Disposed¶29

Mam Chand v. Himmat Singh, Chairman and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Sept 2025COCP/820/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, COCP-820-2025 (O&M), decided 09.09.2025 (Sudeepti Sharma J.) - contempt petition by Mam Chand over alleged non-compliance of order dated 29.05.2024 in CWP-17752-2019 (filling of 964 Lower Division Clerk posts per revised merit list); compliance shown through speaking order dated 12.03.2025 passed by respondent No. 2; contempt purged, Rule discharged, pending applications disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 29.05.2024 passed in CWP-17752-2019 has already been complied with through the speaking order dated 12.03.2025 passed by respondent No. 2, and this fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner ¶28

Mam Chand Vs Himmat Singh, Chairman and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

COCP-820-2025 (O&M)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

COCP-820-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 09, 2025

Mam Chand

......Petitioner

Vs.

Himmat Singh, Chariman & ors. .....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

¶9

Present: Mr. Karan Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Harish Nain, A.A.G. Haryana

¶11

Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

¶12

¶13

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (Oral)

¶14

The present contempt petition has been filed for non-compliance of order dated 29.05.2024 passed by this Court in CWP-17752-2019.

¶15

The relevant portion of order dated 29.05.2024 passed by this Court in CWP No. 17752-2019 is reproduced as under:-:-

¶16

“10. The argument which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that once, all 964 posts have not been filled up and they are lying vacant, the petitioners should be adjusted against those vacant post of 964 posts advertised so that the petitioners do not suffer any prejudice. The said prayer of the petitioners is genuine. 11. The petitioners were selected in the initial merit list issued by the respondents themselves. The petitioners were appointed and are working on the post in question. Once, the petitioners have worked

¶17

GAURAV ARORA for sufficiently long time, which is beyond the clearing of the 2025.09.10 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

COCP-820-2025 (O&M)

¶19

probation period also, coupled with the fact that all 964 posts advertised have not been filled up, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners as per their merit in the revised merit list against those vacant posts so as to be adjusted even if, the petitioners have come down in the revised merit list.

¶20

12. As the writ petition filed, in pursuance to which the revised merit list was prepared and the petitioners who are being ousted on the basis of revised merit list, are being decided together but by a speaking order, it is clarified that the petitioners in these petitions will only be considered for appointment/adjustment against the posts which are lying vacant out of the total advertised posts only and as per their merit in the revised merit list.

¶21

13. Keeping in view the above, the present petitions are disposed of with a clear direction that the total number of posts advertised i.e. 964 will be filled up and not beyond and for filling up the posts, the revised merit list will be taken into consideration. The petitioners in all the petitions will be considered for appointment on the basis of the revised merit list against the posts lying vacant out of total advertised posts or will be allowed to continue in case, already working in pursuance to the initial merit list, in case they are accommodated against the vacant post, i.e. the post of Lower Division Clerk which could not be filled up out of total 964 posts advertised.

¶22

14. However, it may be noticed that in case, any of the petitioner is not adjusted, the same will not preclude the said candidate to avail appropriate remedy for the redressal of their grievance in case, if any

¶23

GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.10 11:14 permissible under law. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

COCP-820-2025 (O&M)

¶25

15. As certain petitioners are continuing under the orders of the Court keeping in view their initial appointment, till the said exercise is completed by passing an appropriate order, the interim order to allow them to continue in service, will continue.

¶26

16. However, the adjustment will only be done of the petitioners who are yet to be appointed or are already working in pursuance to the initial merit list subject to the fulfillment of the eligibility criteria to be appointed on the post in question qua 964 posts of Lower Division Clerk.”

¶27

In compliance of the above order, speaking order dated 12.03.2025 was passed by respondent No. 2, which has already been taken on record by this Court, vide order dated 12.03.2025.

¶28

In view of the above, order dated 29.05.2024 passed by this Court in CWP-17752-2019 has already been complied with. This fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶29