[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hemant Kumar vs State Of Punjab & Others on 14 January, 2026
CWP-36259-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
105 CWP-36259-2025
Date of Decision: 14.01.2026
Hemant Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: - Mr. Munish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. Reply by way of additional affidavit dated 13.01.2026 of
Mr. Charanjit Singh, I.P.S., Assistant Inspector General of Police,
Intelligence, Headquarter, Punjab is taken on record. Registry is directed to
tag the same at an appropriate place.
2. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is seeking quashing of Clause 28(b) of Standing Order
No.10 of 2016 dated 06.09.2016 which provides that relative merit of
candidates having equal marks shall be determined on the basis of
percentage of marks obtained in graduation. He is further seeking directions
to respondents to revise merit list of candidates selected as Intelligence
Officer in the Intelligence Cadre of Punjab Police against Advertisement
No.2 of 2016 dated 08.09.2016.
1 of 18
3. The petitioner, pursuant to Advertisement No.2 of 2016 dated
08.09.2016, applied for the post of Intelligence Officer. He cleared all the
prescribed stages of recruitment. The respondent issued provisional list of
selected candidates on 26.12.2016. Few candidates preferred CWP No.365 of
2017 before this Court. On account of interim orders of this Court, the
respondent could not fill vacancies, out of waiting list candidates, arising on
account of non-joining of selected candidates. The petitioner preferred CWP
No.19529 of 2017 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated
19.07.2019. In view of orders of this Court, the petitioner was issued
appointment letter dated 22.01.2020. He joined service on 30.01.2020. The
selection process of 2016 was based upon Standing Order No.10 of 2016
issued by respondent No.4. As per Clause 28(b) of Standing Order, if there
are equal marks of candidates, their relative merit shall be prepared on the
basis of percentage of marks obtained in graduation. The respondent has
determined merit list on the basis of marks in the graduation where
candidates have obtained equal marks. The petitioner is elder to candidates
who figured at Serial Nos.41 to 58, however, his seniority has been
determined on the basis of marks of graduation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Clause 28(b) of
Standing Order is contrary to Punjab Civil Services (General and Common
Conditions of Services) Rules, 1994 (for short '1994 Rules'). As per Punjab
Intelligence Cadre (Group 'C') Services Rules, 2015 (for short 'Intelligence
Cadre Rules'), matters which are not specifically provided in the Rules are
governed by 1994 Rules. As per Rule 8 of 1994 Rules, in case persons
recruited by direct recruitment obtain equal marks, their inter se seniority is
2 of 18
determined on the basis of their age. The respondent could not determine
merit on the basis of marks obtained in graduation. 1994 Rules clearly
provide that where two candidates have scored equal marks, their merit shall
be determined on the basis of age. The standing order cannot run contrary to
statutory provisions. Director General of Police, Punjab has power to issue
Standing Order with respect to recruitment of subordinates, however,
Standing Order must flow within the banks of Punjab Police Act, 2007 (for
short '2007 Act') as well as Rules made thereunder. The aforesaid clause
was contrary to 1994 Rules, thus, is liable to be declared invalid. The
respondent in subsequent recruitments has adopted criteria of age which
vindicates stand of the petitioner.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that as per terms and
conditions of the advertisement particularly Clauses 10 & 17(iv), the
petitioner was supposed to go through instructions enumerated in Standing
Order No.10/2016. He cannot challenge terms and conditions underscored in
the Standing Order after participating in the selection process and joining
service. He joined service in 2020 against advertisement of 2016. He
remained silent for five years even after joining service. There is no
contradiction between impugned clause and 1994 Rules. The recruitment of
petitioner was further governed by Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short
'PPR') and as per Rule 12.2(3) of the said Rules, the department is bound
by order of merit determined by Recruitment Board. Rule 8 of 1994 Rules
as pointed out by petitioner is inapplicable.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the record.
3 of 18
7. From the perusal of record and arguments of both sides,
following questions arise for the consideration of this Court: -
i. Whether challenge to terms and conditions of Standing
Order after participating in the selection process is
permissible?
ii. Whether Clause 28(b) of Standing Order No.10/2016
issued by Director General of Police, Punjab is contrary
to Punjab Civil Services (General and Common
Conditions of Services) Rules, 1994?
