Barnjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Barnjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposal with the respondents to take a relook and decide afresh within three months taking note of the petitioner's submissions and the judgments cited; benefit to be granted forthwith if the petitioner is found entitled; any adverse order only after opportunity of hearing and with reasons, leaving the petitioner free to seek legal redress.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who received his appointment letter on 28.02.2004 after the joining deadline of 12.02.2004 fixed under condition No.16 had elapsed, is entitled to appointment/joining with benefits in parity with other candidates of the same 2001 selection process.

Court's answer

Learned State counsel, after seeking instructions during the hearing, stated that the respondents would not be averse to a relook and would decide the matter afresh within three months, taking note of the petitioner's submissions and the judgments cited, which satisfied learned counsel for the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

The matter stands disposed of accordingly, and if the petitioner is found entitled, the benefit is to be granted forthwith.

Key takeaways

Any order adverse to the petitioner's interest may be passed only after granting him an opportunity of hearing and shall contain reasons, whereupon the petitioner shall be free to seek legal redress.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Barnjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, CWP-1358-2025 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 20.01.2025 (oral, Aman Chaudhary, Judge). The petitioner had applied for the post of Clerk pursuant to advertisement dated 23.06.2001 (last date 17.07.2001; 52 posts); his appointment letter was issued on 26.12.2003 for completing backlog, he holding Roll No.3053 and merit-1 in the Partially Blind category. Condition No.16 required reporting for joining by 12.02.2004, but the appointment letter was received on 28.02.2004 after the joining time had elapsed, and extension to join till 28.05.2004 was allowed as the election code of conduct was enforced. Counsel relied on Inder Singh v. State of Punjab (CWP-10463-2013, decided 25.11.2024), Inspector Rajendra Singh v. UOI (Division Bench, Delhi High Court, WP(C) No.2810 of 2016, decided 23.07.2017) and Parveen Kumar v. State of Punjab (Division Bench, this Court, CWP-10315-2002, decided 18.08.2003), pointing to candidates of the same selection issued letters on 26.12.2003 who joined on 01.01.2004. On the State counsel stating, after seeking instructions, that the respondents were not averse to a relook, the matter was disposed of: fresh decision within three months taking note of the submissions and judgments; benefit forthwith if the petitioner is found entitled; any adverse order only after hearing and with reasons, leaving the petitioner free to seek legal redress.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

121 CWP-1 3 58-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.01.2025

Barnjit Singh

..Petitioner

Versus

State of Punja b and others

..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

Present: M r. Baljeet Singh Sidhu, Advoca t e for the petitioner.

M r. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, P u njab. * ***** * AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)

T h e petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of C l erk pursuant to t he advertisement dated 23.0 6 .2001, last date of which w as 17.07.2001 against the 52 posts advertised. T h e appointment letter was issue d on 26.12.2003 f o r completing backlog and he h aving Roll No.3053 and sec u red merit-1 in cat e gory of Partially Blind, howe v er, as per the condition No.16, the candidate was to come present for joining in t he concerned Institute/School u pto 12.02.2004.

Learned counsel while referring to the speaking order, states that the appointment l e tter was received on 28.02.200 4 but since joining time had alre a dy elapsed, he w a s allowed extension to join till 28.05.2004 as the election cod e of Conduct was e nforced. Reliance is placed upon the judgment in the case Inder Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP-10463-2013, deci d ed on 25.11.202 4 , which was filed at the hands o f candidates in the same selec t ion process purs u ant to the Advertisement o f 2001 and issued the letter of appointment o n the same date i.e. 26.12.2003 a nd joined on 01.01.2004. Furth e r,

ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.21 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-1358-2025 (O&M)

-2-

relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Inspector Rajendra Singh and others vs. UOI and others, WP(C) No.2810 of 2016, decided on 23.07.2017 and Division Bench of this Court in Parveen Kumar and Others vs. State of Punjab and others , CWP-10315-2002 decided on 18.08.2003.

The aforesaid facts having been brought out, during the course of hearing, learned State counsel sought instructions and thus states that the respondents would not be averse to having a relook at the matter and decide afresh within a period of 3 months, taking note of the aforesaid submission and judgments, which satisfies learned counsel for the petitioner.

The matter stands disposed of accordingly and if the petitioner is found entitled, grant the benefit forthwith. Needless to say, if the orders are adverse to his interest, the same may be passed after granting opportunity of hearing to him and shall contain reason, whereupon the petitioner shall be free to seek legal redress thereupon.

		( AMAN CHAUDHARY )
20.01.2025		JUDGE
ashok
	Whether speaking/reasoned :	Yes/No
	Whether reportable :	Yes/No

ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.21 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document