Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rozy Dhillon And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 25 April, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056272-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:056272-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(107) LPA-1636-2023 (O&M)
Decided on : 25.04.2024
Rozy Dhillon and others
......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and others
......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr. Maninder Arora, Advocate and
Mr. Harshit Singh, Advocate for the appellant (s).
Mr. Saurav Khurana, Addl. AG, Punjab.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
Second challenge has been raised to the order of learned Single
Judge dated 29.09.2020 passed in CWP-15667-2020. Firstly, LPA-118-2023
had been filed, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.04.2023 with liberty
to file an application to seek review before the learned Single Judge. RA-CW-
210-2023 was dismissed on 07.07.2023 and, thereafter the present appeal has
been filed on 18.09.2023. It is in such circumstances, the delay of 1054 days
which has taken place is liable to be condoned. It is, accordingly, submitted
that from the date when the review application was dismissed, the delay is
much less, since the present appeal after the decision in the review application
was filed only on 18.09.2023 and, thus, since only period of 30 days is
provided, delay is liable to be condoned. The explanation given is sufficient
cause, since apparently the appellants were agitating for their grivances in
accordance with law.
2. However, on merits we feel that there is no tangible reason for us
to interfere in the selection process in question of Arts and Crafts
Instructor, which was initiated on 01.03.2013. The appellants for the first time
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056272-DB
LPA-1636-2023 (O&M) -2-
approached the Writ Court after a span of 7 ½ years, which is the primary
reason which weighed with the learned Single Judge while placing reliance
upon the judgemnt of State of Uttaranchal and another Vs. Sri Shiv
Charan Singh Bhandari and others, (2013) 12 SCC 179who did not go into
the merits of the case and dismissed the writ petition in limine.
3. Counsel for the appellants has submitted that they were high in
the merit and on account of delay as such and criminal prosecution against the
recruiting agency, they were outsted. Be that as it may, but the appellants can
be safely termed as 'fence sitters'. We are informed that some candidates had
filed writ petitions in the year 2013 itself and directions had been issued in
various cases including CWP-27994-2013 'Amandeep Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and another' on 21.08.2018.
4. In such circumstances, keeping in view the fact that selection
process cannot be kept open for all times to come and, therefore, fresh
advertisement would have been issued and posts would have been filled up in
pursuance of the same. Thus, the learned Single Judge was well within his
discretion not to exercise the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, on the principles laid down in the above said
judgment.
5. Resultantly, we do not find any tangible reason to open up the
Pandora's Box at this stage and the present letters patent appeal is hereby
dismissed. All pending civil miscellaneous applications also stand disposed
of.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
25.04.2024 JUDGE
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
2 of 2
