Balwinder Singh And ORS v. State Of Punjab And ANR.

 
   
 



 !" #$%$!&'()*+, - ).$&/ 01$&23 &/!3 0% 44 $$!& 0% 5 0%(%  !"(&6 7 &/!3 0% 44 %8!&/ &%
9'

 :;941
1 9 1

1

 

  



   

   

   

 





 1 9 1

1 4 ;

!

#   



   
 % &

 

     

'( '! %'!) * +
,!-

 #

. 




 #   



0 

'1 !% %'!) * +
,(-



 

 # 

 



/

&

 

    





  !!

 

 

'( '! %'!) * +
,!- # 

    3       

 #  $  

$     

 



 

'( '! %'!) * +
,!- 

* +
,%- #   4



/  # 

# 

 

 /

    



   

4 

# 

 

( "

 



 

  

    

   #      

$



 

'( '! %'!) * +
,!- * +
,%-  



$

6     

 



     





 * +
,%-   

 

   

  6 

7     

  

  

) 8 #  

 9:



 

   

   

 

    !

" " 

    ;

  #

  # 



 

 

<

  

  

 #  !

  $

 %  9:



 

 

   

  





    

 

#$

6  



, " 32.The respondents have also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of K. Manjusree (supra). However, in our considered view, the facts of the aforesaid decision are quite different from the present case. A change was introduced for the first time after the entire process was over, based on the decision made by the Full Court qua the cut off. Secondly, it is not as if the private respondents were non) suited from participating in the recruitment process. The principle governing changing the rules of game would not have any application when the change is with respect to selection process but not the qualification or eligibility. In other words, after the advertisement is made followed by an application by a candidate with further progress, a rule cannot be brought in, disqualifying him to participate in the selection process. It is only in such cases, the principle aforesaid will have an application or else it will hamper the power of the employer to recruit a person suitable for a job."

   

.

=

 #    

  $



 > ?

 

()*+, -

1 9 1

1

harsha  < 7 4

 @4 < 



@4