participated in it. The writ petitions are are devoid of merit and are liable to ble to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, all the present w d. No ent writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to co s to costs. Pending applications, if any, stan
Arguments
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : None for petitioners in CWP-174 17410-2023. Mr. Aman Sharma, Mr. Chirag Advocates for the petitioner in C Kaur, hirag Suri and Mr. Pawandeep Kaur, er in CWP-20801-2023. Mr. Kamal Narula, Advocate for 2023. 8754- ate for the petitioners in CWP-18754 PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.20 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17 atters 17410-2023 and connected matters 2 Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab CWP-18754-2023. ate in Punjab for respondent No.1-State in Mr. Japsehaj Singh, Advocate f 20801, 18754 of 2023. 7410, cate for respondents in CWP-17410, HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The present civil writ petition rticles etition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of th 7 of the Constitution of India for issu ure of or issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to ari to quash the impugned advertisem dated ertisement No. CRA-300/2023 dated 03.07.2023 ( 023 (Annexure P-3) issued by the P ration the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSP d (PSPCL) to the extent it prescribes q 23 for ribes qualification of GATE-2023 for the post of A st of Assistant Engineer/OT (Civil). A ght to ivil). A further direction is sought to issue a fresh a fresh advertisement in consonanc ce of onance with the PSEB Service of Engineers (C ers (Civil) Regulations, 1965. 2. Learned counsel for he petitioner(s) contends the pe t that the the requirement ment of being GATE-2023 qualifi tutory ualified is contrary to the statutory regulations, w ions, which do not prescribe such a c mitted ch a condition. It is further submitted that no amen amendment to the 1965 Regulations fficial ations has been notified in the official Gazette to in e to incorporate the GATE qualificat he alification. Reliance is placed on the judgment of
Decision
y, stand disposed of. Photocopy of this order be pl ected be placed on the file of connected 14. 15. cases. RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE November P.C 03, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.20 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document