Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjeet Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another on 3 November, 2025
1
CWP-17410
17410-2023
2023 and connected matters
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
255(3
(3 cases) Date of Decision: November 03,, 2025
1. CWP-17410-2023
Ranjeet Kumar Singh and others
.....Petitioners
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another
...Respondents
...Respondent
2. CWP-18754-2023
Ranjeet Singh and others
.....Petitioners
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
...Respondent
3. CWP-20801-2023
Sahib Dyal
.....Petitioners
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another
...Respondents
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present : None for petitioners in CWP-17410
17410-2023.
Mr. Aman Sharma, Mr. Chirag Suri and Mr. Pawandeep Kaur,
Advocates for the petitioner in CWP
CWP-20801-2023.
Mr. Kamal Narula, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP
CWP-18754
18754-
2023.
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 03:11:16 :::
2
CWP-17410
17410-2023
2023 and connected matters
Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1
No.1-State
State in
CWP-18754-2023.
Mr. Japsehaj Singh, Advocate for respondents in CWP
CWP-17410,
17410,
20801, 18754 of 2023.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR,
BRAR J. (Oral)
1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned advertisement No. CRA CRA-300/2023 300/2023 dated 03.07.2023 (Annexure P-3) P 3) issued by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) to the extent it prescribes qualification of GATE GATE-2023 2023 for the post of Assistant Engineer/OT (Civil). A further direction is sought to issue a fresh advertisement in consonance with the PSEB Service of Engineers (Civil) Regulations, 1965.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) contends that the requirement of being GATE-2023 GATE 2023 qualifi qualified ed is contrary to the statutory regulations, which do not prescribe such a condition. It is further submitted that no amendment to the 1965 Regulations has been notified in the official Gazette to incorporate the GATE qualification. Reliance is placed on tthe he judgment of this Court in Jagjit Singh Gill & Ors. vs. PSPCL & Anr. (CWP No.11726 of 1997, decided on 22.11.2012) to assert that any amendment to the service regulations must be notified in the Gazette to be enforceable.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has filed a short reply by way of affidavit and raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioner(s) participated in the GATE-2023 GATE 2023 examination and having failed to qual qualify, ify, cannot now challenge the selection process. Reliance is placed on the 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 03:11:16 ::: 3 CWP-17410 17410-2023 2023 and connected matters resolution passed by the Board of Directors of PSPCL dated 29.11.2013, which approved recruitment based on GATE scores. It is further contended that PSPCL, being a company incorporated incorporated under the Companies Act, is not required to notify its recruitment rules in the official Gazette.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. It transpires that the petitioner, being an aspirant for the post of Assistant nt Engineer/OT (Civil), participated in the GATE GATE-2023 2023 examination, which was the prescribed eligibility criterion as per the Public Notice dated 23.09.2022 and the subsequent Advertisement No. CRA CRA-300/2023 300/2023 dated 03.07.2023. Having been unsuccessful in secu securing ring the qualifying marks, as evidenced by the result declared by the conducting authority, the petitioner has now approached this Court to challenge the very same advertisement. The challenge is mounted primarily on the grounds that the stipulation of a GATE ATE qualification is contrary to the PSEB Service of Engineers (Civil) Regulations, 1965, and that no amendment incorporating this requirement was ever notified in the official Gazette.
6. The law on the subject is well well-settled.
settled. A Two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble on'ble Supreme Court in Ranjan Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Ors.
187, while speaking through Justice Dipak Misra held:
(2014) 16 SCC 187, "13. The next submission which has been presented before us is that when the Respondents had appeared in the interview know knowing ing fully well the process, they could not have resiled later on or taken a somersault saying that the procedure as adopted by the department was vitiated. In this connection, it is apt to refer to the principle stated 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 03:11:16 ::: 4 CWP-17410 17410-2023 2023 and connected matters in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kuma Kumarr Shukla and Ors., 1986 (Supp) SCC 285, in the said case a three three-Judge Judge Bench, taking note of the fact that the Petitioner in the writ petition had appeared for the examination without protest and filed the petition only after he realised that he would not succeed in the examination, held that the writ Petitioner should not have been granted any relief by the High Court. "
7. Similarly, A Two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madras Institute of Development Studies & Anr. vs. Dr. K. 454,, while speaking through Sivasubramaniyan & Ors. (2016) 1 SCC 454 Justice M.Y. Eqbal observed that:
"20. ...whether a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot turn around and question the method of selection, is no longer res integra.
24. In the the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah and others v. Anil Joshi and others, 2013(3) S.C.T. 657 : (2013) 11 SCC 309, recently a Bench of this Court following the earlier decisions held as under ::-
"In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Bo Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents.""
8. A Two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India and Others v. S. 100,, while S. Vinodh Kumar and Others (2007) 8 SCC 100 speaking through Justice S.B Sinha observed that, "19. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla (2002) 6 SCC 127, it was further observed:-
observed:
"34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estop estoppel pel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seem to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is not `palatable' to him, he cannot turn 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 03:11:16 ::: 5 CWP-17410 17410-2023 2023 and connected matters round ound and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process.
process."
9. The same principle was reiterated in another Two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sadananda Halo and Others v. Momtaz Ali Sheikhand 619,, which while speaking through hand Others (2008) 4 SCC 619 Justice V.S. Sirpurkar observed that, that "59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection process. There are of course the exceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule. This position was reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100 ..The Court also referred to the judgment in Om PrakaPrakash sh Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla 1986 Supp SCC 285, where it has been held specifically that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest and subsequently is found to be not successful in the examination, the question of entertaining the ppetition etition challenging arise...."
such examination would not arise...."
10. In the present case, the petitioner(s) had the opportunity to appear in the GATE-2023 GATE 2023 examination pursuant to the public notice dated 23.09.2022. Having taken a chance and failed to qualify, iitt is not open to them to challenge the selection process at this stage.
11. Moreover, the Electricity (Supply) Act Act- 1948 stands repealed and under the new Electricity Act - 2003 there is no provision for making publication of rules and regulations and not notification ification of the same in official Gazette. The respondent-Corporation respondent Corporation by relying on the Section 43 and 61 of the Articles of Association, in its affidavit, has placed on record the resolution of the Board of Directors dated 29.11.2013, which approved the recruitment ecruitment of Assistant Engineers (OT) based on GATE scores. The Corporation, being a company incorporated under the Companies Act, is 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 03:11:16 ::: 6 CWP-17410 17410-2023 2023 and connected matters governed by its Articles of Association and is not statutorily mandated to notify its service regulations in the official Gazette.
12. In view of the above, the petitioner(s) are estopped from challenging the selection process after having participated in it. The writ petitions are devoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, all the present writ petiti petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.
14. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
15. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected cases.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE November 03, 2025 P.C Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No 6 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 03:11:16 :::