Dismissed

Balvinder Singh v. Hy.State

Punjab & Haryana HC7 May 2012CWP/6255/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing issuance of an appointment letter and training admission as a Constable under Punjab Police Rules. The petition relied on fitness certificate and prior recruitment pronouncements. The writ petition was dismissed because the Apex Court held that physical standard relaxation operates only via generalized policy, not individual administrative discretion.

What did the court decide?

relief for appointment letter and training admission was denied.

Balvinder Singh Vs Hy.State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.6255 of 1994

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.6255 of 1994 Date of decision:07.05.2012

Balwinder Singh

.....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana & others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

¶11

Present: Mr. Maharaj Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner,

¶12

Ms.Aakanksha Sawhney, DAG, Haryana

¶13

G.S.Sandhawalia J. (Oral)

¶14

Prayer in the present writ petition is for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner as Constable and allow him to join the training under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.

¶15

The present writ petition has been filed on the ground that petitioner had fitness certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Karnal but respondent no.3 had failed to issue the order of enlistment of the petitioner as Constable for the reasons best known to him and appointments were not being made according to the register of recruitment. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.16411 of 1991 Satish Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others which had been allowed in view of being covered by a decision of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.16399 of 1991 Ram Phal Vs. State of Haryana.

¶16

Counsel for the respondents candidly submits that the Apex Court in its judgment dated 12.8.1996, which is attached as Annexure R-2 has held that the Inspector General of Police could only relax the physical

¶17

CWP No.6255 of 1994

¶18

¶19

standard in special circumstances and that also after recording reasons. The relaxation could not be done by the Deputy Inspector General of Police in case of any individual and the relaxation intended to be done in the special circumstances had to be made applicable for all the candidates after taking policy decision.

¶20

Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court.

¶21

07.05.2012 Pka

¶22

(G.S.Sandhawalia) JUDGE

Balvinder Singh v. Hy.State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balvinder Singh v. Hy.State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baljit Singh Vs Narinder Pal Kaur

Dilbagh Singh Vs Jarnail Singh

Jaswant Singh Vs Amrik Singh

Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Sadhu Ram Gupta & Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Taveesh Singh Vs State of Punjab