Ravinder v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Jul 2025CWP/16935/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assistant Lineman; advertisement No.11/2019; PWD Category; Locomotor Benchmark Disability; disability of one leg; Hard of Hearing; Physically Handicapped (OL); Hearing Impaired (HH); Government of Haryana Instructions dated 25.04.2018 (Annexure P-7); final result 14.05.2022; Vikram and others v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.14773 of 2022, order dated 24.04.2025; fence sitter; doctrine of delay and laches; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Jagmohan Bansal J.; CWP-16935-2025; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The benefit of the judgment dated 24.04.2025 in Vikram was made available only to the petitioners before the Court in that case and expressly not to fence sitters; the present petitioner, who did not approach the Court earlier, cannot claim that benefit. ¶¶35 (judgment ¶5)

Ravinder Vs State of Haryana and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶36 (judgment ¶6)

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, claiming Locomotor Benchmark Disability and having applied under the PWD Category in pursuance of advertisement No.11/2019, is entitled to be considered and appointed as Assistant Lineman, including the benefit of the judgment dated 24.04.2025 in Vikram. +1 more

¶¶33 (judgment ¶3)

Court's answer

¶¶35 (judgment ¶5)

Ratio / Principle

As the selection process was initiated in 2019 and completed in 2022 and three years have elapsed since its completion, the petitioner's claim is barred by the doctrine of delay and laches.

¶¶35 (judgment ¶5)

Key takeaways

On merits, the benefit of reservation was extended only to persons with disability of one leg, whereas the petitioner does not suffer from that disability; the petition is therefore liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as well as merit.ratio¶¶35 (judgment ¶5)

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India — petitioner claiming Locomotor Benchmark Disability sought setting aside of non-earmarking of any Assistant Lineman post for PWD category in advertisement No.11/2019, bifurcation of the post under Government of Haryana Instructions dated 25.04.2018, revision of final result dated 14.05.2022 and his selection/appointment. Held: the benefit of the Division-coordinated ruling in Vikram (CWP No.14773 of 2022, decided 24.04.2025), whereby candidates with disability of one leg were directed to be considered, was made available only to the petitioners therein and not to fence sitters; the present petitioner was not before the Court in that case. The selection process was initiated in 2019 and completed in 2022; three years having elapsed, the claim was barred by the doctrine of delay and laches. On merits, reservation had been extended to persons with disability of one leg, which disability the petitioner does not suffer. Petition dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as well as merit.

¶1

CWP-16935-2025

¶2

¶3

117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP-16935-2025 Date of Decision: 01.07.2025

RAVINDER

......... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ..... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra (Sirsa), Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. AG, Haryana.

¶12

Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶13

¶14

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

¶15

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking:-

¶16

(i) Setting aside of action of not earmarking any post of Assistant Lineman in Person with Disability (PWD) Category in the advertisement No.11/2019;

¶17

(ii) Direction to bifurcate the post of Assistant Lineman equally amongst Physically Handicapped (OL) and Hearing Impaired (HH) in PWD Category in terms of Government of Haryana Instructions dated 25.04.2018(Annexure P-7);

¶18

(iii) Revision of final result dated 14.05.2022

¶19

(Annexure P-4);

¶20

(iv) Direction for selection and appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Lineman in PWD (Locomotor

¶21

Asgar Ali 2025.07.01 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CWP-16935-2025

¶23

¶24

Benchmark Disability).

¶25

The petitioner is claiming that he is suffering from physical disability. He falls within the definition of persons with disabilities. He pursuant to advertisement No.11/2019 applied for the post of Assistant Lineman under PWD Category. The respondent declared final result on 14.05.2022. 52 seats were reserved for Persons with Disabilities (Hard of Hearing). 10 persons were selected and remaining seats were kept vacant. Many candidates approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.14773 of 2022 titled as ‘Vikram and others Vs. State of Haryana and others’. The said writ petition was adjudicated vide order dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure P-11). The operative portion of judgment dated 24.04.2025 reads as:

¶26

“28. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondent has wrongly rejected candidature of persons with disability of one leg. The petitions are allowed and respondents are directed to consider all those petitioners who are with disability of one leg. It is made clear that petitioners suffering with other benchmark disabilities, on account of this judgment, would not be eligible for the post of Assistant Lineman.

¶27

29. It is further clarified that date of joining of petitioners shall be their date of appointment for all intent and purposes. The respondents would be at liberty to examine other terms and conditions of advertisement while considering claim of persons with disability of one leg. The needful shall be done within 10 weeks from today.

¶28

30. This order may prompt fence sitters to approach this Court. The benefit of this order shall be available only to present petitioners and it would not be available to any fence sitter otherwise there would be no end of litigation and it

¶29

Asgar Ali 2025.07.01 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CWP-16935-2025

¶31

¶32

may open Pandora’s Box. ”

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is suffering from Locomotor Benchmark disability, thus, he needs to be considered alongwith candidates who are suffering from disability of one leg disability.

¶34

The petitioner is placing reliance upon judgment dated 24.04.2025 passed by this Court in Vikram and others (supra). On being confronted with with para 30 of aforesaid judgment, Mr. S.K. Nehra, Advocate submits that while adjudicating a bunch of petitions, one writ petition which was filed in 2024 was also allowed, thus, petitioner’s claim should be allowed.

¶35

From the perusal of judgment dated 24.04.2025, it is quite evident that while disposing of bunch of petitions, it was made clear that to avoid further litigation, benefit of the judgment would be available to petitioner and not to fence sitters. The selection process was initiated in 2019 and completed in 2022. A period of 3 years from the date of completion of selection process has passed away, thus, claim of petitioner is hit by doctrine of delay and laches. The benefit of reservation has been extended to persons with disability of one leg whereas petitioner is not suffering from said disability, thus, petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as well as merit.

¶36

6. Dismissed.

¶37

( JAGMOHAN BANSAL ) JUDGE

¶38

01.07.2025 Ali Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶39

Asgar Ali 2025.07.01 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ravinder v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Robin Vs State of Punjab

Sukhwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sharda and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Chaman Lal and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Krishna Devi and Another Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Others

Hc Kulweer Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Other