Service jurisprudence is built on one foundational principle: equals must be treated equally. Yet, disputes frequently arise when administrative rules are applied unevenly, especially in promotion and selection processes within government services. Courts are often called upon to step in—not to rewrite rules—but to ensure that procedural fairness and non-discrimination are upheld.
In an important order dated 11 November 2025, the Gujarat High Court addressed such an issue involving eligibility conditions for promotion to a higher police post. The Court intervened to prevent apparent injustice, restoring a dismissed petition and directing that it be heard along with a similar pending matter .
Background of the Dispute
The case arose from a Letters Patent Appeal filed by a group of police personnel who were serving as Unarmed Police Constables. They had challenged an order by which their writ petition was dismissed at the threshold, preventing them from participating in the physical test for selection to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed), Class-III .
The rejection was based on a specific eligibility requirement: completion of 15 years of service as prescribed under the applicable recruitment rules.
Eligibility Condition at the Core of the Case
Under the relevant recruitment framework and advertisement:
Candidates were required to complete 15 years of service as Unarmed Police Constable or Head Constable
The appellants had completed approximately 13 to 14 years of service
On this ground alone, they were denied permission to appear in the physical test
On paper, the rule appeared clear. However, the controversy arose due to unequal application of the same rule to similarly placed candidates.
Claim of Discrimination
The appellants contended that:
Another group of similarly situated police personnel, appointed in the same recruitment batch
Had not completed 15 years of service either
Yet, they were permitted by the High Court to appear in the physical test in a separate pending petition
This differential treatment formed the backbone of the appellants’ challenge, raising a serious question of hostile discrimination under service law principles .
Parallel Petition Pending Before the High Court
A key factor influencing the Court’s decision was the existence of:
A pending writ petition filed by similarly placed candidates
In that petition, the recruitment rules themselves were under challenge
The appellants argued that dismissing their petition outright—while another petition raising identical issues remained pending—would result in manifest injustice.
High Court’s Examination of the Record
Upon perusal of both matters, the Division Bench noted:
Both sets of petitioners were appointed in the same recruitment batch
Both had put in nearly the same length of service
Both were affected by the same eligibility condition
The issues involved were substantially identical
The Court observed that the petitioners in both cases were, in its words, “sailing in the same boat” .
Why the Earlier Dismissal Could Not Be Sustained
The High Court emphasized that:
When a similar issue is pending consideration,
Dismissing another petition on the same issue at a preliminary stage
Would create an uneven and unjust outcome
Without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the eligibility rules, the Court held that allowing the dismissal to stand would unfairly prejudice the appellants.
Decision of the High Court
The Division Bench passed the following directions:
The earlier order dismissing the writ petition was quashed and set aside
The dismissed petition was restored to the file
It was directed to be heard along with the pending similar petition before the Single Judge
By doing so, the Court ensured that:
Why the Court Avoided Deciding Merits
Notably, the High Court deliberately refrained from ruling on the validity of the eligibility rules. This restraint reflects settled judicial discipline:
When a matter is already pending before a competent bench
A coordinate bench avoids parallel findings
To prevent conflicting judicial opinions
The focus remained strictly on procedural fairness and equal treatment.
Legal Significance of the Order
This order is significant for several reasons:
It reinforces the principle of non-discrimination in service matters
It protects employees from arbitrary exclusion when similar cases are pending
It highlights the High Court’s supervisory role in ensuring uniform adjudication
The decision sends a clear message that administrative rigidity cannot override constitutional fairness.
Implications for Government Recruitment and Promotions
For government departments, the ruling serves as a reminder that:
Eligibility criteria must be applied consistently
Differential treatment among similarly placed employees invites judicial scrutiny
Pending litigation on recruitment rules must be handled with caution
For employees, it reaffirms that courts remain accessible guardians against procedural injustice.
Conclusion
The Gujarat High Court’s order of 11 November 2025 exemplifies judicial balance. Without overstepping into policy or rule-making, the Court ensured that fair play was restored. By reviving the petition and directing a common hearing, it upheld the fundamental service law principle that justice must not only be done, but must also appear to be done.
FAQs
1. What was the main issue in this case?
Unequal treatment of similarly placed police personnel in a promotion process.
2. Did the Court relax the eligibility requirement?
No. The Court did not decide the merits of the eligibility rule.
3. Why was the petition restored?
Because a similar issue was pending, and dismissal would cause injustice.
4. What is the importance of “parity” in service law?
Employees in identical situations must be treated equally.
5. What happens next in such cases?
The restored petition will be heard with the pending matter for a uniform decision.
