Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manpreet Singh And Another vs Inder Preet Singh Sahota on 30 March, 2022
[239] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
[1] COCP No.2226 of 2021
Date of Decision : 30.03.2022
Manpreet Singh and another ...Petitioners
Versus
Inder Preet Singh Sahota, Director General
of Police, Chandigarh ....Respondent
[2] COCP No.1951 of 2021
Jaswant Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Vini Mahajan, Secretary, Department of
Home Affairs, Punjab and another ....Respondents
[3] COCP No.2178 of 2021
Birbal Singh and another ...Petitioners
Versus
Anurag Verma, Principal Secretary, Department
of Home Affairs and Justice, Govt. of Punjab,
Chandigarh and another ....Respondents
[4] COCP No.2180 of 2021
Arjun Singh Gill ...Petitioner
Versus
Anurag Verma, Principal Secretary, Department of
Home Affairs and Justice, Govt. of Punjab and another ....Respondents
[5] COCP No.2186 of 2021
Mintu Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Anirudh Tiwari, Chief Secretary, Govt. of
Punjab and another ....Respondents
1 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 19:10:41 :::
COCP No.2226 of 2021 and connected cases -2-
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Walia
Present : Mr. Baljinder Singh Ichhewal, Advocate
for the petitioners in COCP No.2226 of 2021.
Mr. Damanjeet Bhoriwal, Advocate for the petitioner
in COCP No.1951 of 2021.
Mr. Sardavinder Goyal, Advocate with
Mr. Raj Kumar Selwan, Advocate for the petitioners
in COCP Nos.2178, 2180 & 2186 of 2021.
Ms. Deepali Puri, Addl. AG, Punjab.
***
B.S. Walia, J. (Oral)
[1] This order shall decide COCP Nos. 2226, 1951, 2178, 2180,
& 2186 of 2021 as the grievance in all petitions is of violation of common
judgment in CWP No. 2295 of 2016.
[2] Facts of the case are being taken from COCP No.2226/ 2021.
[3] Prayer in the instant petition is for initiating action against
the respondent for intentional and willful defiance of order
Annexure P-1, dated 05.07.2021 in CWP No.20390 of 2020.
[4] Learned counsel contends that CWP No.20390 of 2020 was
disposed of vide order, Annexure P-1, dated 05.07.2021 by directing
re-measurement of the height of the petitioners in terms of the decision in
CWP No.23875 of 2016 in case titled as 'Sonu Singh versus State of
Haryana and others'.
[5] Learned counsel contends that the instant petition was filed
on account of failure of the respondents to do the needful in terms of
orders dated 05.07.2021 in CWP No.20390 of 2020 which was disposed
2 of 3
COCP No.2226 of 2021 and connected cases -3-
of in terms of the decision in CWP No.22985 of 2016.
[6] Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent. Learned
Addl. AG, Punjab on the basis of reply as well as Annexure R-1,
contends that there is no change in the height of the petitioners on
re-measurement through digital stadiometer, consequentially there is no
change in the total marks awarded to the petitioners, resultantly the
petitioners do not fall in the selection zone. Copy of the reply has
already been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioners, who on
perusal of order (Annexure R-1) state that in view of re-measurement of
the height of the petitioners having been got carried out by the respondent
with a digital stadiometer and there being no change in the total marks
awarded to the petitioners pursuant to re-measurement, consequentially,
the petitioners not falling in the selection zone, the petitioners do not
press the instant petition but pray for liberty to challenge re-measurement
of their height carried out by the respondent by way of appropriate
proceedings, in accordance with law.
[7] The same is not opposed to by the learned State Counsel.
[8] In view of the above, as well as statement of learned counsel
for the petitioners, the instant petition is disposed of as not calling for any
action against the respondent(s) under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
while granting liberty to the petitioners, as prayed for.
[9] Rule discharged.
(B.S. Walia)
Judge
30.03.2022
'Rajneesh'
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
