Dismissed¶24

Lalit Kumar Ahuja v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Sept 2025CWP/7770/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP No. 7770 of 2025, Lalit Kumar Ahuja v. State of Punjab and others, decided 16.09.2025 by Jagmohan Bansal, J., High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Keywords: PWD reservation; Persons with Disability; blindness and low vision; locomotor disability; backlog reserved vacancy carry forward; instructions dated 03.10.2019; Financial Officer recruitment; advertisement No.5 of 2021; rejection of claim upheld; Articles 226/227; comparator candidate Davinder Singh 209 marks; petitioner 132 marks; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The post of Financial Officer in question was earmarked for persons with disability of blindness and low vision. ¶23

Lalit Kumar Ahuja Vs State of Punjab and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

CWP No. 7770 of 2025 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP No. 7770 of 2025 Date of Decision:16.09.2025

¶4

Lalit Kumar Ahuja

¶5

….Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

State of Punjab and others

¶8

….Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab

¶12

¶13

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 04.09.2024 whereby respondent has rejected his claim for the post of Financial Officer.

¶15

The petitioner pursuant to advertisement No.5 of 2021 dated 17.08.2021 applied for the post of Financial Officer. There were 11 posts of Financial Officer and one was reserved for Persons with Disability (PWD). The petitioner is suffering from loco motor disability. He was issued Admit Card. He appeared and cleared written test. He was short listed. The scrutiny of documents was conducted on 07.04.2022. Final result was declared on

¶16

03.11.2022. No person was selected on the post of Financial Officer from PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2025.09.16 05:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CWP No. 7770 of 2025 -2-

¶18

PWD Category. Candidates filed writ petitions before this Court which were disposed of vide order dated 05.12.2022 with a direction to respondent to pass a speaking order. The respondent passed speaking order dated 19.01.2023. In reply to mail of petitioner, the respondent informed that experience mentioned at serial No.213 is irrelevant to the post applied for. The petitioner filed CWP No.2973 of 2023 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 06.02.2024 with a direction to respondents to consider claim of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order. By impugned order respondent has rejected claim of the petitioner. The respondent has formed an opinion that petitioner is suffering from loco motor disability whereas post was reserved for persons with disability of visibility. The post was specifically reserved for persons suffering from blindness and low vision. As per instructions dated 03.10.2019 any vacancy reserved for any category of disability, if not filled due to non availability of the suitable persons with that disability, shall be carried forward as a backlog reserved vacancy. The post of Financial Officer is allocated as per roster to the candidate with disability of blindness and low vision. The petitioner is suffering with loco motor disability. The petitioner has secured 132 marks whereas another candidate namely Davinder Singh has secured 209 marks still he was not selected because he is also suffering from loco motor disability.

¶19

Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate on being confronted with the fact that another candidate namely Davinder Singh despite securing 209 marks has not been selected though he is also suffering from loco motor

¶20

PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2025.09.16 05:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CWP No. 7770 of 2025 -3-

¶22

disability, expressed his inability to support case of the petitioner who has secured 132 marks and belongs to loco motor disability category.

¶23

From the perusal of record, it is evident that post in question was earmarked for persons with disability of blindness and low vision. The said post has not been filled up and as per instructions has been carried forward as a backlog reserved vacancy. The petitioner has secured 132 marks whereas candidate namely Davinder Singh though has secured 209 marks still has not been selected. There is no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference.

¶24

In view of the above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that instant petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly hereby dismissed.

¶25

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE

¶26

16.09.2025

¶27

paramjit

¶28

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable:	No

¶29

PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2025.09.16 05:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Lalit Kumar Ahuja v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Kumar Ahuja v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamaljit Singh Vs State of Pb.

M/S Kher Construction Vs Chief Engineer, Municipal Corporation Chandigarh

Rajinder Singh etc. Vs State of Hy.

Dr Akanksha Qayum Vs Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others

Rekha Devi Belt No. 496/KKR Vs State of Haryana and Others

Balihar Singh Vs Pu Chandigarh