Question No.1 Whether challenge to terms and conditions of
Standing Order after participating in the selection process is
permissible?
8. A two Judge Bench of Apex Court in Tajvir Singh Sodhi and
Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others 2023 SCC OnLine SC
344 has held that candidates, having taken part in the selection process
without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been
declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the
same time. A candidate cannot allege that selection process was unfair or
there was some lacuna in the process just because selection process was not
palatable to a candidate.
9. The petitioner indubitably participated in the selection process
which was initiated in terms of advertisement. As laid down by Supreme
Court in above noted judgment, no one after participating in the selection
process can be heard to challenge advertisement, however, it is settled law
4 of 18
that no candidate can be stopped from challenging validity of the rules or
instructions made thereunder on the ground that rules/instructions are
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
10. The Supreme Court in Somesh Thapliyal and another v. Vice
Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal University and another, (2021) 10 SCC 116
has adverted to challenge to terms and conditions of advertisement or
appointment letter by a candidate after his selection. The Court opined that
employer is always in a dominating position, thus, in case of public
employment, terms and conditions are subject to judicial scrutiny. The
relevant extracts of the said judgment read as:
"42. The submissions of the learned counsel for the
respondents that the appellants have accepted the terms and
conditions contained in the letter of appointment deserves
rejection for the reason that it is not open for a person
appointed in public employment to ordinarily choose the
terms and conditions of which he is required to serve. It goes
without saying that employer is always in a dominating
position and it is open to the employer to dictate the terms of
employment. The employee who is at the receiving end can
hardly complain of arbitrariness in the terms and conditions
of employment. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact
that if an employee takes initiation in questioning the terms
and conditions of employment, that would cost his/her job
itself.
43. The bargaining power is vested with the employer
itself and the employee is left with no option but to accept the
conditions dictated by the authority. If that being the reason,
it is open for the employee to challenge the conditions if it is
not being in conformity with the statutory requirement under
the law and he is not estopped from questioning at a stage
where he finds himself aggrieved."
5 of 18
11. A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Munindra Kumar
and others v. Rajiv Govil and others, (1991) 3 SCC 368 has held that
candidates who have remained unsuccessful in the selection process cannot
be estopped from challenging the Rules which are arbitrary and violative of
Article 14 of Constitution of India. The relevant extracts of the judgment
read as:
"10. ...................... It may be noted that Rajeev Govil,
Vivek Aggarwal and Gyanendra Srivastava who remained
unsuccessful had filed the writ petitions after taking chance
and fully knowing the percentage of marks kept for interview
and group discussion. It is no doubt correct that they cannot
be estopped from challenging the rule which is arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, but in modulating
the relief, their conduct and the equities of those who have
been selected are the relevant considerations."
12. A two-Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Abhimeet Sinha and
others v. High Court of Judicature at Patna and others, (2024) 7 SCC 262
has adverted to question of maintainability of writ petition after participating
in the selection process. The Court has clearly held that principle of estoppel
cannot override the law. To non-suit the writ petitioner at the threshold
would hardly be reasonable particularly when the alleged deficiency in the
process could be gauged only by participating in the selection process. The
relevant extracts of the judgment read as under:
"IV. Maintainability
35. At the outset, it is apposite to address the issue of the
maintainability of the writ petitions. It is argued by Mr.
