[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
P. Sub Inspector Phool Kawar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
207 CWP-4976-2019
Date of Decision: 08.01.2026
P. SUB INSPECTOR PHOOL KAWAR ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. Ravi Partap Singh, DAG Haryana
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders
dated 25.10.2018 and 14.11.2018 whereby his seniority was altered.
2. This is second round of litigation. The petitioner pursuant to
advertisement No.5 of 2008 applied for the post of Sub Inspector under
General Category. He cleared written as well as physical test. He was
declared successful by Recruitment Board. He was offered appointment
letter on 07.10.2011. All the successful candidates except petitioner were
offered appointment letter in October' 2010. The petitioner denied
appointment on account of his involvement in a criminal case. It is apt to
mention here that he was acquitted in criminal case prior to declaration of
result and he had duly disclosed factum of criminal case in the
application form. He preferred CWP-2928-2011 before this Court
1 of 4
seeking direction to respondent to issue him appointment letter. The said
petition was disposed of vide order dated 06.07.2011. The operative
portion of judgment dated 06.07.2011 reads as:-
"There is, thus, case made out for issuing direction
to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for
appointment upon his acquittal. The post for which the
petitioner was selected has already been offered to
respondent No.4. It will not be fair to dislodge any person,
who has been given appointment. Mr. Malik has invited my
attention to the averment made in para 8 (ii) of the
petition, where it is stated that there are 20 posts still
available against which the appointment of the petitioner
can be made. If that be so, the case of the petitioner be
considered for appointment against such posts."
3. The petitioner pursuant to aforesaid judgment was issued
appointment letter. He joined service on 07.10.2011 and candidates
lower in merit than him joined service in October' 2010. The respondent
in May' 2015 issued tentative seniority list. He filed objection to
aforesaid tentative seniority list. The respondent in the seniority list
placed him as per merit list prepared by Recruitment Board at the time of
selection. The respondent by impugned order revised seniority list and
placed him as per his date of joining.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner
could join on 07.10.2011 because of delay on the part of respondents.
There was no lapse on his part. He had already been acquitted by trial
Court, thus, respondent was bound to issue him appointment letter along
with other candidates. The respondent by impugned orders has deprived
him from his valuable right of seniority.
2 of 4
5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that petitioner was
issued appointment letter pursuant to order dated 06.07.2011 passed by
this Court. In the said order, there was no direction to consider him from
the date other candidates joined service.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
7. From the perusal of record, it is evident that petitioner scaled
the steps of selection process and came to be selected in 2010. He was
subjected to character and antecedent verification. It was found that he
was implicated in FIR No.369 dated 20.07.2005 under Section 365/34
IPC. The respondent did not issue him appointment letter because of his
involvement in criminal case. The respondent formed an opinion that
petitioner was acquitted on technical grounds, thus, was not eligible for
the post. He preferred writ petition before this Court which was allowed
vide judgment dated 06.07.2011. This Court formed an opinion that
petitioner deserves to be given appointment letter. During the pendency
of writ petition, another candidate was offered appointment. The
respondent was directed to consider petitioner against 20 posts lying
vacant. There was no direction to consider petitioner's appointment from
the date other candidates joined service. There was only direction to
consider him against 20 posts lying vacant. The respondent did not
challenge aforesaid judgment of this Court and complying with said
judgment issued appointment letter to the petitioner. From the findings
recorded in judgment dated 06.07.2011, it cannot be concluded that there
was intention of the Court to consider petitioner's appointment from the
3 of 4
date other candidates joined. The petitioner is claiming that there was
lapse on the part of respondents. His claim cannot be countenanced
because he was implicated in a criminal case though was later on
acquitted. In such circumstances, the respondent could not be held
responsible for delaying his appointment. In the absence of specific
direction of this Court in judgment dated 06.07.2011, the respondent was
supposed to consider petitioner's appointment from the date of his
appointment letter and not from the date other candidates against the said
advertisement were permitted to join service.
8. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed
and accordingly dismissed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
January 08, 2026
Deepak DPA
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
