Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Kumar And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 11 March, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034830
2024:PHHC:034830
CWP-626-2020 -1-
237
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
***
CWP-626-2020
Date of Decision: 11.03.2024
Sandeep Kumar and others ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. Mukul Goyal, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Kapil Bansal, D.A.G., Haryana.
Ms. Nikita Goel, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.3 to 5.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present is a writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the final recommendation list published on
09.03.2019 (Annexure P-4 to P-7) vide which result has been declared for
2426 posts of Shift Attendant advertised through Advt. No.3/2016 is in
complete violation of the Reservation Policy dated 23.01.2013 and therefore,
have prayed that the names of such candidates should be removed from the
recommendation list and only those candidates may be considered eligible
under the New Reservation Scheme of EBPG category who earlier had not
taken the benefit of this EBPG category with further prayer for issuance of a
writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to consider the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034830
2024:PHHC:034830
candidature of the petitioners for the post of Shift Attendant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset stated that he
wishes to press the present petition qua petitioners No.1 & 2 only.
3. It has been brought to the notice of the Court by the learned
State Counsel that there are seven petitioners in the present petition and out
of them, petitioners No.3 to 6 filed another writ petition i.e. CWP-20307-
2021 after filing of the present petition seeking the same relief and the
aforesaid second petition filed along with some other petitioners, which has
already been disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on
10.01.2023.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Nigam has also submitted
that in the aforesaid second writ petition which was filed by the aforesaid
four petitioners of the present petition i.e. petitioners No.3 to 6, they did not
even disclose the pendency of the present petition and for the same relief,
the second writ petition was filed, which has now been disposed of by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that he has also
perused the second petition filed by the aforesaid four petitioners and the
relief claimed in both the petitions is same. He further submitted that in fact
he has been instructed only by the petitioners No.1 & 2 to press the present
petition and petitioners No.3 to 7 had instructed him to withdraw the present
petition in the year 2020 only before they had filed the second petition but
inadvertently the application for withdrawal of the present petition qua them
could not be filed because of the Covid-19 Pandemic.
6. In view of the aforesaid position and the statement made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners, the present petition is dismissed qua
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034830
2024:PHHC:034830
petitioner Nos.3 to 7.
7. So far as the relief claimed in the present petition is concerned,
both the learned counsel for the respondents as well as the learned counsel
for the petitioners have stated that the aforesaid writ petition bearing CWP-
20307-2021 has been disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on
10.01.2023 and the prayer of the present two petitioners would also be
covered by the aforesaid judgment. They submitted that in the aforesaid
judgment a statement was made by the learned counsel for the respondent-
Corporation that the petitioners would be permitted to join subject to
furnishing of an undertaking that they would be bound by the outcome of the
SLP which is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in that
eventuality, the petitioners would be bound by the undertaking and may not
raise any grievance thereafter. They further submitted that although present
two petitioners are in the waiting list but 14 selected candidates did not join
and the petitioners even if they are in the waiting list, they can be permitted
to join the Nigam and the learned counsel for the respondents-Nigam stated
that she has specific instructions to state that conditional joining can be
ordered in view of the aforesaid judgment dated 10.01.2023 and the present
petition can be disposed of in the same terms.
8. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the learned counsel for
the respondents-Nigam, the present petition is also disposed of in same
terms as that of CWP-20307-2021 qua the petitioners No.1 & 2 only.
11.03.2024 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
Bhumika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034830
3 of 3