Gautam Narayan and Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, learned
counsel that after having participated in the recruitment
process, the writ petitioners having not succeeded, cannot
turn around and challenge the recruitment process or the
6 of 18
vires of the Recruitment Rules. It is submitted that all
candidates knew about the prescription of minimum marks for
viva voce, well before the selection process commenced and
the principle of estoppel will operate against the unsuccessful
challengers. On the other hand, the learned counsel
representing the writ petitioners argued that the principle of
estoppel would have no application when there are glaring
illegalities in the selection process. Further, estoppel is not
applicable when the arbitrariness affects fundamental rights
under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
36. As argued by the learned counsel for the High Courts,
the legal position is that after participating in the recruitment
process, the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn around and
challenge the recruitment process. However, it is also settled
that the principle of estoppel cannot override the law. Such
legal principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Meeta
Sahai v. State of Bihar (2019) 20 SCC 17 wherein it was
observed as under:
"17. However, we must differentiate from this
principle insofar as the candidate by agreeing to
participate in the selection process only accepts the
prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. In a
situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of
statutory rules and discriminating consequences
arising therefrom, the same cannot be condoned
merely because a candidate has partaken in it. The
constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in
any manner is impermissible. In fact, a candidate may
not have locus to assail the incurable illegality or
derogation of the provisions of the Constitution, unless
he/she participates in the selection process.
37. Guided by the above ratio, in matters like this, to non-suit
the writ petitioners at the threshold would hardly be
reasonable particularly when the alleged deficiencies in the
process could be gauged only by participation in the selection
process."
7 of 18
13. From the perusal of above-quoted judgments, it is quite evident
that a candidate cannot be estopped from assailing clause(s) of
advertisement which are arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The petitioner in the present case is assailing one
clause of the Standing Order on the ground that it is contrary to applicable
Rules, meaning thereby, question of validity of the clause is involved. As he
is assailing one clause of the Standing Order which prima facie seems to be
contrary to 1994 Rules, the petition cannot be rejected at threshold. The
matter needs to be examined on merits. It is further apposite to record that
petitioner is assailing one clause of Standing Order which in no
circumstance could be challenged before his selection. Cause of action arose
after selection of candidates. The petitioner prior to his selection could not
conceive or contemplate that he would score marks equal to other candidates
and question of seniority would arise. Thus, writ petition is maintainable.
Question No.2 Whether Clause 28(b) of Standing Order No.10/2016
issued by Director General of Police, Punjab is contrary to Punjab Civil
Services (General and Common Conditions of Services) Rules, 1994?
14. Concededly, the petitioner pursuant to advertisement of 2016
applied for the post of Intelligence Officer. The respondent issued
provisional list of selected candidates on 26.12.2016. Name of petitioner
figured in the waiting list. On account of writ petitions filed by different
candidates, the waiting list could not be effectuated. The petitioner preferred
writ petition before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated
19.07.2019. In view of orders of this Court, he was issued appointment letter
dated 22.01.2020. He joined service on 30.01.2020. The respondent
8 of 18
determined merit list on the basis of marks in the graduation where
candidates scored equal marks. The petitioner is elder to candidates who
figured at Serial Nos.41 to 58, however, has been made junior in the merit
list on the basis of marks of graduation. The respondent on the basis of
Clause 28 (b) of aforesaid Standing Order has considered marks of
graduation instead of age where candidates scored equal marks. For the
ready reference, Clause 28 of the Standing Order is reproduced as below:
"28. While preparing the Final Merit List, in the event of
two candidates securing equal marks, the following tie-
resolution criteria shall be adopted:
(a) In the event of the candidates having equal total
marks their relative merit shall be prepared on
the basis of marks obtained in the Written
Examination and the candidate having higher
marks in the Written examination shall be
placed higher in the Final Merit List.
(b) In the event of the candidates having equal
total marks, equal marks in Written
Examination (and consequently in the
Interview-cum-Personality Test), then their
relative merit shall be prepared on the basis of
percentage of marks obtained in graduation.
(c) In the event of the candidate having equal total
marks, equal marks in the Written Examination
and Interview-cum-Personality Test, equal
percentage of marks obtained in graduation,
then the candidate senior in age shall be put
higher in merit.
(d) In the event of all of above being the same,
candidate having smaller Roll Number shall be
placed higher in the Merit List."
[Emphasis Supplied]
9 of 18
15. The petitioner is claiming that aforesaid clause is contrary to
Rule 8 of 1994 Rules. The Governor of the Punjab in exercise of power
conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution of India read with Section 80 of
2007 Act has framed Intelligence Cadre Rules. These Rules govern different
aspects of service including recruitment, promotion, discipline, punishment.