Service jurisprudence is built on one foundational principle: equals must be treated equally. Yet, disputes frequently arise when administrative rules are applied unevenly, especially in promotion and selection processes within government services. Courts are often called upon to step in—not to rewrite rules—but to ensure that procedural fairness and non-discrimination are upheld.
In an important order dated 11 November 2025, the Gujarat High Court addressed such an issue involving eligibility conditions for promotion to a higher police post. The Court intervened to prevent apparent injustice, restoring a dismissed petition and directing that it be heard along with a similar pending matter .
Background of the Dispute
The case arose from a Letters Patent Appeal filed by a group of police personnel who were serving as Unarmed Police Constables. They had challenged an order by which their writ petition was dismissed at the threshold, preventing them from participating in the physical test for selection to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed), Class-III .
The rejection was based on a specific eligibility requirement: completion of 15 years of service as prescribed under the applicable recruitment rules.
Eligibility Condition at the Core of the Case
Under the relevant recruitment framework and advertisement:
Candidates were required to complete 15 years of service as Unarmed Police Constable or Head Constable
The appellants had completed approximately 13 to 14 years of service
On this ground alone, they were denied permission to appear in the physical test
On paper, the rule appeared clear. However, the controversy arose due to unequal application of the same rule to similarly placed candidates.
Claim of Discrimination
The appellants contended that:
Another group of similarly situated police personnel, appointed in the same recruitment batch
Had not completed 15 years of service either
Yet, they were permitted by the High Court to appear in the physical test in a separate pending petition
This differential treatment formed the backbone of the appellants’ challenge, raising a serious question of hostile discrimination under service law principles .
Parallel Petition Pending Before the High Court
A key factor influencing the Court’s decision was the existence of:
A pending writ petition filed by similarly placed candidates
In that petition, the recruitment rules themselves were under challenge
The appellants argued that dismissing their petition outright—while another petition raising identical issues remained pending—would result in manifest injustice.
High Court’s Examination of the Record
Upon perusal of both matters, the Division Bench noted:
Both sets of petitioners were appointed in the same recruitment batch
Both had put in nearly the same length of service
Both were affected by the same eligibility condition
The issues involved were substantially identical
The Court observed that the petitioners in both cases were, in its words, “sailing in the same boat” .
Why the Earlier Dismissal Could Not Be Sustained
The High Court emphasized that:
When a similar issue is pending consideration,
Dismissing another petition on the same issue at a preliminary stage
Would create an uneven and unjust outcome
Without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the eligibility rules, the Court held that allowing the dismissal to stand would unfairly prejudice the appellants.
Decision of the High Court
The Division Bench passed the following directions:
The earlier order dismissing the writ petition was quashed and set aside
The dismissed petition was restored to the file
It was directed to be heard along with the pending similar petition before the Single Judge
By doing so, the Court ensured that:
All similarly situated candidates would be treated alike
The issue would be decided uniformly and conclusively .
Why the Court Avoided Deciding Merits
Notably, the High Court deliberately refrained from ruling on the validity of the eligibility rules. This restraint reflects settled judicial discipline:
When a matter is already pending before a competent bench
A coordinate bench avoids parallel findings
To prevent conflicting judicial opinions
The focus remained strictly on procedural fairness and equal treatment.
Legal Significance of the Order
This order is significant for several reasons:
It reinforces the principle of non-discrimination in service matters
It protects employees from arbitrary exclusion when similar cases are pending
It highlights the High Court’s supervisory role in ensuring uniform adjudication
The decision sends a clear message that administrative rigidity cannot override constitutional fairness.
Implications for Government Recruitment and Promotions
For government departments, the ruling serves as a reminder that:
Eligibility criteria must be applied consistently
Differential treatment among similarly placed employees invites judicial scrutiny
Pending litigation on recruitment rules must be handled with caution
For employees, it reaffirms that courts remain accessible guardians against procedural injustice.
Conclusion
The Gujarat High Court’s order of 11 November 2025 exemplifies judicial balance. Without overstepping into policy or rule-making, the Court ensured that fair play was restored. By reviving the petition and directing a common hearing, it upheld the fundamental service law principle that justice must not only be done, but must also appear to be done.
FAQs
1. What was the main issue in this case?
Unequal treatment of similarly placed police personnel in a promotion process.
2. Did the Court relax the eligibility requirement?
No. The Court did not decide the merits of the eligibility rule.
3. Why was the petition restored?
Because a similar issue was pending, and dismissal would cause injustice.
4. What is the importance of “parity” in service law?
Employees in identical situations must be treated equally.
5. What happens next in such cases?
The restored petition will be heard with the pending matter for a uniform decision.
Right to Choose a Life Partner: A Landmark Constitutional Ruling