Malkeet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 18755 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Malkeet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 22 October, 2024

                                         Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137868



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH



                                         CWP No. 13231 of 2024
                                         Date of Decision: 22.10.2024

Malkeet Singh
                                                       ....Petitioner

                                         vs.

State of Punjab and others
                                                       ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL


Present:     Mr. Anmol Puri, Advocate and
             Mr. Shreesh Kakkar, Advocate
             for the petitioner

             Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab

               ***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of proceedings of meeting

dated 06.03.2023 (Annexure P-10) and direction to respondents to issue him

certificate to claim reservation.

2. The petitioner joined Punjab Police as a Constable on

04.05.1989. He, during terrorism in the State of Punjab, was posted as

gunman with Senior Superintendent of Police, Majitha. He participated in

various encounters with terrorists while performing duty as gunman with

S.S.P., Majitha. State Government has formulated policy dated 11.06.1996

providing 2% reservation to wards of police personnel.

3. The petitioner pursuant to reservation policy made

representation to respondents to issue him certificate so that his son may

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137868

claim benefit of 2% reservation. The respondents in its meeting dated

06.03.2023 have rejected his claim.

4. This Court while deciding CWP No. 25893 of 2021 titled as

"Sukhdeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others" has considered

entitlement of wards of police personnel viz-a-viz policy dated 11.06.1996

and circular dated 12.09.2016 issued by State Government.

5. On being confronted with the aforesaid judgment, counsel for

the petitioner expressed his inability to controvert the fact that claim of the

petitioner does not fall within four corners of aforesaid policy.

6. Dismissed.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 22.10.2024 paramjit

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No

2 of 2