Expression 'Service' has been defined under Rule 2(j) of these rules. As per
said rule, 'Service' means Punjab Intelligence Cadre (Group 'C') Service.
Rule 14 provides that 1994 Rules shall be applicable in respect of matters
which are not specifically provided in these Rules. Rule 15 provides that
PPR shall be applicable to the members of service except Rules 13.21 and
21.25. Section 85 of 2007 Act provides that PPR shall remain in force. Rules
14 and 15 of Intelligence Cadre Rules and Sections 80 & 85 of 2007 Act
read as:
Rules 14 and 15 of Intelligence Cadre Rules
"14. Application of the Punjab Civil Services (General and
Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994.- (1) In respect
of the matters, which are not specifically provided in these
rules, the members of the Service shall be governed by the
Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of
Service) Rules, 1994, as amended from time to time.
(2) The Punjab Civil Services (General and
Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, at present in
force, are contained in Appendix 'E'.
15. Application of the rules.- For all other aspects the
Punjab Police Rules, 1934 shall be applicable to the members
of Service except rules 13.21 and 21.25.
Provided that any order issued or any action taken
under the aforesaid rules, shall be deemed to have been made
or taken under the provisions of these rules."
10 of 18
Section 80 of 2007 Act
"80. (1) The State Government shall, by notification in the
Official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the purposes of
this Act, within one year from the date on which this Act,
come into force.
(2) Every rule made under this Act, shall be laid, as soon
as may be, after it is made, before the House of the State
Legislature, while it is in session, for a total period of
fourteen days, which may be comprised in one session or in
two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of
the session in which it is so laid or the successive sessions as
aforesaid, the House agrees in making any modification in
the rules, or the House agrees, that the rules should not be
made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such
modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be, so,
however, that any such modification or annulment shall be
without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done
or omitted to be done under that rule."
Section 85 of 2007 Act
"85. The Punjab Police Rules, 1934, framed under the
Police Act, 1861 (Central Act 5 of 1861), shall remain in
force, unless those rules are specifically superseded."
16. In view of Rule 14 of Intelligence Cadre Rules, Punjab Civil
Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 are
applicable to members of Intelligence Cadre. The petitioner is relying upon
Rule 8 of 1994 Rules to contend that impugned clause is contrary to 1994
Rules which reads as:
"8. Seniority - The seniority inter se of persons appointed to
posts in each cadre of a Service shall be determined by the
length of continuous service on such post in that cadre of the
Service.
Provided that in the case of persons recruited by direct
appointment who join within the period specified in the order
11 of 18
of appointment or within such period as may be extended
from time to time by the appointing authority subject to a
maximum of four Months from the date of order of
appointment the order of merit determined by the
Commission or the Board, as the case may be, shall not be
disturbed:
Provided further that in case a person is permitted to
join the post after the expiry of the said period of four months
in consultation with the Commission or the Board, as the case
may be, his seniority shall be determined from the date he
joins the post:
Provided further that in case any person of the next
selection has joined a post in the cadre of the concerned
Service before the person referred to in the preceding proviso
joins, the person so referred shall be placed below all the
persons of the next selection who join within the time
specified in the first proviso:
Provided further that in the case of two or more
persons appointed on the same date, their seniority shall be
determined as follows:-
(a) a person appointed by direct appointment shall
be senior to a person appointed otherwise;
(b) a person appointed by promotion shall be
senior to a person appointed by transfer;
(c) in the case of persons appointed by promotion
or transfer, the seniority shall be determined
according to the seniority of such persons in the
appointments from which they were promoted
or transferred; and
(d) in the case of persons appointed by transfer
from different cadres their seniority shall be
determined according to pay, preference being
given to a person who was drawing a higher
rate of pay in his previous appointment; and if
the rates of pay drawn are also the same, then
12 of 18
by their length of service in these appointments
and if the length of service is also the same, an
older person shall be senior to a younger
person:
Provided further that in the case of persons recruited
by direct appointment in the same cadre obtaining equal
marks during same selection process, their inter-se-seniority
shall be determined on the basis of their age. That is, an older
person shall be senior to the younger person.
