He cleared all police tests but lost his job before joining, this man fought back in court - why High Court ruled in his favour

Getting a job is no easy task, and losing it to untoward circumstances is unfortunate. One such case is of a Mr Rawal who got selected but couldn’t report within the specified time, and hence lost his job.

He filed a case in the High court and won back his job.According to an ET report, following an advertisement on June 28, 2024, Mr Rawal submitted his application for a Constable position and completed the Common Eligibility Test. He successfully cleared both this test and a subsequent physical measurement assessment. However, when the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) issued him a call letter requiring him to join within 30 days, he failed to report for duty.The circumstances preventing Rawal's joining were related to his being in judicial custody following the registration of an FIR against him. Despite the court's eventual quashing of this FIR, the prescribed joining date and 30-day reporting period had already lapsed.Also Read | Income Tax department imposes Rs 2.2 lakh penalty on retired government employee for gratuity tax exemption claim - how she won case in ITATConsequently, Rawal initiated legal proceedings under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to challenge the order dated September 8, 2025, which had denied his request to assume the Constable position.

What’s the case about?

As per the ET report, the sequence of events revealed that after Rawal's successful completion of the CET and physical measurement test, he qualified for the knowledge test.Shortly thereafter, he reported an incident where nine co-villagers allegedly attacked his family due to local factional disputes. This led to the registration of FIR No.232 on September 26, 2024, at the Panipat Police Station, invoking Sections 115, 126, 190, 191(3) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) against the accused individuals.The authorities lodged a cross FIR (FIR No. 234 dated September 28, 2024 under Sections 109(1), 115, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2) of BNS) at the Panipat Police Station against Rawal and his family members, two days after the incident occurred.Subsequently, Rawal initiated legal proceedings (CRM-M-18856-2025) to nullify FIR No. 234, citing a compromise agreement as the basis.Through an order dated May 19, 2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court invalidated the aforementioned FIR based on the compromise reached between parties.Also Read | Rs 8 lakh cash deposited in bank - man gets tax notice! Assessing officer deems it presumptive business income, but taxpayer wins case in ITAT - ruling explainedPrior to the FIR's dismissal, the Haryana Staff Selection Commission had published the selected candidates' list on October 17, 2024, valid for one year. Police authorities notified him of his selection on November 11, 2024 and November 20, 2024, requesting him to commence service.Due to his judicial custody, his family requested an extension. Rawal submitted a personal request for extension through correspondence dated March 7, 2025.On July 16, 2025, the DGP transmitted Rawal's letter to the Superintendent of Police, instructing consideration of his case according to Rule 12.18 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to the state of Haryana).The Superintendent of Police, respondent No.3, declined the candidate's application, citing government directives dated September 13, 2019, which stipulate a 30-day maximum period for assuming duties in fresh appointments. The state counsel of Haryana clarified to the court that the pending FIR or arrest were not the grounds for withholding the appointment letter. The rejection stemmed from the candidate's non-compliance with the 30-day joining window from the notification date.The state representative indicated that the joining notification was issued on November 20, 2024. Subsequently, the candidate's father submitted a written request on March 7, 2025, seeking an extension of the joining date.

The government guidelines dated September 13, 2019, explicitly limit the joining period to 30 days.Also Read | Landlord vs tenant eviction case: Supreme Court rules in favour of landlord despite tenant’s son not signing rent receipts - here’s what the ruling meansThe state counsel emphasised that the petitioner's inability to join within the prescribed 30-day timeframe invalidated any subsequent attempts to assume the position. The respondent must adhere to state government regulations, which consequently prevents the petitioner from joining.On October 13, 2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court issued a ruling in Rawal's favour.

Why the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled in the candidate’s favour

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its ruling (CWP-28252-2025), clarified that Rule 12.18 of PPR addresses circumstances when candidates face criminal implications. The court noted that the State counsel acknowledged that the petitioner (Rawal) was not affected by any negative conditions outlined in this Rule. His appointment was rejected solely because he failed to join within the stipulated 30-day period after receiving the appointment letter.The High Court observed that the respondent (government) denied the petitioner (Rawal) from joining service based on aforementioned directives, which were not statutory in nature.The court highlighted that Rule 12.18 of Punjab Police Rules (PPR) specifically deals with situations where candidates are implicated in criminal matters. However, the negative provisions of this Rule did not apply to the petitioner's (Rawal) situation.The High Court of Punjab and Haryana stated: "It is a settled proposition of law that instructions are binding on authorities, however, Courts are not bound by instructions."The High Court noted that rule 12.18(3) of PPR specifically addresses the current situation and does not mandate a 30-day joining period. The court observed that without statutory provisions, departmental guidelines could be considered directory rather than mandatory, additionally noting that courts are not bound by departmental directives.The Court expressed its considered view that the 30-day period specified in the instructions should not be applied in a rigid manner.The High Court asserted: "The difficulty of the candidate must be considered holistically and pragmatically. The instructions cannot be treated as sacrosanct to deny substantive benefit of appointment. It is a well known fact that there is scarcity of jobs in the country. The petitioner has cleared a rigorous selection process, thus, it would not be just and fair to deny him job opportunity on account of procedural lapse/delay.

"In its deliberation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court issued the following directive: "In the wake of the above factual position, this Court is of the considered opinion that impugned order deserves to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The respondent is hereby directed to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner within two weeks from today and permit him to join subject to compliance of other terms and conditions of the appointment letter.

Allowed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of."Also Read | Income Tax department doubts Rs 10 lakh gift - brother gets tax notice for cash received from sisters; how he appealed & won the case