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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondent for permission to continue with General Duty; the respondent to consider the claims of both sides in accordance with law, with candidates shifted between cadres to be placed at the bottom of the cadre, within three months.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 18.07.2025 withdrawing the respondent's allotment order dated 03.04.2025 should be set aside, and whether the petitioners may be permitted to continue serving as Constables (General Duty) instead of joining HAP-Durga-1.

Court's answer

In the wake of the statements of both sides, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondent to permit them to continue with General Duty.

Ratio / Principle

The respondent would consider the claim of the petitioners if candidates forming part of Constable (General Duty) agree to form part of HAP-Durga-1, and is free to consider the claims of both sides in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

Candidates shifted from one cadre to another would be placed at the bottom of the cadre, and the needful is to be done within three months.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India (CWP-22109-2025, High Court of Punjab and Haryana, decided 02.08.2025 by Jagmohan Bansal, J., orally): The petitioners challenged the State's order dated 18.07.2025 withdrawing its earlier order dated 03.04.2025, by which Units/Battalions had been allotted to candidates selected against the separate cadres of Female Constable (HAP-Durga-1) and Female Constable (General Duty). The withdrawal was made in view of interim orders passed by the High Court on petitions by General Duty candidates adversely affected when many HAP-Durga-1 candidates came to be allotted General Duty; consequentially the petitioners were asked to join HAP-Durga-1. Counsel for the petitioners contended that several constables selected for General Duty had themselves opted for HAP-Durga-1, whereas the petitioners had opted for General Duty and should not be deprived of the opportunity to serve as Constables (General Duty). The State (Addl. A.G.) stated that the order dated 03.04.2025 stood recalled in view of the interim orders, that HAP-Durga-1 constables cannot claim General Duty posts as a matter of right, and that the petitioners' cases could be considered if General Duty candidates agreed to join HAP-Durga-1, subject to their being placed at the bottom of the cadre. Disposing of the petition in the wake of the statements of both sides, the Court granted the petitioners liberty to approach the respondent for permission to continue with General Duty, left the respondent free to consider the claims of both sides in accordance with law, directed that candidates shifted from one cadre to another would be at the bottom of the cadre, and required the needful to be done within three months.

104 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-22109-2025 Date of Decision: 02.08.2025

Jyoti and Others

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and Another

....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:Mr. Suresh Kumar Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of order dated 18.07.2025 whereby respondent has withdrawn its order dated 03.04.2025. 2. The respondent by order dated 03.04.2025 allotted Units/Battalions to candidates who were selected against Female Constable (HAP-Durga-1) and Female Constable (General Duty). There was separate cadre of Female Constable (HAP-Durga-1) and Female Constable (General Duty). Many candidates forming part of HAP-Durga-1 came to be allotted General Duty which adversely affected claim of Constables forming part of General Duty. Many candidates belonging to General Duty approached this Court which passed interim orders. In view of interim orders, the respondent by order dated 18.07.2025 decided to withdraw its earlier decision dated 03.04.2025. On account of withdrawal of decision dated 03.04.2025, the petitioners have been asked to join HAP-Durga-1.

Mr. Suresh Kumar Kaushik, Advocate submits that there are many female Constables who despite being selected in General Duty are

PRINCE CHAWLA 2025.08.02 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-22109-2025

-2-

willing to join HAP-Durga-1 which is evident from the fact that they themselves filed option of HAP-Durga-1. The petitioners have filed option of General Duty. If the Constables forming part of General Duty are willing to work in HAP-Durga-1, they should not be deprived of opportunity to serve as Constables (General Duty). They have shifted to their place of posting and got their children admitted.

Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana, who on advance notice is present in Court on behalf of respondent-State submits that order dated 03.04.2025 has been recalled in view of interim orders passed by this Court. Constables forming part of HAP-Durga-1 cannot claim post of Constable (General Duty) as a matter of right. If candidates forming part of General Duty agrees to join HAP-Durga-1, the case of petitioners may be considered subject to the condition that they should be at the bottom of the cadre.

In the wake of statement of both sides, the present petition stands disposed of with liberty to petitioners to approach respondent to permit them to continue with General Duty.

The respondent would consider claim of petitioners if candidates forming part of Constable (General Duty) agree to form part of HAP-Durga-1. The respondent would be free to consider claim of both sides in accordance with law. The candidates who would be shifted from one cadre to another would be at the bottom of the cadre. Let the needful be done within three months from today.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE

02.08.2025

Prince Chawla

Whether Speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

PRINCE CHAWLA 2025.08.02 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document