Note:- Seniority of persons appointed on purely provisional
basis or on ad hoc basis shall be determined as and when
they are regularly appointed keeping in view the dates of such
regular appointment."
[Emphasis Supplied]
17. The respondent is relying upon Rule 12.2(3) of PPR in support
of its contention that impugned clause is not invalid and 1994 Rules are
inapplicable. Rule 12.2(3) of PPR is reproduced as below:
"(3) Seniority:- The Seniority inter se of persons appointed to
posts in each cadre of a service shall be determined by the
length of continuous service on such post in that cadre of the
service:
Provided that in the case of persons recruited by direct
appointment, who join within the period specified in the order
of appointment or within such period as may be extended
from time to time by the appointing authority subject to a
maximum of four months from the date of order of
appointment, the order of merit determined by the
Commissioner or the Board, as the case may be, shall not be
disturbed:
Provided further that in case a person is permitted to
join the post after the expiry of the said period of four months
in consultation with the Commission or the Board, as the case
may be, his seniority shall be determined from the date he
joins the post:
13 of 18
Provided further that in case any person of the next
selection has joined a post in the cadre of the concerned
Service before the person referred to in the preceding
proviso, joins, the person so referred shall be placed below
all the persons of the next selection, who join within the time
specified in the first proviso:
Provided further that in the case of two or more
persons appointed on the date, their seniority shall be
determined as follows :-
(a) A person appointed by direct appointment shall
be senior to a person appointed otherwise;
(b) A person appointed by promotion shall be
senior to a person appointed by transfer;
(c) In the case of persons appointed by promotion
or transfer, the seniority shall be determined
according to the seniority of such persons in the
appointments from which they were promoted
or transferred; and
(d) In the case of persons appointed by transfer
from different cadres, their seniority shall be
determined according to pay, preference being
given to a person who was drawing a higher
rate of pay in his previous appointment, and if
the rates of pay drawn are also the same, then
by their length of service in these appointments
and if the length of service is also the same, an
older person shall be senior to younger person.
Note:- Seniority of persons appointed on purely provisional
basis or on ad hoc basis shall be determined as and when
they are regularly appointed keeping in view the date of such
regular appointment."
18. Perusal of above-cited provisions which counsel for the parties,
during the course of hearing, vehemently relied upon reveals that in case of
persons recruited by direct recruitment who join service within the period
14 of 18
specified in the order of appointment or within such period as may be
extended from time to time by the appointing authority, the order of merit
determined by the Commission or Board shall not be disturbed. It means
decision of Commission or Board with respect to initial seniority shall be
final.
19. The State Government by notification dated 19.01.2016
inserted proviso in Rule 8 of 1994 Rules which provides that in case persons
recruited by direct appointment in the same cadre obtain equal marks during
same selection process, their inter se seniority shall be determined on the
basis of their age. At the cost of repetition, said proviso is reproduced as
below:
"Provided further that in the case of persons recruited
by direct appointment in the same cadre obtaining equal
marks during same selection process, their inter-se-seniority
shall be determined on the basis of their age. That is, an older
person shall be senior to the younger person."
The aforesaid proviso is entirely different from Rule 12.2(3) of
PPR. As per said proviso, it is evident beyond the pale of doubt that persons
recruited by direct appointment obtaining equal marks would be subjected to
inter se seniority on the basis of their age. An older person shall be senior to
younger one . Main Rule 8 provides that seniority inter se of persons shall be
determined by the length of continuous service on such post in that cadre of
the service. It means if two persons join on different dates, the one who joins
earlier in time would be senior. Proviso to said Rule makes it clear that if
two persons who have been issued appointment letter with respect to same
selection process join on different dates, however, within specified period,
their seniority would be determined on the basis of merit determined by
15 of 18
Commission or Board, meaning thereby, if a senior in merit joins later in
time, however within prescribed period, he would remain senior in the
seniority list. Last proviso inserted by notification dated 19.01.2016 made it
clear that inter se seniority of candidates who have obtained equal marks
shall be determined on the basis of their age. The impugned clause is
contrary to aforesaid proviso if it is held that 1994 Rules are applicable to
recruitment of Intelligence Officers.
