Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 11 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146258
CWP-29169-2024 1
285
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-29169-2024
Date of Decision:11.11.2024
BALWINDER SINGH ......... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramandeep Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order
dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure P-16) whereby his claim seeking
appointment against the post meant for General Category candidate has
been declined.
2. The petitioner pursuant to advertisement No.5 of 2021
applied for the post of Computer/Digital Forensics Officer (CDFO). The
respondent rejected all the candidates on the ground of lack of
experience. The matter came up for consideration before this Court in
CWP No.1971 of 2024 titled as 'Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab
and others' and other connected cases. This Court considering stand of
both sides issued following directions:
"36. From the above discussion, it comes out that in
the advertisement multiple 'terms and conditions'
were jotted down. In case of other posts 'experience'
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146258
was directly linked with the post but it was not so in
case of ITA/ITO/CDFO. The recruitment board after
scrutiny of documents initially accepted experience of
short-listed candidates and issued provisional select
list. The experience prescribed for the post of ITO/ITA
and CDFO is same. The respondent has accepted
same experience for the posts of ITO/ITA and rejected
for the post of CDFO. Post of ITO is feeder cadre of
CDFO. No oral/practical test was prescribed and
written test comprised of different subjects directly
linked with post. There is no material disclosing that
candidature of everyone was rejected in the public
interest. The petitioners cleared written test and they
were wielding experience linked with educational
qualification, thus, right of legitimate expectation
accrued to them. The respondent after releasing
provisional list of selected candidates decided to link
experience with post which culminating in rejection of
all the candidates.
37. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this
Court finds that rejection of all the candidates on the
basis of criteria evolved after release of provisional
list was contrary to terms & conditions of the
advertisement and doctrine of legitimate expectation
recognized by Supreme Court. The respondent was
duty bound to complete recruitment process as per
advertisement. Thus, the respondents are hereby
directed to reconsider case of all the short-listed
candidates as per terms and conditions of the
advertisement. The needful shall be done within 2
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order."
3. Pursuant to aforesaid order, the respondent has selected 5
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146258
candidates. The petitioner has concededly secured marks which make
him eligible for the post under General Category, however, he has been
rejected on the ground that he had applied under EWS Category.
4. On being confronted with recent judgment of Supreme Court
in 'Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah and others Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and others' 2024 AIR Supreme Court 4252, Mr. Ramandeep
Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab submits that claim of petitioner would be re-
considered by Competent Authority in the light of directions issued by
Supreme Court.
5. In the wake of statement of Mr. Ramandeep Singh, Sr. DAG,
Punjab, the present petition stands disposed of with a direction to
respondent to pass an appropriate order within 1 month from today.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
11.11.2024
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
