Punjab-Haryana High Court
Spo Baljit Singh No.266A/Ac vs State Of Pb.And Ors on 15 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050212
CWP-3491-1999 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:050212
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
207 CWP-3491-1999 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.04.2024
SPO BALJIT SINGH NO.266A/AC ....PETITIONER
Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate and
Mr. Rahul Vohra, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. R. Kartikeya Iyer, Advocate
for respondent No. 10.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of appointment of respondent
nos. 6 to 11 as Constable and direct the respondents to appoint him as Constable
prior to date of appointment of private respondents.
2. On 07.03.2024, the following order was passed:
"Status report by way of affidavit dated 06.03.2024 of
Surinder Kumar PPS, Superintendent of Police, Headquarters,
Gurdaspur filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5 is taken on
record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.
As per reply, petitioner on 10.05.1985 joined Punjab Home
Guard. As per Annexure P-5, the DGP recommended him for the
post of Constable. As per reply, the petitioner was assigned SPO
number 422 on 23.03.1994 and he was recruited as Constable in
3rd Indian Reserve Battalion and assigned constabulary number
80/422 but he did not join.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050212
CWP-3491-1999 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:050212
This Court in Bunch of petitions in CWP No. 7451 of 1996
titled as 'Lal Mohd. and others vs. State of Punjab' directed the
respondents to consider case of all the SPOs for recruitment as
Constable. The respondent constituted a Central Recruitment Board
and all the SPOs from time to time were subjected to suitability test.
The petitioner participated in the process and was found unsuitable
on account of being overage. The petitioner was finally appointed
as Constable w.e.f. 04.05.2010. He at present is working as Senior
Constable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to address
further arguments.
Adjourned to 15.04.2024."
3. Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate expressed his inability to controvert the
averment made in afore-stated affidavit dated 06.03.2024.
4. From the affidavit and submissions of both sides, it is evident that
petitioner joined as SPO on 23.03.1994 and he was recruited as Constable and
assigned constabulary number 80/422 but did not join. He was time to time
considered for appointment as Constable, however, he could not fulfill requisite
parameters and ultimately after granting age relaxation, was appointed as
Constable w.e.f. 04.05.2010 and at present is working as Senior Constable.
5. There is no infirmity in the order of appointment of private
respondents. The respondent has not discriminated anyone. The respondent in
the light of judgment of this Court in Lal Mohd (Supra) considered case of all
the SPOs and extended equal opportunity to everyone. The persons, who were
selected as Constable in terms of aforesaid judgment, were granted seniority
prior to their juniors. However, petitioner could not fulfill basic parameters,
thus, at the initial stage, he could not be appointed as Constable. The respondent
extending age relaxation has appointed him Constable w.e.f. 04.05.2010 and at
present he is working as Senior Constable.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050212
CWP-3491-1999 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:050212
6. In the wake of above discussion and findings, the present petition
stands disposed of.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
15.04.2024 [JAGMOHAN BANSAL]
manoj JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