20. The respondent is claiming that Rule 12.2(3) of PPR is
applicable and 1994 Rules are inapplicable because Rule 12.2(3) specifically
deals with the situation. 1994 Rules are applicable where PPR is silent. PPR
is applicable even after introduction of 2007 Act. As per Section 85 of 2007
Act, PPR is applicable to police officers. Intelligence Cadre Rules are also
providing that PPR shall be applicable. In such circumstances, 1994 Rules
cannot be given preference over PPR. The impugned clause deals with
manner of determination of merit whereas proviso inserted by notification
dated 19.01.2016 deals with seniority. Merit entails selection whereas
seniority is determined as per length of service.
21. Contention of the State that 1994 Rules are inapplicable cannot
be countenanced. Rule 14 of Intelligence Cadre Rules specifically provides
that 1994 Rules shall be applicable in respect of matters which are not
specifically provided in Intelligence Cadre Rules. 1994 Rules are applicable
to members of Intelligence Cadre. PPR is applicable with respect to matters
which are not provided in Intelligence Cadre Rules as well as 1994 Rules.
Proviso inserted by notification dated 19.01.2016 in Rule 8 categorically
provides that age would be criteria for determination of seniority where two
16 of 18
candidates have scored equal marks in the same selection process. In the
Standing Order, the respondent has provided that merit would be prepared
on the basis of marks obtained in graduation where two candidates have
scored equal marks. Merit determined by Commission or Board forms basis
of determination of seniority. Candidates shown in the merit list get seniority
as per their serial number in the merit list. The impugned clause is in direct
contradiction to proviso inserted by notification dated 19.01.2016. It is
settled proposition of law that Government Instructions cannot be contrary
to Rules. Section 45 of 2007 Act itself provides that Standing Order shall not
be inconsistent with the Act as well as Rules made thereunder. The State
Government has issued Intelligence Cadre Rules in terms of Section 80 of
2007 Act and further made 1994 Rules applicable to members of
Intelligence Cadre. Indubitably, Intelligence Cadre Rules are silent with
respect to determination of seniority of candidates who have scored equal
marks in the direct selection process, thus, 1994 Rules are required to be
invoked. These Rules cannot be ignored. There is no question to rely upon
Rule 12.2 of PPR and ignore 1994 Rules. A conspectus of Rules 14 & 15 of
Intelligence Cadre Rules reveal that 1994 Rules are applicable to members
of Intelligence Cadre with respect to matters which are not covered by
Intelligence Cadre Rules.
22. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 12.2 which was substituted by Punjab
Government vide notification dated 28.02.2003 is pari materia to Rule 8 of
1994 Rules. The State Government consciously inserted proviso to Rule 8 of
1994 Rules by way of notification dated 19.01.2016. Proviso inserted in the
1994 Rules cannot be ignored. Rule 12.2(3) is silent with respect to seniority
17 of 18
of candidates who have scored equal marks in the same selection process.
Proviso to Rule 8 of 1994 Rules has made the things clear beyond the iota of
doubt. In view of Rule 14 read with 15 of Intelligence Cadre Rules, proviso
inserted in Rule 8 of 1994 Rules cannot be ignored. It is applicable to
members of service with equal force as applicable to other Government
servants.
23. It is true that order of merit determined by Commission or
Board cannot be disturbed by department concerned, however,
Board/Commission cannot be permitted to act contrary to Rules in force. In
the case in hand, the petitioner is assailing one clause of Standing Order
which was issued by Director General of Police, Punjab in exercise of power
conferred by Section 45 of 2007 Act. Standing Order cannot be issued
contrary to statutory provisions. The impugned clause is contrary to proviso
to Rule 8 of 1994 Rules, thus, deserves to be declared invalid.
24. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of
the considered opinion that instant petition deserves to be allowed and
accordingly allowed. Clause 28(b) of Standing Order No.10 of 2016 dated
06.09.2016 is hereby declared invalid. The respondent shall re-determine
merit of the petitioner in the light of proviso inserted in Rule 8 of Punjab
Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Services) Rules, 1994
by notification dated 19.01.2016.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
14.01.2026
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
18 of 18
